851 SW 6th Ave, Suite 1100
Portland, Oregon 97204-1348
503-222-5161  fax 820-2370

?                     Background (The indoor air quality EIS and the associated record of decisions do not mesh well with the last 20 years of building research; what is and is not ?house tightening? is not consistently defined; almost all of the proposed Climate Crafters specification ?tighten the house.?)
?                     Goals of the proposed spec changes (To increase the energy standards from each measure, to expand the definition of health and safety to include combustion safety and a more consistent and logical approach to mechanical ventilation requirements)
?                     The dividing line between RTF and Climate Crafters (aka PTCS) specifications (When there is a performance test involved, for example blower door, duct blaster and insulation density inspection, then it will be considered a PTCS/Climate Crafters specification Also, the requirement of a higher level of training, hence the need for certification).
?                     The big changes (all house tightening work must be done by Climate Crafters-certified technicians, wall insulation must be done using the tube insert method, mechanical ventilation requirements will be guided by blower door testing, sealed and insulated crawlspaces are allowed)
?                     The big disclaimer ? many of the numbers relating to blower door numbers and ACH rates are only placeholders.
?                     What tightens a house? (Current RTF says only those measures that are deemed to seal a house and are measured with a blower door; what may actually tighten a house: blower doors guided air sealing, windows, duct sealing, high-density wall insulation)
?                     Loose-fill ceiling insulation (table) ? testing required and attic tag requirements according to RTF/BPA, proposed RTF/BPA and proposed Climate Crafters specs
?                     Exterior wall cavity loose-fill insulation (table) ? installation technique and density requirement according to RTF/BPA, proposed RTF/BPA and proposed Climate Crafters specs
?                     Fresh air makeup for manufactured homes and site-built homes, (table) according to RTF/BPA, proposed RTF/BPA and proposed Climate Crafters specs
?                     Crawlspace passive ventilation, floor area/ventilation area requirements, (table) according to RTF/BPA, proposed RTF/BPA and proposed Climate Crafters specs
?                     House tightening measures ? methods allowed (table), according to RTF/BPA, proposed RTF/BPA and proposed Climate Crafters specs
?                     Venilation requirements ? manufactured homes and site-built homes (table), according to RTF/BPA, proposed RTF/BPA and proposed Climate Crafters specs.
?                     Questions to the RTF ? should the current RTF/BPA specifications allow deviation from current ventilation requirements? Should Climate Crafters specifications allow deviation from the current ventilation requirements? What kind of training, if any, should be required for the proposed changes? Will this require more training?

            The group offered a variety of clarifying questions and comments. After a few minutes of discussion, Charlie Stephens said that, as long as these changes are technically-based, he would move that they be adopted. Eckman added that it appears to him, from the conversation at today's meeting, that PTCS or equivalent blower door certification should be required for the technicians and inspectors working in this area. It was also agreed that the 0.57 value in the 'ventilation Requirements? table will be changed to 0.45, based on Northwest data. Ultimately, the RTF endorsed the revised specifications for residential weatherization for both manufactured and site-built homes as amended.

4. Presentation, Discussion and Decision on Proposed Deemed Values for Residential Duct Insulation Savings.

            Eckman introduced this agenda item by saying that it was a result of several requests to add duct insulation as a measure. People wanted to know what the value of duct insulation might be, so we contracted with Ecotope to develop that analysis, Eckman explained. There were a variety of interactive effects that had to be factored into this analysis, he said; it's a fairly dense technical issue that it is up to us to unravel.

            The presentation was led by Paul Francisco and David Baylon of Ecotope. Working from a series of overheads, they touched on the following topics:

?                     House assumptions (1,350 s.f. house over crawspace, 2,200 s.f. house over half-basements)
?                     Equipment assumptions
?                     Effect of ducts (duct losses add to the load that must be met by the heat pump or furnace, ducts in buffer spaces see different ambient conditions than the house)
?                     Savings from added insulation ? Portland electric furnace (table)
?                     Graphs showing duct losses for electric furnace, cooling and heating for prototype houses over crawlspaces and half-basements in Seattle, Portland, Boise, Spokane and Missoula
?                     Summary of duct effects (duct insulation can account for up to 1/3 of duct losses at these levels of leakage, return insulation has little impact, ducts have little impact on prototype with half-basement, duct efficiency changes between heating and cooling, with cooling being higher; the largest impact of duct loss is for heating with heat pump due to greater use of residence at warmer temperatures ? this effect very large in cooler climates; duct efficiency and percentage savings are not heavily dependent on house vintage)
?                     Heat pump performance (heating performance is dependent on outdoor temperature)
?                     Graphs showing total and integrated MBtuh capacity vs. outdoor temperature for Seattle, Portland, Boise, Spokane and Missoula
?                     Heat pump performance adjustments (heat pump setup determines the overall performance)
?                     Performance adjustments (table) ? PTCS installation specs, no PTCS installation specs: charge and flow, no PTCS specs: control with low ambient cutout for Portland, Seattle, Boise, Spokane and Missoula ? climate adjustment, DF and charge adjustment, control adjustment
?                     Heat pump cooling performance
?                     Seasonal COP and ducts (cooling) for Spokane and Portland (graphs)
?                     Duct efficiency impact on heat pump performance (duct losses can reduce heat pump performance to less than half of rated COP; much more severe in cold climates; overall performance depends on quality duct installation as much as quality heat pump installation)
?                     Seasonal COP and ducts (heating) for Spokane and Portland (graphs)

            Francisco provided the following summary of the analysis:

?                     Overall system efficiency is strongly interactive between ducts and conditioning system
?                     Significant duct losses can largely eliminate potential savings from heat pumps
?                     Overall system efficiency requires quality control of both heat pump installation and duct installation
?                     Heat pump controls are crucial to overall performance, especially in cold climates
?                     HSPF and SEER rating numbers are poor approximations of actual performance, even with ideal installation
?                     The percentage improvement from lower to higher SEER may be appropriate

            The group offered a variety of clarifying questions and comments, to which Francisco and Baylon responded. Many of these comments focused on the lack of cost effectiveness associated with heat pump installation.

            Eckman then went through his revised assumptions for HSPF and SEER for air source heat pump and central air conditioner conversions and upgrades for single-family and manufactured homes. This spreadsheet showed the estimated PTCS and non-PTCS savings and credits for a variety of house, heating/cooling zone, equipment and insulation configurations.

            In terms of process, he said, the implications of this for the program are fairly large for the non-PTCS case, less so for the PTCS case. Mark Johnson noted that he will need to put these proposed values out for public comment, and there isn't enough time to do that this year. For that reason, he said, we'll probably want to begin the public process on this change next spring, and the changes will take effect in July 2003. That will give us a year to refine and reach agreement on the numbers, Johnson observed.

            The next step, given the lead time on this, is for us to separate out the impact of enforcing a new set of control strategies on the specifications, and to decide whether or not the heat pump and control values should be changed to reflect those, Eckman suggested. I would say so, yes, Johnson replied.

5. Presentation, Discussion and Decision on Proposed Deemed Calculation Method for and Energy Management System for Computer Networks (EZConserve).

            Eckman explained that Ken Anderson of the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliances had submitted a petition to add the EZConserve software to the website and to add the Energy Management System for Computer Networks to the list of deemed measures. Anderson then led a presentation on the software, touching on the following major topics:

?                     The team approach between EZConserve Inc. and Quantec, LLC|
?                     EZConserve's first problem (In 1999, U.S. businesses used 74 Twh/year of electricity for office and network equipment; 25 to 30 TWh/year for personal computers and displays; if 100% of PCs used Energy Star power management and night shut-off, we would save 12 TWh/year in the U.S.; the Pacific Northwest is 5% of the U.S. ? a technical potential savings of 0.6 TWh/year or 68 aMW; the current Alliance project is going after 450,000 units, totaling 9.3 aMW, by 2010 in the Northwest).
?                     The Surveyor software solution (companywide power management and remote shut-down for PCs and displays on a business network; cost is $10-$15 per PC depending on volume plus $5 in-house labor for installation, test and activation; plus a variety of non-energy benefits, including night security from hacking)
?                     Energy savings methodology development
?                     The UES unit energy consumption equation (kWh/year)
?                     Current baseline values for key variables
?                     Surveyor inputs
?                     Surveyor savings
?                     Surveyor savings compared to competitor claims

            Anderson then laid out what is being proposed:

?                     That the RTF recommend to BPA that they deem the energy savings of the EZConserve Surveyor software product at 200 kWh/year per PC/display combination
?                     That the RTF recommend to BPA that the RTF review the Alliance's final evaluation results of EZConserve Surveyor (due first quarter 2003) and that the deemed savings be revised as necessary at that time.

            The group spent a few minutes discussing the Alliance proposal, offering several clarifying comments and questions, many focused on the numerical assumptions underlying the proposal ? in particular, the baseline assumption regarding the number of hours each PC and monitor is on each week. Other questions and comments focused on measure life assumptions and what time of day the energy savings associated with this product would occur. Eckman ran the estimated savings from this measure through the C&R rate discount calculator for generic savings, following interior lighting, street lighting and flat load; these runs all showed savings in excess of the $15 cost of the software.

            Ultimately, the RTF agreed to support the Alliance's proposal, with the caveat that the rate credit be capped at actual cost ($15 or less), with the assumption of 200 kWh of savings until better information becomes available. The motion carried unanimously.

6. Presentation, Discussion and Decision on Request to Add LED ?Holiday? Lights to the List of Measures Eligible for C&R Discount Credit and to Establish Deemed Savings Values.

            Ken Keating of BPA said he had asked Eckman to include this item on today's agenda; he said the main purpose is to ensure that if a utility wanted to support LED technology for holiday lighting, that this would be a seasonal opportunity to support it. One thing we're doing is offering to co-sponsor advertising, and to promote lighting changeouts during November, December and January, he said. Keating demonstrated the lights themselves, noting that they are available in a variety of styles and colors. We recognize that this is not a big deal, he said; after all, on December 26, everyone loses interest in selling this product.

            Keating went through the residential assumptions used in Eckman's analysis of this measure, as well as some estimated savings data compared to other holiday light sets (W2 bulbs, C7 bulbs and 10W C bulbs). Eckman noted that, given the fact that the legitimate incremental cost of these lights is $3-$4, this isn't necessarily the most cost-effective energy savings measure. However, after a brief discussion, the RTF recommended that this item be added to the deemed measures list, at a credit of $1 per string, despite the relatively small savings associated with this item.

7. Next RTF Meeting Date.

            The next meeting of the Regional Technical Forum was set for September 17.  Meeting summary prepared by Jeff Kuechle, NWPPC contractor.

REGIONAL TECHNICAL FORUM ATTENDANCE LIST

 JULY 8, 2002