RTF Last Measure-In Subcommittee
November 13, 2013
Meeting Minutes
Meeting Attendees:
Bob Gunn (Seinergy), Christian Douglass (RTF), Adam Hadley (RTF), Paul Sklar (ETO), Nick O’Neil (RTF),
David Bopp (Flathead), Todd Blackman (Franklin PUD), Benn Hannas (Ecotope), Mohit Singh-Chhabra
(RTF), Josh Rushton (RTF), Andie Baker (Cadmus), Rich Arneson (Tacoma), Bruce Carter (Tacoma), Mark
Johnson (BPA), Jeremy Stuart (Tacoma), David Baylon (Ecotope)
Meeting Minutes:
Adam Hadley called the meeting to order at 1:07 pm. Hadley called roll and went over the meeting
agenda. Today we are going to discuss what the text definition of the full measure package should be, in
addition to which measures should be included in the package. We’ve also had a few comments posted
to the subcommittee web page, which we will review, Hadley said.
Hadley went over two comments that were submitted, one from David Bopp and one from Jeff Harris.
Hadley said that Harris’s commented seemed to argue for a forecasted view of LMI within a measure’s
sunset. Hadley said he responded to Harris’s comment on the subcommittee web page, stating that a
forecasted view would be difficult, time consuming, and unsubstantiated by data. Harris responded that
while he thought there may be little data to support a forecasted view, he thought the group could
collectively get to a decision.
Hadley discussed four different proposed text definitions for the full measure package, labeled a
through d [see “Notes Shown at the GoTo Meeting” at the end of this document for the exact wording
of the definitions]. He said he would start with definition c. Definition c states, “With today’s average
utility program, the average efficiency level for the component installed between now and the
measure’s sunset date,” said Hadley
David Baylon asked, are we specifying the full measure package at the component level or the whole
building level? We wouldn’t necessarily have to specify it at the component level, Baylon said. We could
specify an overall building UA if we wanted, he continued. Hadley indicated that yes, the proposal was
to specify a full measure package at the component level. Nick O’Neil said even if we specified an overall
building UA, we would still need to specify the individual components underlying that UA. Hadley said
another advantage of specifying at the component level was that SEEM requires component-level
inputs, not overall UA. Baylon agreed that keeping the discussion at the component-level made sense.
Hadley said that there hadn’t been much support for definition b, so if it was alright with the group, he
proposed removing it. Definition b states, “The average efficiency levels for the component installed
using the average utility program between now and the sunset date for the measures,” said Hadley. The
group agreed to remove definition b.
Hadley continued, for the same reason, I would propose getting rid of definition d. This definition says,
“Over the next three years, what weatherization measures will be installed on the average home
participating in your program?” he said. Hadley asked if there were any objections to removing
definition d. After no objections were offered, he removed it from the list under consideration.
Bob Gunn asked, are we talking only about what is happening within utility programs? There are some
measures which are being implemented outside of programs that programs are not willing to go after. If
it would be useful to this discussion, I can offer data on these non-programmatic achievements, said
Gunn.
Mark Johnson asked, how do we know what the average utility program looks like? With all of the
different programs in the region, this seems like a difficult task. It seems like it makes more sense to
base our decision on RBSA data, he said.
Baylon responded, we do know approximately what has happened over the past. We can adjust this
level of achievement going forward if we know that utilities are going to increase their efforts; however,
just because utilities are pushing R-49 in ceilings, doesn’t mean that is what is predominantly out there,
Baylon said. Johnson said he wouldn’t advocate making adjustments, but rather use RBSA as it stands
and update every five years. Hadley said that the approach being discussed was more “first measure in”
than “last measure in.”
Baylon said that what Ecotope did for its DHP measure was to look at history and forecast the additional
expected insulation levels into the future. Or, utilities could modify their forecast if they think they can
achieve better levels in the future than they have in the past, Baylon said. Hadley said he thought what
Baylon was talking about was different than the definition c being discussed. RBSA homes did not all go
through utility programs, Hadley said. Definition c speaks only to homes going through programs, he
continued.
Rich Arneson said that he and Bruce Carter were in favor of the concept in definition d. At the end of a
given period in time, we want the full measure package to reflect the average performance levels of
homes that utility programs have touched, not just ones that are eligible, said Arneson. Baylon asked
Arneson if he knew how often certain measures were combined in programs. Carter said that
weatherization measures were combined quite often; however, heating system measures and
weatherization measures were often done separately. Arneson said that Tacoma typically knows the
pre- and post- conditions, but only for the measure installed. We don’t know the characteristics of
everything in the home, he said. Baylon said it was important to know how often people are bundling
measures together, because it may not be that often. David Bopp said he agreed. With many of these
measures, customers are only going to do one of them within the next three to five years, he said. This is
particularly true for some of the more expensive measures like windows, said Bopp.
Hadley proposed making a fifth definition – definition e. The definition is: “The efficiency level of the
average program eligible house, at the end of the sunset period,” Hadley said. Hadley asked Baylon if
this definition was a reasonable representation of Baylon’s position. Baylon said yes, he thought this
definition would be the easiest and most tractable solution.
Hadley asked if definition e was similar to the proposal made by Harris on the subcommittee page. Bopp
said he didn’t think so. I think Jeff (Harris) is thinking more of a gut-level approximation approach than
looking at RBSA and forecasting into the future, Bopp said. Baylon agreed.
Hadley said that a problem with definition e was that it wasn’t in line with the fundamentals of Option 3.
Definition e is really more of a “first measure in” approach, Hadley reiterated.
Bopp said he thought definition e and Option 3 could still be compatible. The last measure in home may
look like an RBSA home – we don’t know, he said.
Hadley said that if the group wanted to always assume that only one measure was installed, Option 3
didn’t make sense. We are taking a ratio with Option 3, he said. If we’re always assuming one measure,
the ratio will always be one, said Hadley.
Bopp said that if the subcommittee was moving away from the fundamentals of Option 3, they would
have to bring the decision back to the full RTF, given that their task was only within the scope of Option
3.
Arneson stated that past program achievements may not be indicative of future achievements. Tacoma
has larger acquisitions now than we did ten years ago, he said. Johnson agreed, but said the recent
economic downturn would have had an opposite effect
Baylon said his main concern with the full measure package was that it was not realistic. This full
measure package scenario never happens, and savings are derated as a result, Baylon said. Hadley
disagreed that savings are always derated using Option 3. Baylon said that savings would be derated,
because the heating system would be up against a lower building UA value. Hadley said for heating
measures, this was true; however, for weatherization measures this was not always the case.
Hadley asked Baylon what his solution would be. The only solution would be to know the precondition,
Hadley said. Baylon said one wouldn’t know the precondition for a UES measure. What I am arguing
about is, is it realistic that we will achieve these [full measure package] rates? Baylon said.
Paul Sklar said one major question was whether or not people implement all of the weatherization
measures before the heating system. This has the biggest effect, he said. I think we are being misled that
all savings will be derated. Some will go up, and some will go down, Sklar said.
Hadley said that if the group was proposing to conduct a separate audit for heating system measures,
this was closer to Option 4 presented in October.
Baylon argued that Option 3 would not produce savings similar to what would be found from a program
evaluation. If we conducted an evaluation, these are not the savings we would see, because most
houses don’t look like the full measure package home, he said. Hadley said, we don’t know what homes
will look like. Baylon said, we know that they don’t look like last-measure-in homes.
Hadley asked, for houses that get heat pumps, what do their insulation levels look like? Baylon said he
didn’t know the answer for homes that will get heat pumps, but he knew for the ones that already have
heat pumps.
O’Neil said that weatherization measures have a long lifetime – around 45 years. It is likely that more
measures are going to go in over time, he said. Dave [Baylon], are you saying that over 45 years, we
won’t get to a last-measure-in scenario? O’Neil asked. Baylon responded that unless programs actively
pursue a scenario that looks like last measure in, it wasn’t going to happen. If utilities are going to pay
for all measures, then I would be fine with what we are proposing, said Baylon.
Hadley said he thought everyone was on the same page, and that there were three different definitions
on the table – a, c, and e. Would it make sense for us to step through each of these? Hadley asked. Sklar
said he thought this was a good idea.
Hadley started with definition a. With this definition, we are asking when would a program today
consider that a home is complete, he said. We have talked about this one at length already. Currently,
we have assumed R-38 in the ceiling, R-11 in the walls, and R-25 in the floor, Hadley said.
Baylon asked why infiltration had been set to RBSA levels and effectively dropped from the full measure
package definition. Hadley replied that most programs weren’t doing the measure. Baylon said that he
thought some were, based on the previous subcommittee discussion. Hadley asked if the group agreed
with RBSA levels, and the group agreed to move on.
Hadley moved on to duct tightness? Do we agree with PTCS tightness for this measure, he asked. Most
agreed. Baylon asked what was meant by PTCS. Hadley said this meant a home would be considered
done when it met the RTF measure specs for the allowable percent leakage in the supply and return
ducts, or met the reduction threshold.
Hadley moved on to duct insulation. We agreed to take this out last time and set it to RBSA levels, he
said.
Next was heat pump measures, said Hadley. We are currently assuming heat pumps at 9.0 HSPF and
heat pump commissioning, sizing, and controls at PTCS specifications. Is the group fine with these
assumptions, he asked. Dave – are utilities doing controls and sizing? Bopp said yes, his utility won’t
provide rebates unless this is done.
Baylon asked how heating system measures would be applied with Option 3 in practice. Would we
assume that everyone has a heat pump? he asked. Hadley said no, we would have three separate lookup tables depending on the heating system type.
Hadley said definition a was done, so he suggested moving on to definition c. Arneson said that Tacoma
had data they could offer for the determination of definition c, which would be easier than estimating.
Hadley said that Harris’s suggestion was to use more of a gut feel approach than to look at historical
data and use this to forecast forward.
Hadley asked, for each measure in definition c, if a program participant was eligible for the measure,
and they did something, what’s the likelihood of them installing this measure. Bopp said he would
estimate 30% for ceilings, 2% for walls, and floors at 30% for Flathead. Sklar estimated ceilings at 40%,
walls at 10%, and floors at 40% for Energy Trust. Arneson said 90% for ceilings, 50% for walls, and 50%
for floors in Tacoma.
Hadley reiterated that the percentages we are giving are, “If a customer is eligible for the measure, and
they did something, what’s the likelihood of them doing this measure.”
Sklar said he thought 50% was a reasonable assumption for windows.
Bopp said he felt this estimation method felt “murky”. I don’t think I would stand behind the values
coming out of this method, he said. Hadley said the group had tried the method, but realized its
difficulty.
Johnson said he had arrived back on the phone. Bopp asked Johnson a question for the earlier definition
a. Of those in BPA territory who did some weatherization, what percentage also did infiltration? Johnson
said he thought roughly 1400 of 6000, or about 25%. Hadley asked, then what would be a reasonable
level of infiltration to assume? 0.35ACHn? Johnson said he thought 0.5ACHn would be more reasonable.
Baylon agreed.
Adam asked if the group should go through the last definition – definition e. Sklar said he thought that
this one would be easier to determine by looking at data.
Baylon said he had the data handy and could read off some of the historical program achievements used
for the DHP workbook. For ceilings, we have moved 12% of the population from less than R11 to R38;
for floors, we’ve moved 5% of the population from <R11 to R30; for windows, we’ve moved 7% from U1.0 to 0.30; for infiltration, we’ve moved 25% of homes greater than 8ACH50 to 7ACH50; and for walls,
we’ve moved 9% from R0 to R11.This forecast is based on a 15-year life, he said.
Ben Hannas asked if the goal was to forecast within the measure sunset period, shouldn’t we be
forecasting over something more like three years. Baylon responded that a 3-year forecast wouldn’t
look like anything. It would look like first measure in, he said.
Hadley said that he should point out that definition e is not compatible with Option 3. The whole idea of
Option 3 was not to forecast, he said. The RTF sent us to figure out Option 3. We need to decide as a
group whether we are in favor of going with Option 3 or abandoning it, and taking this discussion back
to the full RTF, said Hadley.
Hadley said it felt like definition e was close to Option 1c from the original presentation in October. He
noted that it was also more like the LMI definition from the DHP proposal. Does everyone agree that we
are abandoning option 3? Hadley asked. Some agreed, and some didn’t.
Hadley asked if he could throw out definition C and vote on whether the group preferred a or e? Bopp
said he agreed.
Hadley said if the group choose a, the subcommittee was done, because that definition is compliant
with Option 3; however, if the group voted for definition e, there would be more work to be done. For
example, if we choose definition e, we will have to determine the forecasting period, Hadley said.
Hadley said the group had decided to vote between definition a or e, and that would be the next step.
We will still aim for a vote on Friday, said Hadley.
Bopp said he thought it would be good to continue the discussion until Friday, because it was important.
He asked if there was any more discussion, to please use the subcommittee page.
Notes Shown on the GoTo Meeting:
Agenda:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Roll Call
Review comments
Text definition of “Full Measure Package”
Efficiency levels of full measure package
Attendees: Bob Gunn, Christian Douglass, Adam Hadley, Paul Sklar, Nick O’Neil, David Bopp, Todd
Blackman, Ben Hannas, Mohit Chhabra, Josh Rushton, Andie Baker, Rich Arneson, Bruce Carter, Mark
Johnson, Jeremy Stewart, David Baylon
Proposed Text Definitions
a. The average efficiency levels for the component after the full efficiency retrofit is completed
under today’s programs.
Ceilings: R-38
Walls: R-11
Floors: R-25
Windows: U-0.30
Infiltration: 0.50 ACHn (Justification: Most BPA has seen 1400 houses per year participate in
infiltration measures in the last two years.)
Duct Tightness: PTCS
Duct Insulation: n/a (set at average RBSA levels)
Heat Pump HSPF: 9.0
HP CC&S: PTCS
b. The average efficiency levels for the component installed using the average utility program
between now and the sunset date for the measures.
c. With today's average utility program, the average efficiency level for the component installed
between now and the measure's sunset date. (If they’re eligible for the measure, and they did
something, what’s the likelihood of them doing this measure.)
Ceilings: R-38 @ 35% 90%
Walls: R-11 @ 7% 50%
Floors: R-25 @ 35% 50%
Windows: U-0.30 @ 50%
Infiltration: n/a (set at average RBSA levels) (Justification: Most programs are not pushing
infiltration.)
Duct Tightness: PTCS @ 2%
Duct Insulation: n/a (set at average RBSA levels)
Heat Pump HSPF: 9.0
HP CC&S: PTCS
d. Over the next three years, what weatherization measures will be installed on the average home
participating in your program?
e. Abandon Option 3 (recommend something more like 1C, matching more what DHP proposal had
in it.): The efficiency level of the average program-eligible house, at the end of the sunset
period.
Ceilings: R-20.2 (12% from < R11 to R38)
Walls: R-10.3 (9% from R0 to R11)
Floors: R-14.4 (5% from < R11 to R30)
Windows: U-0.53 (7% from 1.0 to 0.30)
Infiltration: X (25% of homes > 8 ACH50 to 7 ACH50)
Duct Tightness: PTCS
Duct Insulation: n/a
Heat Pump HSPF: 9.0
HP CC&S: PTCS
(based on a 15 year life)