PTCS Subcommittee Report & Recommendations

1. PTCS Subcommittee Report & Recommendations June 2nd, 2009 Regional Technical Forum

2. Subcommittee Meeting Agenda Items Service Provider Specifications and HP Install Specifications changes for the simplified "pen & paper" heat pump sizing method. Check Me/Proctor jobs and issue with lack of data being submitted to PTCS Data Base. Allowable variances to PTCS standards for qualifying jobs that almost meet the PTCS specification. Role of enforcement for PTCS specification and documentation requirements; define whose job is it to enforce PTCS specifications; make recommendation to BPA on how to handle payment on jobs that don't meet the specification. When and how the RTF’s recommendations should go into effect. • May 29, 2009 • Attendees • Andres Morrison • Gary Curtis • Bryan Boe • David Hales • Mark Jerome • Mark Johnson • Ted Haskell • Adam Hadley

3. Item 1: Simplified HP Sizing Background: There was a desire to have the PTCS Service Provider collect and verify heat pump sizing in an effort to help utilities, many of whom struggle with verifying proper sizing. A sizing method simple enough to be included on the PTCS forms, which mimics the already-approved HP Sizing Calculator, has been developed and is awaiting RTF approval. Issues: The group wasn’t sure how big of an issue this was and whether it would be worth the effort to change the forms and the requirements. Solution: ECOS offered to perform a comparison of the sizing paperwork in the utilities’ files with sizing calculation results that QA agents will perform on (50-ish) upcoming QA site visits. Recommendation: The RTF should wait for the results of the ECOS mini-study, which will provide a sense of the magnitude of any undersizing issues.

4. Item 2: CheckMe Data Background: ECOS provides QA for CheckMe jobs. Proctor sends ECOS the job data. Issue: Proctor is not recording the utility name, so Ecos is having difficulty setting up QA visits. Solution: RTF should request that Proctor record utility name on all future jobs (Recording the utility name is already a requirement of registry PTCS Service Providers) Recommendation: RTF should discuss setting up a system for verifying PTCS Service Providers are meeting the standards

5. Item 3: Allowable Variances Background: Some technicians are turning in forms for jobs that do not meet the PTCS Standards (i.e. have low airflow, too leaky ducts, etc.). If these jobs get entered into the database, or turned into the utility, utilities feel the program requirement for PTCS certification has been met. Issue: Should technician certified systems that don’t meet the standards be entered into the PTCS qualifying database? Solution: No, they should not be entered into the database. ECOS will continue calling technicians in these cases, to ensure understanding of the specifications. If a system doesn’t meet the specification, it cannot be certified (by definition), so the technician should not sign the form nor turn it in to the utility or ECOS. Recommendation: For the purposes of a technician certifying a system, there are no allowable variances.

6. Item 4: Service Provider Standards Enforcement Background: To date, the RTF has acted only to approve PTCS Service Providers Issue: There is no system in place to oversee PTCS Service Providers to ensure they’re complying with the standards. Solution: Set up a system. For example: On an annual basis, check in with service providers, asking them for their list of approved trainers, technicians, and systems, and ask them for their QC and QA records, as applicable; spend the time necessary to review the data for inconsistencies with the specs. (Another solution would be to continue as is, enforcing deviations in rules as they come to peoples’ attention.) Recommendation: Realizing the above solution would take RTF resources, the subcommittee recommends the RTF discuss the issue and possible solutions, and provide direction to the subcommittee for how to proceed.

7. Item 5: Specification Updates Background: The RTF makes spec changes throughout the year, as issues come up. Issue: The RTF does not typically state when spec changes must be implemented, so program implementers are confused about which specification version to use. How out of date does a specification need to be before the installed measure does not meet the RTF/PTCS standards? In these cases, does that mean the deemed savings don’t apply? Solution: Since the RTF makes recommendations, spec changes and deemed energy savings can be used at the will of the program implementers. Recommendation: The RTF will post all versions of its specs on its website so all recent and previous versions are available. The subcommittee wanted to get the RTF’s opinion on publishing all spec changes on a regular schedule (once per year), to make it easier to plan for changes.