6 th Power Plan Conservation Resource Advisory Committee June 19 th 2009

1. 6th Power Plan Conservation Resource Advisory CommitteeJune 19th 2009 Technical Group - ECMs

2. Organizations Participating in the Development of These Comments • Benton PUD • BPA • Chelan PUD • Clallam County PUD • Clark County PUD • Cowlitz PUD • Energy Trust of Oregon • Franklin PUD • Grant County PUD • Grays Harbor County PUD • Inland Power • Lewis County PUD • Mason PUD #3 • NEEA • NRV • Peninsula Light • PNGC • PPC • PNUCC • Puget Sound Energy • City of Richland • Seattle City Light • Snohomish County PUD • Tacoma Power

3. Measures Discussed • Residential • Heat Pump Water Heaters • Lighting • Industrial • Management Measures

4. Problems and Recommendations Heat Pump Water Heater Problem • This ECM is still an emerging technology Recommendation • This ECM should be shifted to an emerging technology supply curve so that the region can have it on a watch list. • Use a NEEA pilot study to assess real-world NW potential • Focus on NEEA Northern Tier draft specs

5. Outline of IssuesHeat Pump Water Heater Process • This ECM not available during development of the 6th Plan • This ECM is different than the one that the RTF previously approved. • The RTF was never given the opportunity to vet many basic assumptions. ECM Assumptions • Over estimated applicability • Region Wide Climate Zone • 50% Applicability of the ~4 million water • Historic poor reliability and performance characteristics • Substandard first hour rating • Coefficient of Performance (COP) = 2.2 • Installation Costs don’t match DOE • $701 Incremental Cost (2006 dollars) • Others

6. Applicability In Tacoma’s Service Territory Draft Plan assumes 50% applicability • Tacoma’s electric water heater location (Source: Tacoma 2009 Residential Appliance Saturation Survey) • Unheated Garage: 13.8% • Assume 50 percent of these have a 50 gallon water heater (~comparable to the GE HPWH) • Estimated share of applicable water heaters that could be converted: ~7%

7. Performance IssuesPoor Winter Recovery Rate • Recovery rate drops with ambient temperature • Recover rate is lower than for electric resistance water heaters • 5+ months out of the year NW performance will be below the green line Yellow bars assume electric resistance water heater. All other bars assume HPWH at different ambient temperatures

8. Performance IssuesHPWH Work Poorly in Areas with Low Ambient Temperatures • Below 45°F, HPWH operates in resistance mode. • SEATAC daily Mean Temperature • Jan 40.9°F • Feb 43.3°F • Mar 46.2°F • Nov 45.2 °F • Dec 40.7°F • Spokane has 140 freeze days per year

9. Poor Field Study Results For the NW • Majority of test sites located in warm climates • Two of the three NW sites were the worst performers

10. HPWH Background • “If you build it they will come” concept has not worked • PNUCC 1984 concerns remain valid today

11. ProblemsCompact Fluorescent Lamps • Significant opportunities remain for CFL savings • Actual saturation below draft assumption • Draft assumption that incandescent lights “go out” in 2010 results in a 5-year timing gap • The federal phase-out of standard incandescent ends in 2014 • Did not consider savings from halogen to CFL bulbs • Draft assumption did not consider effect of consumers making different choices • Selecting different technologies • The RTF was never given the opportunity to vet many basic assumptions

12. RecommendationsCompact Fluorescent Lamps • Reinstate general service CFLs, stair step through 2014 to match federal standards • Work through RTF to evaluate savings from federal lighting standards • Consider full range of bulb type/efficiency options • Have the RTF monitor sales and saturation impact of federal standards in coming years • Develop program to promote “high-efficiency” CFLs

13. Substantial Opportunity Remain for CFLSummary Statistics by Level of Use The NEEA model assumes a “normal” CFL penetration • Tacoma’s data and a national study contradict this assumption! • Low and No CFL users are 50% of respondents and account for 9% of installed CFLs • Medium users (25% of respondents) account for 24% of CFLs installed • High users (25%) account for 67% of the CFLs installed Tacoma 2008 Household Compact Fluorescent Lighting Survey 43% response rate, 3.7% margin of error at 95% confidence

14. National Surveys Indicate a Non-normal Distribution In areas* that have invested in CFL promotions: • CFLs are currently installed in only about 11 percent of available sockets in homes, or 4.39 CFLs per household. • About 30 percent of households have installed no CFLs, and two-thirds of those households with CFLs have installed five or fewer. * These areas include California, the Pacific Northwest, Wisconsin, and New England.

15. Substantial Hard to Reach Population Exist • More than half of the Low and No CFL users have never purchased a CFL, not ever! • 31% of Low and No CFL users last purchased a CFL more than two years ago

16. Lower Incomes ~ Lower Participation • Cutting CFL programs prematurely could significantly affect lower income residents

17. Reasons Not to Buy by Level of Use • High price is the most common reason sited by the Low and No CFL users

18. Tacoma CFL ScenarioProgrammatic Impacts end of 2009

19. Problems and recommendationsIndustrial Energy Management Recommendations • Reduce ramps to reflect the reality and challenges at industrial facilities Issues • Environmental expenditures must compete with other industry priorities (e.g., increase production, strategic opportunities, etc.) • Many industrial facilities are short of engineering staff. Engineering staff cannot focus on just one thing, like efficiency • Companies cited by Council staff are industry leaders in efficiency. Their achievements occurred over a much longer time horizon (since the early 1970s) than assumed by Council staff, and resulted from different external and internal forces. These companies had leaders that prioritized efficiency. • NEEA is working to rewrite CEI to conform to ISO 50001 (due in 2011) which outlines the international standard for industrial efficiency. • M&V Protocol not well defined, which could delay programs

20. Industrial Energy Management • The new energy management measures are not so much “behavioral.” Most come from physical redesigns of equipment. • These measures may impact the fundamental production capabilities and performance of these facilities. • Need low ramp rates to reflect management hesitancy to take actions with the potential to disrupt company operations

22. Discussion?