1 / 14

RTF Small Saver Review Process Proposal June 19, 2012

The RTF has initiated a review process to define and streamline the designation of "Small Savers" based on specific criteria and expected resource potential. This was discussed in several subcommittee meetings, including the Small/Rural Subcommittee, where various proposals for templates and flowcharts were presented. The aim is to clarify the small saver designation process while accommodating both small and larger utilities. The strategy includes gathering feedback, refining documentation, and testing the process, ensuring it aligns with guidelines while promoting transparency and efficiency in measure selection.

marie
Télécharger la présentation

RTF Small Saver Review Process Proposal June 19, 2012

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. RTF Small Saver Review ProcessProposalJune 19, 2012

  2. Small Savers as defined per Guidelines • RTF determines that likely savings from a measure are too small to warrant resources needed to meet reliability criteria of active or provisional UES • RTF considers size of regional end use affected by measure • Measure specifications required before RTF can designate measure as small saver • RTF may choose to convene an expert panel to consider proposed measure and formulate consensus opinion

  3. Small Saver process development • April Small/Rural Subcommittee meeting • Expect that small savers will come from S/R utilities • Noted a lack of specific criteria and path for approval in the guidelines for small savers • Talked about mapping out process through Guidelines • Develop template for utilities to apply for small savers • RTF Staff and Eugene Rosolie iterated over draft process

  4. Criteria questions that arose • When should a measure be considered for small saver status? • Who should make that designation? • What should be considered in designation? • Estimated resource potential? • Applicability to Small & Rural utilities? • How are small savers applied to small, rural and large utilities?

  5. Small Saver process development • May Small/Rural Subcommittee meeting • Presented draft flowchart and savings checklist for an example measure (T12->HPT8) • Originally developed checklist specific to small savers • Decided that Appendix A checklist adequately covered Small Saver designation • S/R subcommittee would be advocate for utilities that bring small saver measure forward • S/R subcommittee would help define characteristics with proposer • Proposed a small saver subcommittee as the next step after S/R designates measure as small saver and helps characterize

  6. Small Saver process development • May Operations Subcommittee meeting • Presented same flowchart and checklist • Received guidance to develop clearer process and better documentation of process • RTF staff looked at modifying process for small saver review

  7. More Questions, Less Answers • What is the Target Size for a Small Saver? • No consensus among members over setting a target “small” size • Many believe “we’ll know one when we see it” • What is the expected Resource Potential? • Inability of some utilities to accurately predict • Should S/R subcommittee be making small saver determination?

  8. Small Saver process development • June Small/Rural Subcommittee meeting • Presented revised flowchart and documentation • Agreement that process looks good as a start and should perhaps be tested at RTF

  9. Small Saver Flowchart: Part 1 SRR committee decides if measure should go forward Data source for measure Small/Rural utility proposes measure YES SRR committee works with proposer to develop measure characteristics NO Measure not pursued or is re-defined by proposer Measure Screening committee decides if measure should go forward Data source for measure Larger utility proposes measure YES NO Measure not pursued or is re-defined by proposer

  10. Small Saver Flowchart: Part 2 Is measure likely to achieve Active status? Measure Screening committee determines which Guidelines path is appropriate Measure put into RTF workplan for prioritization and development YES YES NO Measure is considered a Small Saver SRR committee remains engaged if proposer was S/R utility Measure Screening committee works with proposer to develop Small Saver measure

  11. Overall process benefits • Follows Guidelines approach that measures should trend towards active if possible • Both S/R and large utilities have an understanding of where measures go • Lessens burden on S/R subcommittee

  12. Measure Screening Committee Benefits • Small/Rural and Large utility coordination • Measures from large utilities that might be applicable to S/R utilities get picked up • If S/R checklist leads to measure variation, this modified measure enters through Measure Screening committee and process continues

  13. Measure Screening Committee Benefits • Committee looks at all new measures, not just ones that are “small” • Don’t form another subcommittee that spends time solely on smallest resource potential • Measures prioritized in workplan after Screening Committee reviews them • Easier for staff to assess measure needs and allocate resources • More transparent measure selection procedure

  14. Next steps • Test this out to see how process works • Bring measure through S/R subcommittee and solicit feedback • RTF staff serve as interim “measure screening” subcommittee to test out process • Refine process and bring back to RTF for decision on how to treat Small Savers

More Related