Guidelines Revisions

1. Guidelines Revisions Overview of Issues, and Detailed Discussion of Estimating Lifetime Savings

2. Overview • We are in the process of updating the Guidelines. • Previously, the RTF had discussed regularly reviewing this “living document”. • Goals for Today • Provide an overview of the topics up for change in the Guidelines. • Introduce the “biggest” issue: estimating lifetime savings. • After this meeting: Subcommittee will work through the details and bring back a proposed revised set of Guidelines.

3. Current List of Guidelines Issues • Big issues • Changes needed based on resolution of “lifetime savings” issue • Make any parallel changes needed in cost guideline • Create Cost-effectiveness Guideline • Easy issues • Clarify requirement to include technical measure specification that can guide delivery verification • Clarify or remove “alternate” method for last-in savings • Savings for “maintenance” measures, e.g. irrigation nozzles, add example in current practice definition • Add “Publications” as cost Source Type • Refer to SIW values without using the term “default” • Use a different standard protocol example now that Fan VFD abandoned • Set a maximum sunset date of 1 year for provisional. If substantial progress has not been made on implementing the approved RTF research plan, the measure should be considered for de-activation. • 5.4.6.1.3. Provisional UES Measures, if no research results, they are treated in impact evaluation like Other UES. • Uncategorized issues • Add “Other UES” as a savings estimation method • Re-visit NTG issue? • Edits to clarify the differences between claim and delivery verification • Clarification to section 3.4.2’s quality standards? • Adding discussion of statistical characterization of uncertainty standards; to an appendix?

4. Estimating Lifetime Savings

5. Background and History • Previous discussions (subcommittee and RTF) reached the conclusion that all “lifetime” savings guidance would be isolated in the yet to be written cost-effectiveness (CE) guideline. • Savings Guidelines would represent 1st year savings. • CE Guidelines would require separate estimate of “average lifetime” savings • Not consistent with the new Measure Interaction (“Option 3 Last-in”) strategy adopted for Weatherization and HP measures • Method does not estimate 1st year savings.

6. Problem: Reliability? • Issues with Lifetime Savings estimation • Measure interactions • RUL < EUL • Always for pre-conditions baseline • When measure EUL > current practice RUL (CFL vs. melded average bulb) • Solving these problems requires going beyond the directly observable data • Savings guidelines use quality standards to assess reliability • Hard to apply these standards to things you cannot observe • For example • Package of measures used to estimate measure interactions • Baseline at the end of a measure’s RUL

7. A look at the Issues, by Savings Estimation Method • Measure Interactions • Custom measures – The Easy Case • No measure interaction problem as savings are based on observed conditions at specific sites, including any caused by prior measure delivery • UES measures – The Hard Case • Requires an adjustment to account for measure interactions (beyond what we can observe) • Standard Protocol measures • Like custom, estimates reflect observed conditions at specific sites at the time any measure is delivered • Or, like UES, where an estimate of site conditions is made to get at “typical” conditions. • RUL < EUL • All methods require estimate for baseline conditions at end of RUL

8. Do We Need to Tweak the Primary Savings Guideline Objective? • Current guidelines • Reliable estimates of UES savings and reliable methods for custom and standard protocol • Savings guidelines imply that the savings estimate is entered in ProCost as first-year savings • RUL may be modeled for cost-effectiveness (SummaryRUL Sheet) • Should we more directly state the primary savings estimation objective? • Option 1: Grid savings • First-year savings persist for the EUL (RUL not an issue because the Grid doesn’t care why efficiency increases) • Option 2: Program savings • 2a: First-year • 2b: Lifetime - one average or two averages (RUL and after RUL)

9. Strategy for Guideline Revisions Related to Lifetime Savings • Savings Guideline • Apply quality standards to: • Model (method) calibration • Input parameters other than measure interaction and RUL • Describe appropriate measure interactions (Last-in) and RUL methods • UES estimates are approved but not subject to quality standard • Consistent with “tweaked” primary objective • Cost-Effectiveness Guideline • Describe appropriate RUL baseline methods • No Quality Standards, just like Cost and EUL Guidelines

10. Is RUL worth the complication? • Guidelines currently make a vague reference to RULbut do not yet describe any methods. • Does RUL make enough of a difference to justify the additional work and reduction in transparency of the calculations? • If program operators just book the first-year savings, i.e., savings during the RUL period, have we made any real progress? • Cost-effectiveness would be improved, but RTF doesn’t approve cost-effectiveness.

11. Next Steps • Subcommittee to work through each issue • Volunteers? • Plan to wrap up subcommittee’s proposed guidelines edits by early next year (April or May decision)