RTF Quarterly Newsletter: Quarter No. 38 October-December 2019

Single Family Wx
First up was Residential Single Family Weatherization, which the RTF updated at October’s meeting. The RTF made several decisions of over the past year that have had some impact on savings, for example, using ‘next measure in’ approach, instead of a full measure package approach where interaction is divvyed up across measures, updates to mapping to weather stations, and an updated SEEM calibration, incorporating a new methodology and RBSA II. Each of these decisions resulted in some changes to the measure savings. While it is hard to parse out which decision resulted in which change for each measure, savings are generally lower. The biggest drop was for windows, many of which are no longer cost-effective per the Council assumptions. Staff believes that these results are reasonable, but recognizes that there isn’t a lot of data available. In light of that, the RTF decided that these measures should be considered Planning and set it to Under Review while staff develops a research strategy for RTF consideration.  

Manufactured Home Wx 
The RTF updated the Manufactured Home Weatherization UES very much in line with how it approached SF Weatherization, with a few key differences. One being that rather than using the calibration approved in September, the RTF opted to use a calibration factor derived from an Idaho Power evaluation conducted in 2011-12, which resulted in an increase in savings.  Another difference is that costs for specifically MH attic insulation increased significantly due to a choice in base costs on MH programs rather than SF costs, which greatly affected the cost-effectiveness. This measure is now considered Planning and the staff will be returning in 2020 with a Research Strategy.

Ductless Heat Pumps for Zonal Heat (SF/MH)
Also at the October meeting, the RTF updated the Ductless Heat Pumps for Zonal, Electrically Heated Homes UES measure. They approved updates to the measure specifications and identifiers, using new BPA and ETO evaluations to update the savings and using updated data from NEEA and ETO to adjust the costs.  They also approved updates to the methodology for cooling savings and to account for supplemental fuel value, and removed the ‘comfort’ benefit. Based on these updates, there are very few cost-effective applications for DHPs. Staff explained that the ideal measure specification would likely require installation of a DHP in the main living area of a home with no non-electric, supplemental heating sources present, and with a clear signal that the home is occupied year around relying on electricity as the main heating. Because the savings really matter on the specifics of the application, staff proposed new screened applications that attempt to identify homes that rely heavily on electricity for space heating. Some of these screen applications are cost-effective. As it is, this is a measure that simply doesn’t make sense for all homes. In light of this, the RTF directed staff to look at two more specific screens and report their findings back to the RTF for consideration at a later date.     

Air Source Heat Pump Conversions and Upgrades (SF/MH)
Finally, in December, the RTF got around to updating the Single Family and Manufactured Homes ASHP Upgrades and Conversions measures. For the conversion measure, the specification is converting from an electric FAF to an 8.5 HSPF heat pump. While the upgrade measure specifies upgrading from an 8.5 HSPF heat pump to either a 9.0 HSPF heat pump or a variable capacity heat pump. These measures are additive so a program can use both the conversion and the upgrade measure if the goal is, for example, conversion from an electric FAF to a 9.0 HSPF. Several changes to the proposed updates were made at the RTF meeting itself, so final savings, costs, or cost-effectiveness estimates are not yet ready to share. For ASHP Conversions the RTF opted to develop only an “any insulation” measure and to remove measure identifiers for good, fair and poor insulation.  The group determined that savings are to be based on weighted average results from evaluations and savings and costs will be estimated for two saving periods using an RUL approach. For ASHP Upgrades they did something similar, opting to develop an “any insulation” measure for upgrades as well, while savings are to be based on calibrated SEEM runs.