Technical Group - ECMs

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

Residential Heat Pump Water Heaters Lighting

Industrial Management Measures

Problem This ECM is still an emerging technologyRecommendation 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

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

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%

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

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

Majority of test sites located in warm climates

Two of the three NW sites were the worst performers

“If you build it they will come” concept has not worked

PNUCC 1984 concerns remain valid today

• 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

• 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

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 installedTacoma 2008 Household Compact Fluorescent Lighting Survey 43% response rate, 3.7% margin of error at 95%

confidence

N = Range of CFL Use

% of Respndnts

# of CFLs

Average # of CFLs

% of total CFLs

High Use 177 17 to 87 25% 5,342 30 67% Medium Use 174 7 to 16 25% 1,937 11 24% Low Use 218 1 to 6 31% 681 3 9% No CFL Use 133 0 19% 0 0 0% Total 702 100% 7,960 11 100%

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.

Last bulb Purchased

Low User

s (31%

)

No User

s (19%

)2 years or more 14% 17%Have not purchased 8% 49%

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

Lower Income

Higher Income

Less than 6 months ago 38% 57%6 mo to 2 years ago 21% 24%2 yrs or more 20% 7%Have not purchased a CFL 21% 12% Cutting CFL programs prematurely

could significantly affect lower income residents

Q17 If you don’t plan to buy CFL’s, why not?

High Use

Medium Use

Low Use

No CFL Use Total

Too expensive 23% 29% 40% 37% 34% Doesn’t provide enough light 17% 38% 42% 34% 35% Doesn’t fit fixture 26% 33% 30% 24% 28% Doesn’t turn on instantly 11% 22% 31% 9% 20% Don’t like the color 20% 16% 15% 8% 14% Don’t like how they look 17% 11% 16% 8% 13% Don’t know where to buy 3% 4% 1% 3% 3% Other 26% 18% 25% 22% 23%

n= 35 45 81 67 228 Multiple response question- columns may sum to more than 100%

High price is the most common reason sited by the Low and No CFL users

Single Family Residential Dwellings

~90,000

Average Sockets per Dwelling 42.8

Estimated Applicable Sockets for CFL 31.5

Baseline Median CFL saturation 6.5

Baseline Median CFL saturation % 17%2008-2009 Combined Tacoma/BPA CFL Sales Activity

112,049

Estimated 2010 CFL Saturation blubs/dwelling 7.7Estimated end of 2009 Median CFL Saturation % 25%

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

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