Proposed Edits to the Air Source Heat Pump Specifications

1. Proposed Edits to the Air Source Heat Pump Specifications Regional Technical Forum August 20, 2013

2. Background • BPA submitted a proposal to remove the programmatic requirements from the RTF’s Air Source Heat Pump Specifications • Applies to the “Commissioning, Controls, and Sizing” UES measures for SF and MH • Note: This would “replace” the “PTCS Heat Pump CC&S” UES measure • Subcommittee Reviewed the Proposal on July 2nd • Consensus on the proposed technical spec language • Disagreement on the Approach (removing PTCS) • Documents • Current ASHP Specification • PTCS Service Provider Standards • Proposed CC&S Specification • Posted to the meeting agenda page. • Tracked changes reflect edits based on comments received after subcommittee review/consensus • Today: RTF decision on how to proceed • Options: • Accept/Deny Proposal? • Edit Guidelines?

3. Approaches Compared

4. Subcommittee Opinions of the Proposed Approach to Remove PTCS In Favor • Removes RTF from making programmatic decisions • Not RTF’s role • RTF no longer needs to justify the (unsupported with data) link between the program specs and improved savings or delivery rates • For example, should the UES be de-rated, and by how much, if QA rate is moved from 10% to 5% to 1% to 0%? • Guidelines allow this approach • If guidelines are followed to the end, evaluated savings’ reliability should not suffer Opposed • PTCS requirements (if meaningfully enforced) encourage consistency and quality across the region • Risk of low Delivery Rate • No required contractor feedback mechanism • Could cause the whole program to be non-cost-effective (a.k.a. a waste of money) • Risk of overstated energy savings claims • “Booked” savings using the UES are always too high (if using contractor claims as the count) • Evaluation may not take place, or may be insufficient • For example, is a qualified person testing for airflow, sizing, and controls?

5. What do the Guidelines say? Evaluation of Proven UES Measures: 5.4.6.1.1. RTF-Proven Measures Delivery verification is carried out for a reliable random sample. For the sample, information is obtained; either from documentation or direct inspection, needed to match the verified units to the measure specifications (see the Roadmap). This allows a UES value to be associated with each delivered unit that is consistent with the latest version of RTF-approved values prior to the program delivery period. Savings for the units delivered during a program period can then be computed as the sum of the delivered count multiplied by the respective UES value for each measure.

6. Staff Proposal: Option 1 • Accept the proposal to remove program requirements. • Edit the Guidelines: • Require Proven UES measures to summarize the salient points of an evaluation. • For example, in this case: “Evaluation must estimate a delivery rate specific to this UES measure by, at minimum, performing on-site inspection to verify sizing and on-site testing to verify airflow, auxiliary heat control, minimum temperature split, and external static pressure meet the measure specification.” • Caution to Programs • Remember, UES savings only apply to measures that meet or exceed the technical specification. • If savings are booked for all contractor-claimed “measure installations”, booked savings will be overstated. Instead, • Assume an ex-ante delivery rate factor and apply to each claim; • Use program data (contractor testing reports? program inspections?) to omit claims that don’t meet the specification; or • Expect booked savings to be adjusted downward after evaluation results are in. • The low delivery rate risk is high. • Might want to think ahead of time about how to evaluate jobs that don’t meet the UES specification to avoid assigning them 0 kWh savings.

7. Staff Proposal: Option 2 • Denythe proposal to remove program requirements. • RTF continues to include program requirements in the measure specification. • Add a “technical compliance rate” factor to the UES estimate. • Provisional Research Plan would specify determining the technical compliance rate through on-site inspection and performance testing. • Any time the measure specification is edited, the measure would go to Provisional status until the technical compliance rate for that measure specification is reliably determined. • Program specification roles are clearly defined as follows: • Programs’ Role: Decide on all program details and decisions. • There would be no RTF debate/decision on what the programs require. • For example, whether the required QA inspection rate is 10% or 2% or 0%. • RTF’s Role: Decide what program details rise to the level of being in the measure specification. • The Question: Is the program detail in question expected to affect the compliance rate? • The subcommittee would review each of the existing program specifications with this question in mind and come back to the RTF with a proposed measure specification. • Staff’s Opinion: • The 3rd party onsite inspections and requirement to fix errors found is the only existing program detail that should be a part of the measure specification. • The following examples of current PTCS program specifications would not appreciably affect compliance rate and should not be included in the measure specification: Number of days of training received by Contractor; Experience of Trainer; Testing Requirements; and Content of the Contractor Reporting Form.

8. Discussion Staff Option 2 Benefits • Reliable UES estimate. • Allows programs to do what they want and test alternatives. • Allows the RTF to base its decisions on data, rather than guesses. • “Booked” savings are reliable. • Less risk of unexpected low evaluated savings • Maintains quality and consistency in Region’s HVAC installation practices Drawbacks • More complicated measure specification = more time developing, editing, and approving, also causes barriers to implementation. • Difficult to decide whether a program detail would affect the technical compliance rate, so more “complete” specifications are likely. • Programs likely to want to make tweaks along the way, so provisional status may often be the case. • Could lead to multiple iterations of measure specifications, depending on similarities of utilities’ programs. Staff Option 1 Benefits • Reliable UES estimate. • Allows programs to do what they want and test alternatives. • Allows the RTF to base its decisions on data, rather than guesses. • Simplest measure specification and UES estimate = less time for RTF. Drawbacks • Compliant unit count cannot be determined until after completion of evaluation. • Risk of “unexpected” low evaluated savings.

9. Decision • “I _______ move that the RTF accept Option __ for dealing with the Air Source Heat Pump Commissioning, Controls, and Sizing UES measure specification, with the following modifications, _________.”