Regional Technical Forum
January 17, 2012
Introductions, Announcements, Agenda Review
RTF Chairman Tom Eckman called the meeting to order at 9:38 a.m. and asked for a round of
introductions. He moved on to the agenda for the day. Mark Jerome made a motion to adopt
the agenda. Tom Lienhard seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Adam Hadley
made a motion to adopt the minutes from the December 13, 2011 meeting. David Thompson
seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Charlie Grist showed an Avista public
service announcement on energy efficiency that features Tom Lienhard.
RTF Guidelines for Estimating Measure Costs and Non-Energy Benefits
Ryan Firestone started by stating the objective of the project: to develop guidelines for
estimating electric energy efficiency measure cost and non-energy benefits. He said Navigant
is looking for feedback on the guidelines document, which have been in the works since
August. We’ll take feedback for two weeks and continue our work in February, Firestone said.
He said the guidelines subcommittee attracted a lot of participation and met every three
weeks. Firestone said the guidelines development initially focused on data sources and the
“analyst perspective,” but as the work evolved, that changed. We began to focus on the RTF
process and requirements, and came to see the material on the analyst perspective as
appendices to the guidelines, he stated.
Firestone went through the draft guidelines in some detail, beginning with Section 1, Scope
and Purpose. The guidelines break the cost and benefit analysis into discrete elements, and
each item that contributes to the cost and benefit is an element, he explained. We introduce
the idea of having a standard workbook for the pertinent elements, Firestone said.
Lauren Gage said the RTF should think about the interaction among all of the guidelines it is
developing. We need to think about “the umbrella implications” and how all of the guidelines
work together, she said.
Eckman asked about the costs the draft guidelines explicitly exclude. If we expect others to
replicate the procedures we put out, we ought to write down the methodology for arriving at
costs for some of these excluded items, such as line loss or distribution, he said.
The RTF discussed whether such costs should be included in the guidelines. Don Jones, Jr.,
said the guidelines should concentrate on primary inputs and not secondary inputs, such as
transmission and distribution, and carbon. Those seem like Power Plan issues, he added.
We need a common library of default values, Grist said. There are electric system inputs that
cross analyses, but the methodologies for including them aren’t documented well, he said.
Eckman suggested the electric system inputs would be a separate document. Eckman added
that some of the transmission and distribution line loss methodology used by the RTF in
ProCost are documented in the Sixth Power Plan and that can be consolidated into one policy
and procedure document for further refinement.
RTF Meeting Minutes Page 1
January 17, 2012
Eugene Rosolie said it would be going too far to define “every nut and bolt that has to be
considered.” David Nightingale said he would like to see information about the categories of
things to put into such calculations; we could have a roadmap on how to get to the costs, but
not the values. Jones pointed out that utilities weight transmission and distribution
differently, and it would not be helpful to have guidelines that are “overly prescriptive.”
Eckman said he is aiming for methodological consistency. Hadley said the discussion suggests
the need for another guidelines document, a task that could go into the 2013 work plan.
The RTF had several other questions about the scope and purpose section of the guidelines.
Firestone went on to describe Section 2, Analysis of Costs and Benefits, and Section 3,
Reporting Measure Costs and Benefits. The RTF asked questions and suggested a couple of
wording changes in Section 2. In Section 3, Firestone described the elements to be used, and
there was a discussion of whether to use 2006 dollars or current dollars for the analyses. Rich
Arneson suggested the document specify that dollars be expressed in whatever value is used
for the current Power Plan. There was additional discussion about how to incorporate changes
to a utility’s system avoided costs and how frequently that revision would happen. Eckman
added that we are currently using 2006 dollars and that tables for correcting current year
dollars to 2006 are provided. He said that base year will be updated with the Seventh Power
Firestone went on to Section 4, Maintenance of Analysis and Documentation. He explained the
subsections. Typically the Standard Information Workbook for the guidelines would be
updated after each Council Power Plan, he said.
Firestone explained the measures costs and benefits worksheet template and checklist in the
appendices, and he pointed out that Appendix 3 and the following material reflect Navigant’s
initial focus. This material was moved to the appendices, so there is a question of how much
more effort we want to put into it, he said.
Eckman said appendices 5 and 6 provide information about where to get the data and what
data to use. This is the most relevant information for analysts and strikes me as a core piece
of the product, he said. Thompson said it will be important to track versions of the
worksheets in order to know the data values at the inception of a measure evaluation.
There was discussion about the appropriate level of detail for the cost and benefit guidelines.
Mike Baker described what was done in the standardized M&V and UES measure guidelines.
Grist said he thought the standardized measure guidelines hit the right level of detail. They
give the RTF the ability to review the reasonableness of various methodologies, he said.
Firestone explained the categories of information asked for in the summary sheet. David
Baylon questioned why the costs are divided up into “a bunch of baskets.” Often times you
don’t have those baskets or the data that goes into them, he said. It isn’t apparent what to
do when you don’t have that information, Baylon said. You almost never have that level of
detail for costs; you might have a lot of data about the technology, but not costs, he stated.
Firestone said the elements in the cost summary were discussed with the subcommittee. We
went with all of these elements to be sure we are inclusive; it will require less on the part of
the RTF reviewers if they see an exhaustive list, he stated.
RTF Meeting Minutes Page 2
January 17, 2012
Baylon suggested collapsing the cost sheet so people didn’t spend unnecessary time looking
for so much detail. It should be more explicit that it is acceptable to combine elements if
that is the way the market works, he said. Firestone pointed out that the narrative in the
guidelines clarifies what is being asked for on the sheet. Firestone said that when element
costs are combined that it can be documented on the Summary Sheet.
Jill Steiner said it is useful to have the detail; if there is not enough granularity and detail, it
is difficult to figure out the cost. The detail helps to determine the appropriate incentives,
and a responder can always indicate an element is not applicable or unknown, she said.
Arneson said he agreed. The heat pump water heater analysis had this level of detail, and it
was very helpful to break down the incremental costs, he said. Grist said, I think of this
worksheet as a tool to help the RTF and the measure proposer pull together things to be
considered. This is not where one starts, but where one ends, Eckman added.
Firestone continued to explain the summary sheet, and he showed examples using a CFL and a
ground source heat pump, explaining how to customize the worksheet for a measure. Eckman
said it is important to be explicit about the baseline cost.
There was further discussion about how to revise or add to the summary sheet and how the
baseline would best be presented. There were also comments about including program
Gage said the spreadsheet is designed for UES measures. I don’t see a great translation to a
custom project and program evaluation, she stated. In response to a question about how the
spreadsheet would apply to a custom project, Firestone pointed out the section of the
guidelines that pertain.
He explained the checklist for the guidelines, and there were RTF questions and comments,
including whether a submitter has to provide raw data or whether a secondary source report
would do. Firestone referred to parts of the text that provide explanations for submitters.
Mark Kendall reiterated that Navigant is looking for feedback until January 31. Firestone said
he would work with the subcommittee to prepare another draft for the RTF meeting in March.
Guidelines Project Budget Increase Request
Firestone left the meeting during the following discussion; Eckman asked for introductions
from people who arrived late.
Hadley went over a request for an increase in the project budget for the Measure Cost and
Benefits Guidelines. He described what is left to be done with the project and why it will take
a larger budget than originally projected. To date there have been more subcommittee
meetings and guideline drafts than estimated in the project work plan, Hadley said. He listed
items that are left to be completed, including making revisions based on the RTF’s discussion.
He explained two options for more budget. Option 1 would be an increase of $25,053 to
complete the list of tasks; Option 2 would add $16,000 to the $25,053 for an additional task,
completing the appendices. The Measure Cost and Non-Energy Benefits Subcommittee
RTF Meeting Minutes Page 3
January 17, 2012
recommends going forward with Option 1, but the subcommittee has not yet reviewed Option
2, Hadley said.
The RTF had a number of questions about the options and about the outcome if no more
money is allocated. There were comments in support of Option 2 to complete the appendices
and concern that the guidelines would not be helpful without them. There were also
questions about what further work is needed for the appendices and whether it could be
accomplished for the additional $16,000.
Grist said the vision for the guidelines project was fuzzy at the beginning and honed down as
the project progressed. The additional money would come from the 2012 budget, he clarified.
Hadley displayed the RTF budget and pointed out the line item from which the funds would
be taken. The RTF discussed whether the funds would be needed later for other projects.
Nightingale suggested adding $45,000 and asking the consultant to work within the number.
Gage questioned whether there was much more work to do. The request feels heavy for what
it appears would need to be done, she said.
Jeff Harris said the subcommittee was comfortable with an increase of $25,000. The question
is what to do about the appendices, he said. We could propose $35,000 with the
subcommittee providing oversight of the work, Harris said. We don’t know how much work
will be involved with the appendices, he said.
Graham Parker said there might be savings by bundling the remaining two work items
together. Hadley said there is a risk that $16,000 may not get us where we want to go with
the appendices; they are not a small effort. The RTF continued a discussion of whether to add
the extra funds and how to assure the final product is everything that is needed.
Baylon said it is easy to underestimate the impact a subcommittee can have on the
consultant’s work. The appendices are where “the rubber meets the road,” he said. They
need additional work, particularly the later appendices, Baylon said.
I’m anxious to live within the RTF budget and I don’t want to be presented with another
change order, Jones said. If we aren’t sure what it will take to finish, let the subcommittee
explore it, he said.
Nick O’Neil made a motion that the RTF approve an additional $45,000 to be allocated to the
project and leave it up to the subcommittee to make a decision to approve or deny the
proposal from Navigant. Brateng seconded the motion, which passed with 18 votes in favor, 1
vote against, and 1 abstention.
Modeling Multifamily Heating Energy Use
Hadley went over the background of the multifamily weatherization measure. He said the
measure is “out of compliance” because the model had not been calibrated to recent data.
SBW identified studies that could provide data, and this is a proposal for calibration, Hadley
said. He provided a definition for multifamily housing and the weatherization measures
included, and he asked the question whether to use the SEEM model for the calibration or
whether a multi-zone model should be used. He listed pros and cons of using the SEEM model,
noting that it does not allow for multi-zone modeling.
RTF Meeting Minutes Page 4
January 17, 2012
Hadley presented two modeling options. Option 1 would leave out buildings with a common
area, assuming the savings would be too different from other buildings. Option 2 assumes
savings will be similar for buildings with or without a common area. Both options would use
the SEEM model, but there would be differences in the calibration data, he explained.
There were questions about how multifamily is defined and whether townhouses and condos
are included. Hadley said the measure UES wouldn’t apply to buildings with double-loaded
corridors or buildings with a significant common area. Baylon said the biggest problem is SEEM
introduces a lot of information about ventilation and air-flow, and those aren’t usually
applicable to multifamily residences. We’ve avoided the issue in the past by calibrating the
aggregate infiltration rate, he said. Baylon said double-loaded corridors have ventilation
systems that operate more like commercial buildings. He suggested conducting the calibration
on multi-family buildings that did not include significant double loaded corridors might allow
for a single-zone model to be used.
The RTF had questions about assumptions for the ventilation system, the type of heating in
the multifamily units, occupancy history, and how those variables would affect savings.
Eckman asked if for multifamily weatherization measures, the RTF is comfortable with single-
zone modeling. There was general agreement in the affirmative.
Lienhard asked if the measure applies to weatherizing an entire apartment building. Hadley
said the assumption is an entire building is being treated, but it is not a requirement of the
measure. He confirmed the intent of the analysis is to come up with UES for the measure.
Hadley said the modeling would incorporate four prototypes buildings and five data sources.
The first step is the calibration exercise, he said. We are going to try to find a temperature
setting for SEEM that matches the real-world data, Hadley said.
Brad Acker asked how much cost is involved in calibrating the SEEM model as opposed to using
an actual energy model. Baylon said there are technical problems with using a tool like E-
The RTF continued its discussion of the calibration and analysis. Hadley clarified that the
analysis would incorporate five climate zones.
The RTF gave head nods of approval for Hadley to pursue results for Option 2.
Grist clarified that the resulting savings would apply to buildings with double-loaded
corridors, “if we get the model to calibrate.” But you may decide not to use the data from
double-loaded corridor buildings where the data is not adequate to remove common areas
from the SEEM modeling, he added.
Next Steps for Small and Rural Utilities
Hadley explained the purpose of the small and rural utilities survey and recommendations:
help determine what technical assistance the RTF can offer to tailor conservation initiatives
to meet the unique circumstances of these utilities’ service territories. After receiving
RTF Meeting Minutes Page 5
January 17, 2012
recommendations from Ecotope, staff developed a set of proposed actions. We are seeking
consensus on the RTF’s next steps to provide technical support to these utilities, Hadley said.
He said staff divided the recommendations from Ecotope into categories: whether it agrees
with the recommendation and plans to implement it; agrees but implementation depends on
something outside the RTF; staff disagrees with the recommendation; or the recommendation
is unrelated to the RTF.
Staff prepared a spreadsheet to explain each recommendation and the proposed response,
and he proceeded to go through the detail on recommendations related to PTCS and Heat
Pump Measures, Weatherization, Ductless Heat Pumps, Manufactured Homes, Commercial
Lighting, and a Schools Measure Package.
Baylon described the schools measure as “the camel’s nose under the tent,” where a bundled
package of measures may be the solution. Grist said if there is region-wide interest in such
measures, the RTF could work on them and test the regional appetite under the RTF work
plan. He added that the RTF is not in the business of designing programs. Harris said unless
the fuel that heats the schools is electricity, it isn’t a project for the RTF.
Hadley continued with recommendations on Irrigation; Distribution Efficiency; and Proposed
New Measures, such as heat pump water heaters, wind turbine energy efficiency, and open-
loop ground source heat pumps.
Eckman pointed out that people outside the RTF have to develop the measures to submit for
analysis. We don’t have the resources to develop the measures, he said.
Hadley went on to Ecotope recommendations on Do It Yourself Measures; Small/Rural Task
Force; and Utility Training. Harris pointed out that a number of the recommendations were
developed with an aim toward NEEA. We are reviewing the recommendations and will respond
to each, he said. We have efforts under way on things like “energy efficiency 101,” Harris
said, adding that Melinda Eden is on staff at NEEA to work with small and rural utilities.
Hadley asked for comments, and Eckman said staff would continue to inform the RTF on
things related to technical assistance for small and rural utilities.
Lauren Casey said specific recommendations about targeted outreach would be helpful;
capacity and outreach are the most important issues. Gage said BPA is working on outreach
activities and added that while the RTF has a role, others are the major force in working with
the small and rural utilities. Baylon said it is striking that small and rural utilities don’t know
what’s happening in Portland. They don’t know what NEEA is, for example, or the RTF role,
Grist said the RTF’s small and rural outreach strategy will combine with work being done by
BPA and NEEA. He said there are specific measures for small and rural utilities in the
recommendations, including schools, station loads at wind turbines, commercial lighting,
decommissioning manufactured homes, and open-loop ground source heat pumps. How should
we proceed with these for 2012? he asked.
There were questions about whether the measures had to be specific to small and rural
utilities. Harris asked why open-loop ground source heat pumps, for example, would be
RTF Meeting Minutes Page 6
January 17, 2012
different than for other utilities. Hadley said the RTF is considering the open-loop ground
source heat pumps because of a request from small and rural utilities. We would like to see
the subcommittee stay focused on small and rural utility issues, he said.
Harris said he did not want to see parallel systems set up for technology matters. The costs
and climate might be different, but let’s not recreate for small and rural utilities what has
already come through the RTF, he said.
This is more a process than a technical issue, Rosolie said. We need to have the RTF and the
subcommittee sit down with those who need help and see what can be done, he said.
The RTF discussed the wind turbine standby load. There was a question about whether the
measure would fit better into an industrial energy efficiency category.
Grist pointed out that the RTF has limited resources to develop measures. Others do that part
and we apply our resources to the savings assessment, he said. Should the RTF dedicate
resources to developing measures or ask NEEA and BPA to do that part and bring them to the
RTF for assessment? Grist asked. The RTF has direction from the Council to look into the small
and rural utilities issues, and utilities have asked for assistance, he said. For the RTF, it is a
question of resource allocation and the tradeoff with other activities, Grist said.
Gage said developing measures involves identifying research that is needed and making a
decision about who will conduct it. It would be helpful to get to that point and then make a
decision about the RTF developing measures, she said.
We have a budget item for developing small and rural utility measures, Rosolie said. He
suggested the subcommittee go over the list of recommended measures and prioritize them.
Lienhard said some of the discussion sounds like program implementation, which is
completely outside the RTF role. We need to find another solution, he said.
Baylon said the measure for standby power for wind turbines doesn’t otherwise exist. It’s a
control problem and has big implication for these utilities, he said. There is no literature on
this, and we need to understand the use well enough to see if it could be a UES measure,
Baylon said. There isn’t another forum for this, he stated. Brahm Segal suggested BPA’s Wind
Integration Study Team could be useful in looking at the question.
I’d suggest this is a low priority for the RTF, Jones said. It is for others to look at this, and I
don’t think we will deem any of this, he said.
We should make an effort to remove the barriers to the RTF for small and rural utilities,
Thompson said. It is time well spent to remove the barriers, he said.
Casey said she wasn’t sure what utilities understand about how to bring measures to the RTF.
Erin Hope said outreach is important. Most small utilities don’t understand the RTF role;
bringing them in could be as simple as inviting participation on a subcommittee, he said.
RTF Meeting Minutes Page 7
January 17, 2012
Eckman asked Rosolie to convene a subcommittee. We will rely on BPA and NEEA to deal with
what kind of support could be offered to the small and rural utilities, he said. The question is
what resources are needed to get the infrastructure and information out there, Eckman said.
Guidelines for Custom Protocols and Program Impact Evaluations
Mike Baker reported that SBW is doing two additional appendices to the standard guidelines:
custom protocols and program impact evaluations. The topics and level of detail are still open
questions, he said. Baker explained the development process for each appendix, starting with
identifying critical elements for each. For the impact evaluation, there would be 13
interviews with evaluation managers, as well as subcommittee discussion and analysis. For
custom protocols, the process is to review recent BPA work and other documents followed by
subcommittee discussion and analysis, he said.
Baker said SBW is conducting the interviews on impact evaluation critical elements and will
post the responses and a response summary. As part of this process, we are asking about
existing local protocols, he added. With regard to the interviews, Baker said respondents have
not raised a lot of topics the prepared interview didn’t already cover.
He went on to describe the critical elements for the custom protocol, including reviewing
recent BPA work. We are trying not to reinvent the wheel in these appendices, Baker stated.
He added that the appendices would refer to other work, rather than incorporate it.
Baker went on to provide the schedule for completing the appendices. The target is March 13
for a draft to present to the RTF followed by a redraft and discussion about the need for any
further work at the April RTF meeting, he said.
Baker moved on to the issue of the use of data collected by program administrators in impact
evaluations. He said the current guidelines do not address the issue, and he said he is
concerned about assuring comparability of program evaluations. Baker said it is very tough to
do the studies as a third-party evaluator. This is a topic to put out for comment, he said.
Baylon agreed it is difficult to do third-party evaluations. He said a guideline would not be a
bad idea. Everyone is very aware of what a problem it is to keep things separate between
program administrators and evaluators, he added.
Baker asked if it is possible to embed sampling protocols into program administration, and
Baylon said it is expensive. Baker asked if there are scenarios in which evaluation advisors can
be embedded in a program.
Kerstin Rock said there is “good will around” toward tackling the issue. She suggested it
would go a long way if people know what is needed to evaluate the measures/sectors. To
what degree can we specify what data is needed to do a reasonable evaluation? Rock asked.
Bill Koran said the important thing is an independent look at the data; it doesn’t have to be
independent data. Tom Eckhart agreed, saying there are situations that become adversarial.
We get used to doing evaluations with imperfect information, Brateng said. There is a need to
inform staff about what they should collect so an evaluation can take place, he said.
RTF Meeting Minutes Page 8
January 17, 2012
So the best practice is to make it known up front what is needed so data collection can be
budgeted into a project, Eckman clarified.
All of this will cost more money and hurts a resource in terms of cost-effectiveness, Grist
said. We need to embed those costs in the analysis, but it could push some measures to the
border or out entirely because of the added costs of evaluation, he said. Eckman said the
process would become more streamlined and added that now a lot of time is spent to
Baker said there may be ways to combine efforts and come up with something that will save
everyone money. I am not sure we will make much headway on the topic, he said. Baker
asked and there were no objections expressed to SBW’s work plan for the appendices.
Manufactured Housing Weatherization
Hadley gave background on the Manufactured Housing Weatherization measure status, which
was given out-of-compliance status in February 2011 primarily because the SEEM model was
not calibrated for manufactured homes. In December, the RTF approved the calibration of
SEEM to manufactured homes with a new thermostat set point, he said.
Hadley said he ran SEEM94 with the new thermostat settings to calibrate the model. He
described the calculations and said cooling was added for homes with forced-air furnaces.
Hadley explained graphs of the savings for several weatherization measures, including floor
and ceiling insulation, window replacements and upgrades, and infiltration reduction, in
different climate zones and for various types of systems. He pointed out where changes to the
savings had occurred from the old to new methodology and gave detail on savings for specific
measures. Hadley said he was digging into why there were so many negative savings cases.
The RTF discussed why the changes in savings occurred from SEEM92 to SEEM94. And there
were questions about the data and some details of the weatherization measures.
Hadley moved on to explain the changes in measure cost-effectiveness with the new SEEM
calculations. He noted that the loss in infiltration-reduction savings means it is no longer cost-
effective in all zones.
Jones asked about the analysts’ quality control process with the calculations. Hadley said he
worked with Ben Larson of Ecotope to run the SEEM94 model. We didn’t have a formal staff
QC, he said. Grist said he went through the analysis but didn’t dig into all of the tables. SBW
recommended we do the updates to the measure in a Recommendations Memo under the first
round or UES measure review, and they reviewed the original spreadsheet that included
comments on updating the workbook, he added.
Gage made a motion that the RTF change the status of the manufactured home
weatherization UES measures from “out of compliance” to “under review.” Members will
review the measure spreadsheet and provide staff with comments so it can be voted on at the
next RTF meeting. Lienhard seconded the motion, which passed with 20 votes in favor, 0
opposed, and one abstention.
RTF Meeting Minutes Page 9
January 17, 2012
There was discussion about a formal QC process. Grist said a thorough review of the analysis
at hand would take at least a day. Parker said a QC review would be a good idea every time
there is a major revision to a measure workbook. The RTF members expressed agreement.
Work Plan Adjustments
Grist introduced the agenda item on changing the RTF 2012 budget. He said there were
contracts that did not get out the door in 2011, and under the RTF accounting procedures,
they now have to go under the 2012 budget.
Among the contracts is the review of measures for compliance with the standard guidelines.
We need reviews and recommendations on 40 more measures, and that work will come out of
the 2012 budget, Grist explained. The cost estimate for the work is $232,000, and the funds
would be shifted from another category within the approved 2012 budget, he said.
Kendall said a UES measure review costs between $5,000 and $6,000. He said staff thought a
contract for a lesser-level of review would be possible but came to the conclusion that a
recommendations memo level analysis is needed for each measure.
Rosolie asked if the RFP for the review is being reissued. Kendall said it is not, but dollars for
the final phase of the review had not been committed in 2011 and could not be carried over.
He explained how the measures were prioritized for the review.
Grist said reviewers found that when they opened a measure workbook, the best approach
was to do an in-depth review. A shallow approach might lead to more work in the end, he
said, so staff proposes to shift money in the budget to cover the rest of the work. Grist said
$174,000 would come from the “New Measure and Unsolicited” category and $58,000 from
“Existing UES Review.” He went on to explain what the budget shift would mean for the
originally scheduled/budgeted work and gave a detailed explanation of the budget categories.
Grist said the RTF is shy of expending its 2011 budget by about $300,000, and RTF sponsors
will get a credit in their 2012 bill.
Rosolie asked if the dollars could be rolled into the 2012 budget. Eckman said the RTF
sponsors would need to be consulted about their willingness to do that.
Gillian Charles explained more budget details and said it creates an accounting problem to
continually roll large sums of money from one year to the next. She said the RTF has a
commitment from the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) for a $1.5 million budget in 2012.
There is a question of how much we can accomplish, Charles said. Eckman said the bottleneck
is staff’s ability to review contractor work. Grist said the PAC discussed the budget and want
to know earlier if there is going to be under spending.
O’Neil asked if there would be value in doing a portion of the 60 remaining measures rather
than making such a large commitment. If more measures come in during the year, we’ll have
funds to consider them, he said.
This looks like cleanup to deal with the measure review and a conscious decision to reduce
the budget for expected new measures, Jones said. Grist said he polled measure sponsors and
didn’t see a lot on the horizon in that regard. If we finish the existing measures, we would
RTF Meeting Minutes Page 10
January 17, 2012
have a complete picture of what is needed to bring them all into compliance with the
standard guidelines, he said.
Lienhard made a motion that the RTF approve the staff recommended revision to the 2012
Work Plan and Budget and forward the recommendation back to the Council for approval.
Brady Peeks seconded the motion, which passed with 17 votes in favor; 2 against, and 2
RTF 2012 Workplan
Kendall said staff proposes to proceed on RFPs to get several work items under way. He
explained details of several Statements of Work (SOWs) and proposed RFPs, including the UES
measure review; ProCost enhancement; ELCAP database update; and RTF load shape
conversion. He referred to details in the 2012 RTF work plan, the adjustments discussed
previously and the budget for tool development and research.
Rosolie made a motion that the RTF authorize RTF staff to provide the Operations
Subcommittee with statements of work for UES measure review, ProCost updates, ELCAP
database updating and RTF load shape conversion to 8,760 hours, for the amounts presented.
Parker seconded the motion, which passed with 17 votes in favor; 0 against and 2 abstentions
(Koran and Kevin Smit).
Kendall gave RTF staff and subcommittee updates, including the Operations Subcommittee
meeting and work on the conservation voltage regulation protocol #1. He said the contractor
will have draft measure-life guidelines ready for subcommittee review by January 24. Kendall
continued with an update on the Standard Protocol for Fan VFD. The subcommittee met
December 16 and gave feedback on the calculator, concurring to start with a simple
calculator and add attributes, he said. We expect the calculator will come to the RTF in
March as a provisional measure proposal, Kendall said.
The RTU standard protocol work continues and contractors are aiming for a February
presentation to the RTF, he said. SBW was awarded the contract for the UES measure review
and is training two subcontractors in the process. There are five measures coming forward,
which staff will review for completeness. Eckman asked for information that would be helpful
in the review. Kendall cited nine additional UES measures that are now under review.
Hadley explained a correction made to the measure workbook for residential heating/cooling
with air source heat pump conversions for single family and manufactured homes.
Kendall listed items for the next two RTF agendas. He pointed out decisions will be
forthcoming on some UES measures status as UES measure reviews and recommendations
memos are presented in March and April.
Grist said there was a meeting scheduled for the PULSE energy review, and he would send out
a notice. He announced open positions on the RTF and Council staffs.
Gage announced that Jill Steiner is moving to Michigan to work for Cadmus.
The meeting adjourned at 4:10 p.m.
RTF Meeting Minutes Page 11
January 17, 2012
RTF Attendees: January 17, 2012
Name Affiliation Email Phone
Brad Acker University of Idaho firstname.lastname@example.org 208-890-5214
Thomas Anreise Fluid Market
Rich Arneson Tacoma Power email@example.com 253-396-3145
Mike Bailey ECOS firstname.lastname@example.org 503-709-9823
Andie Baker Tacoma Power
Michael Baker SBW email@example.com 425-827-0330
David Baylon Ecotope David@ecotope.com 206-322-3753
Eric Brateng PSE firstname.lastname@example.org 425-456-2325
Jeff Brooks Idaho Office of Energy
Kim Brown Global Energy email@example.com
Warren Cook PECI firstname.lastname@example.org 503-575-4107
Erin Diamond Northwestern Energy
Tyler Dillavou BPA email@example.com
Stacey Donohue Idaho PUC firstname.lastname@example.org 208-334-0378
Bo Downen PPC
Christopher Dymond enXco Development Christoperd@enxco.com 503-269-3126
Tom Eckhart UCONS, LLC Tom@ucons.com
Tom Eckman NW Council email@example.com 503-222-5161
Melinda Eden NEEA
Ryan Fedie BPA firstname.lastname@example.org
Ryan Firestone Navigant email@example.com
Lauren Gage BPA firstname.lastname@example.org 503-230-4961
Danielle Gidding BPA email@example.com 503-230-7314
Gary Grayson IPC firstname.lastname@example.org 208-388-2395
Charlie Grist NWPCC email@example.com 503-222-5161
Jim Haberman BPA firstname.lastname@example.org
Adam Hadley Hadley Energy email@example.com 503-235-6458
Jay Himlie Mason PUD 3 firstname.lastname@example.org 360-426-8255
Rick Hodges BPA email@example.com 503-230-4362
Justin Holzgrove Mason County PUD 3 JustinH@masonpud3.org 360-432-5323
Erin Hope BPA firstname.lastname@example.org 509-625-1362
David Hutchins CSG email@example.com 971-64-3097
Mark Jerome KAM Energy LMJ18231@msn.com 541-670-8495
Mark Johnson BPA firstname.lastname@example.org 503-230-7669
Don Jones, Jr. PacifiCorp JR_don.email@example.com 503-813-5189
Nikki Karpavich IPUC firstname.lastname@example.org 208-334-0353
Mark W. Kendall Kendall Energy email@example.com 503-400-2620
Bill Koran NorthWrite firstname.lastname@example.org 503-941-9775
Tom Lienhard Avista email@example.com 509-495-4985
Don MacOdrum Home Performance firstname.lastname@example.org 503-754-5403
Ulrike Mengelberg Consultant email@example.com 503-956-1568
Kathy Moore Umatilla Electric firstname.lastname@example.org
Sarah Moore BPA
Mike Myser email@example.com
David Nightingale WUTC firstname.lastname@example.org 360-664-1154
RTF Meeting Minutes Page 12
January 17, 2012
Nick O’Neil Energy Trust email@example.com 503-459-4077
Graham Parker PNNL firstname.lastname@example.org 509-375-3805
Brady Peeks Northwest Energy email@example.com 541-990-4941
Travis Reeder EWEB firstname.lastname@example.org 541-221-4160
Allison Robbins BPA email@example.com
Kerstin Rock PECI firstname.lastname@example.org 503-310-0970
Eugene Rosolie Cowlitz PUD email@example.com 360-577-5705
Brahm Segal PCS firstname.lastname@example.org 310-505-2137
Kevin Smit EES Consulting email@example.com 425-889-2700
Jill Steiner Snohomish PUD firstname.lastname@example.org 425-783-1845
Anna Stermer BPA email@example.com 503-230-3617
Samantha Taylor CSG-ETO firstname.lastname@example.org
David Thompson Avista email@example.com 509-495-2821
Jim Williams firstname.lastname@example.org
Jennifer Williamson BPA email@example.com 503-230-4536
Kathy Yi Idaho Power firstname.lastname@example.org
q:\cg\main\rtf\adminstuff\meeting notes\2012\jan 2012\rtf 1-17-12_mwk cg.doc
RTF Meeting Minutes Page 13
January 17, 2012