90 likes | 209 Views
Refrigerator Decommissioning: Brother In Law Factor. April 23, 2014. Timeline:. March 14th - Subcommittee reconvened to understand existing sources of data. Recommended path forward to Staff April 16th - Subcommittee met to decide R2 (brother-in-law) factor value.
E N D
Refrigerator Decommissioning: Brother In Law Factor April 23, 2014
Timeline: • March 14th - Subcommittee reconvened to understand existing sources of data. Recommended path forward to Staff • April 16th - Subcommittee met to decide R2 (brother-in-law) factor value. • No consensus on R2. Further subcommittee discussion seems fruitless, so we elevated to the RTF. • Today (April 23rd)- RTF direction on R2 • May RTF meeting: Presentation to the RTF; aim to get an RTF decision. • June RTF meeting (If Required): Second presentation to the RTF if necessary.
Brother In Law Factor/ R2 As Per UMP: Percentage of the would-be acquirers of avoided transfers that found an alternate unit are referred to as “R2”. Note, Percentage of the would-be acquirers of avoided transfers that did not find an alternate unit are “(1-R2)”.
Subcommittee Meeting Attendees • Jaco: Bob Nicholas, Phil Sisson (Consultant) • PSE: Bobbi Wilhelm • KEMA: Ken Agnew • Cadmus: Josh Keeling, Doug Bruchs • CleaResult: Mark Jerome. • RTF: Adam Hadley, Mohit Singh-Chhabra • CADMUS: Doug Bruchs, Josh Keeling • Avista: David Thompson.
R2 Option- 1 (UMP/ Status Quo) • R2 = 50% • Justification: • Midpoint between extreme values (0% and 100%) • We don’t know and can’t measure this factor accurately. • Votes: • Bob Nicholas (JACO) • Concerned that this factor needs to be studied more before we decide to modify it.
R2 Option-2. (PSE Study) • R2 = 97 % • Justification: • Based on survey data. • Vote: • Bobbi Wilhelm (PSE) • “Concerned that because energy savings estimates feed into the adjusted load forecast for DSM that we would over adjust if not taking 97%. Need to be absolutely certain that savings exist because they impact how we plan for supply side and demand side resources. • “Worried that voting on savings vs. using best available data limits our ability to optimize our portfolio.” • David Thompson (Avista) • Agrees with Bobbi’s concern that we need to be certain about savings for load forecasting.
R2 Option 3: Meet in the Middle • R2 = 75% • Justification: • Would-be non-opportunistic acquisitions are likely to get acquired anyway (i.e. R2 = 100%). • 55% could be the lower limit of R2, based on: • Initial Cadmus analysis from 4 extra-regional surveys estimates that 55 % of non-participant recycled units would have ended up as an non- opportunistic acquisition. • Assuming all would-be opportunistic acquisitions do not acquire a unit. • 100 % is the theoretical upper limit of R2. • Assuming all would-be opportunistic acquisitions doacquire a unit. • 75 % is in the middle.
R2 Option 3: Meet in the Middle • Votes: • Adam Hadley (RTF) • This is a very difficult thing to study; we’re close enough. • Mark Jerome (CleaResult) • Agree with above logic • Doug Bruchs & Josh Keeling (Cadmus) • Agree with above logic • Phil Sisson (JACO Consultant) • Provisionally agree with above logic – but want to review nonparticipant surveys and instruments.
Proposed Decision “I __________ move that the RTFapprove development of the Residential Refrigerator Decommissioning measure with the assumption that: • R2 = 50 % OR • R2 = 75 % OR • R2 = 97% OR • Something else.