Proposed 2013 RTF Work Plan October 23, 2012

1. Proposed 2013RTF Work PlanOctober 23, 2012

2. 2013 compared to 2012

3. Proposed 2013 Work Plan

4. Work Plan additions since draft • Populate remaining components of EUL default table ($16,000) • Research project placeholder ($28,000) • End-Use Business Case Recommendation Solicitation ($10,000) • Coordination of UES and Standard Protocol data collection efforts ($24,000) • Re-worded from previous workplan item “Develop and execute RTF evaluation work plan”

5. Work Plan changes since draft • Decreased RTF Staff cost for updating UES workbooks with RBSA data (-$34,000) • Decreased contractor cost for Guidelines updates as needed (-$20,000) • Decreased website development and management ($-$10,000) • Increased measure component level information database development (+$10,000)

6. Proposed Revisions

7. Comments received • Q: Currently RTF only funded through 2014. Should work plan exclude budget and assumptions for 2015 until PAC has approved budget? • A: Indicating projections through 2015 helps build case for continuation of funding and priorities. • Q: Did not find line item for End-Use Load Shape work. • A: Added funding to cover development of brochure and marketing material to hand to regional entities for funding solicitation.

8. Comments received • Q: NEEA is funding ECAM, so what is purpose of additional funding from RTF? • A: Line item in RTF work plan for specific tailoring of ECAM time-series capability to RTF, and additional funding for maintenance. • Q: End-Use Load Data Library Development and Maintenance. Is this the work being done with PNNL? • A: No, this is for one-off end uses that may be discovered during 2013, and continual maintenance of database Cadmus developed.

9. Comments received • Q: See value in vetting non-RTF approved measures for 7th plan supply curves. • A: Expect review of non-RTF approved items to be handled through outside panel of experts. • Q: Valuable to allocate additional funds to regional research coordination. • A: Agree. Added line item to deal with research plans as they pertain to provisional data collection.

10. Comments received • Q: Is annual comparison of utility/SBC administrator TRM an RTF role? • A: Expect RTF-staff to perform research scan of regional TRMs for potential measures to help prioritize. • Q: Suggest increasing agenda time to 60 minutes for work plan discussion. • A: Agree. Compromising at 45 minutes.

11. Concerns about additional RTF Staff • Commenter Concerns • Skill set of proposed 3 RTF staff may not be diverse enough to take on wide array of work • Learning curve to ramp-up may take time and expect 3rd party contractors still needed • Potential pool of applicants may be limited • Commenter Suggestions • Review with Ops subcommittee to weigh pros/cons • Limit 3rd party contracts to less specialized contract language

12. Concerns about additional RTF Staff • RTF Staff position • Agree, it will take time to get staff up to speed • New staff developing workbooks that have recommendation memos as outlines serve as good introductions • Existing staff will lend hand as needed and serve as internal review, similar to how it’s done now • Risk of not finding adequate staff is small • If qualified candidates do not exist, or too few candidates apply, RTF staff will default to current contracting model

13. Concerns about additional RTF Staff • RTF Staff position • Reviewed model with Ops committee prior to September meeting, and will continue to review staff selections, contracts, and budgetary issues • Mid-year programming effort will inform RTF how workload is progressing and allow for adjustments to budget as needed for remainder of year • Less time will be spent refining contractor work to fit RTF standards; more staff time will be spent on doing work

14. RTF Proposed Motion • “I _________ move that the RTF approve the 2013 Work Plan and accompanying Business Plan and recommend them to the Council for final approval.