888 SW Fifth Ave. - Suite 1460

ECONorthwest 888 SW Fifth Ave. - Suite 1460 Portland, Oregon 97204 (503) 222-6060 (503) 222-1504 (fax)

1997 DSM EARNINGS CLAIM

VERIFICATION REPORT - 1998 AEAP

Pacific Gas & Electric Company ...... Table of Contents..

INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

Executive Summary 1

Introduction 2 Scope of Study 2 Brief Description of Programs that Received Application Level Review 3 Shared Savings Programs 3 Performance Adder Programs 4

PROCEDURES FOR APPLICATION-LEVEL REVIEW 4

Sampling 5 Sample Design 5 Nonresidential Energy Efficiency Programs 6 New Construction Program 6 Residential Appliance Efficiency Incentives Program 7 Verification Ratios 8 Engineering Review 10

Verification for Nonresidential Energy Efficiency Programs 11 Agricultural Energy Efficiency Programs 12 Sampling Method / Size 12 Verification Procedures 13 Results 13 Commercial Energy Efficiency Programs 14 Sampling Method / Size 14 Verification Procedures 14 Results 15 Industrial Energy Efficiency Programs 16 Sampling Method / Size 16 Verification Procedures 16 Results 17

Verification for New Construction Programs 17 Nonresidential New Construction Shared Savings 17 Sampling Method / Size 17 Verification Procedures 18 Results 18 Residential New Construction Shared Savings 19 Sampling Method/Size 19 Verification Procedures 19 Results 20

Verification for Residential Appliance Efficiency Incentives Programs 20 Refrigerator Rebate 20

ii ...... Sampling Method / Size .. 20 Verification Procedures .. 21 Results 21 PowerSavings Partners Residential Lighting 21 Sampling Method/Size 21 Verification Procedures 22 Results 22 PowerSavings Partners Residential Boilers 23 Sampling Method/Size 23 Verification Procedures 23 Results 24

Measure Cost Verification 24 Procedures 24 Results 25

Administrative Cost Verification 26 Procedure 26 Results 26 Review of Policy Documents 26 Administrative Costs as a Share of Program Costs 28 Peer Group Comparisons of Administrative Cost Ratios 30

Earnings Calculation Process 32 Shared Savings Programs 32 Performance Earnings Basis Calculation 33 Performance Adder Programs 34

System and Documentation 34

E-TABLE ADJUSTMENTS 34

APPENDIX A 36

Adjustments to PG&E’s AEEI, CEEI, and IEEI Programs 36

APPENDIX B 58

PowerSavings Partners Residential Lighting 58

PowerSavings Partners Residential Boiler 60

APPENDIX C 61

Nonresidential New Construction 61

iii ...... PG&E - 1997 Earnings Verification

Introduction and Executive Summary

Executive Summary This study reports a review, by ECONorthwest, ECOTOPE, Inc., and Clarks Energy Services Corporation (CESC), of the data and procedures used by Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) in its DSM shareholder earnings claim application. That is substantiated by its Shareholder Incentive Recovery for Pacific Gas & Electric Company's 1997 and 1997 Demand-Side Management Programs Testimony and Appendices, as filed with the California Public Utilities Commission in May of 1998. This verification involves (1) review of claimed and verified resource savings and performance earnings basis (PEB) of programs, (2) review of administrative cost allocations and procedures, and (3) general review of the adequacy of earnings claim and annual report documentation. The purpose of this study is to verify the earnings claim of PG&E of $42.802 million from their DSM programs for the year 1997.

The major findings of this review are:  Nonresidential Energy Efficiency Incentives Programs underwent application-level review. ECOTOPE and CESC evaluated the engineering aspects behind the claimed gross savings, while ECONorthwest completed the incentive payment and incremental cost verification. ECONorthwest analyzed the results of the file review and found:

The audit of the observations contained in the Commercial Energy Efficiency Incentives (CEEI) sample indicates that a reduction of $1.190 million should be made to PG&E’s total projected lifecycle shareholder earnings.

The audit of the observations contained in the Industrial Energy Efficiency Incentives (IEEI) sample indicates that a reduction of $3.136 million should be made to PG&E’s total projected lifecycle shareholder earnings.

Similarly, the audit of the observations contained in the Agricultural Energy Efficiency Incentives (AEEI) sample indicates that a reduction of $0.078 million should be made to PG&E’s total projected lifecycle shareholder earnings.

 The Nonresidential New Construction (NRNC) Shared Savings (SS) Program underwent an application level review by ECOTOPE and ECONorthwest. This program over-estimated Annual and Lifecycle Energy Savings by $1.845 million.

 The Residential New Construction (RNC) Shared Savings Program underwent an application level review by ECOTOPE, and no adjustments are indicated.

 The Residential Appliance Efficiency Incentives (RAEI) program underwent and application level review by ECONorthwest, and no adjustments are indicated.

1 ......  The administrative.. costs fall within an acceptable range in comparison to other utilities, and adequate accounting procedures appear to be in place. It does not appear that administrative costs have been inappropriately allocated.

 Throughout the verification process there was an evident effort on the part of PG&E to report findings accurately. Tracking precisely what PG&E did from the documentation provided sometimes proved difficult, however. In an effort to make the entire process go more smoothly, PG&E appointed one individual as the coordinator through whom all communications and data requests were funneled. ECONorthwest thus was able to contact one individual at PG&E, who knew at all times the status and importance of specific data requests. This individual also was responsible for ensuring that the people at PG&E working on the data requests were aware of the timeline involved. ECONorthwest found this system to work smoothly, and found that it improved the speed of data request processing.

Introduction The verification of this claim was a multi-step process. A detailed verification of application files was performed only on selected Shared Savings Programs. The majority of the other programs are Performance Adder Programs. They did not receive a file level review due to the relatively small scale of their claimed savings. All programs were included however, in the utility wide evaluation of the Administrative Costs.

Scope of Study Nonresidential Energy Efficiency Incentive Shared Savings Programs contributed $26.798 million to the $42.802 million earnings claim, or about 63% of the total. This program was divided into Commercial, Industrial, and Agricultural sectors that individually contained a number of programs including Retrofit Express, Retrofit Efficiency Options, Customized Incentives, and PowerSaving Partners Programs. The Commercial, Industrial, and Agricultural Retrofit Express, Customized Incentives and PowerSaving Partners programs were the main focus of our verification effort. We completed an analysis of individual applications for the Retrofit Express, Retrofit Efficiency Options, and PowerSaving Partners programs and formed comparisons between our results and those reported by PG&E. ECOTOPE and CESC performed an engineering review of the Commercial, Industrial, and Agricultural programs, verifying the claimed savings. ECONorthwest verified the claimed incentives and incremental measure costs, at the file level, for these programs respectively.

New Construction programs, both Residential and Nonresidential, were similar in 1997 to previous years due to the fact that they fell into both the Shared Savings and the Performance Adder categories. The earnings claimed by the Shared Savings Nonresidential New Construction program totals $12.414 million and the Performance Adder Nonresidential New Construction Program claim is $1,000. The Shared Savings Residential New Construction Claim is $1.003 million. The Performance Adder Residential New Construction failed to pass the dual benefit cost test (UC test failed), therefore this program did not earn shareholder earnings and consequently did not undergo a file review. ECOTOPE performed the engineering review of Nonresidential New Construction that is discussed below.

The remaining Shared Savings Program is the Residential Appliance Efficiency Program, which consisted of the refrigerator rebates and the powersavings partners DSM bidding programs (both boilers and lighting). The earnings claim for this program totaled $1.286 million.

Energy Management Services Programs (Residential, Commercial, Industrial, and Agricultural), and Direct Assistance Programs are all Performance Adder Programs. The

2 ...... earnings claim from the .remaining. Performance Adder Programs totaled $1.303 million. Because of the nature of ..Performance Adder Programs and the low associated earnings claim, the analysis of these remaining programs emphasizes verification of administrative costs.

Brief Description of Programs that Received Application Level Review Shared Savings Programs The Nonresidential Energy Efficiency Incentives Program is divided into three sectors: Commercial, Industrial, and Agricultural (C, I and A). PG&E operates programs in all three sectors. The utility programs that underwent file review were the two direct rebate programs (Retrofit Express Program and Retrofit Efficiency Options) and two custom rebate programs (Customized Incentives Program and PowerSaving Partners (for C and I only)).

The Retrofit Express Program offers rebates for the installation of fixtures in the following categories: lighting, air conditioning, refrigeration and food service, and motors. The incentives are specific to the item installed. The program is marketed by PG&E representatives as well as manufacturers, retailers, and distributors. The target market for this program is small and medium-sized Commercial customers, although all Commercial, Industrial and Agricultural customers are allowed to participate.

The Retrofit Efficiency Options Program offers incentives or low interest financing to customers who install specific energy measures. This program offers rebates on complex measures that are not offered in the Express Program, and provides the customer with a simpler application process than was used by the Custom Program in previous years. For example, the PG&E representatives or customers are able to complete the application calculations themselves in a relatively short period of time (significant difference from the Customized Incentives Program). This program is marketed through PG&E representatives.

The Customized Incentives Program was not offered to new customers in 1996 but applications that began the process before 1995 were honored. The 1994 program offered monetary incentives for customers trying to save either gas or electricity through large or complex project design. The base incentives were calculated using a rebate per unit of gas or electricity saved. In addition, bonuses were available for early completion of the project. This program targeted all customers who had large projects that would not have been implemented without additional funding from PG&E.

The PowerSaving Partners Program is a bidding program agreed to as part of the January 1990 collaborative agreement. PG&E worked with energy service companies (ESCOs) as well as customers and regulators to develop the program. It was open to a diverse target market. Different sections of the PowerSaving Partners program are included as part of other programs such as Nonresidential Energy Efficiency Program as well as Residential Energy Efficiency Program.

Performance Adder Programs The 1997 Nonresidential New Construction Program targeted buildings governed by Title 24 standards. Incentives were given to builders, owners, developers, and contractors who exceeded Title 24 standards for energy efficiency. The incentives consisted of design support, efficiency recommendations, and financial rebates.

3 ...... Procedures for Application-Level.. Review

The review procedures followed by ECONorthwest, ECOTOPE, and CESC for the programs employed the following steps.

 PG&E provided ECONorthwest with a database of all of the participant-application files in the individual programs.

 A stratified random sample of these files was drawn by ECOTOPE using standard statistical procedures.

 PG&E provided copies of the documentation associated with each file (“applications“) to ECONorthwest.

 The claimed performance measures in the database were identified. Potential performance measures included measure counts, annual and lifecycle energy savings (kilowatt hours, kilowatts, therms), incentives and incremental measure costs.

 The documentation in the sample files were reviewed in order to check the claimed performance measures. ECONorthwest completed the file level review of the incentives and the incremental measure cost, while ECOTOPE and CESC verified the annual energy savings using engineering analysis.

 ECOTOPE and CESC provided ECONorthwest with the results of their engineering verification, and ECONorthwest integrated the data sets.

 The total resource benefits, utility incentive cost, participant incremental costs and utility administrative costs were calculated for the applicable programs resulting in the total performance earnings basis.

 ECONorthwest compared the claimed performance to the verified performance, and determined the size and direction of recommended changes in the earnings claim.

The details of the sampling and application review are discussed below. Departures from these steps are discussed in the context of each program.

Sampling Sample Design A stratified random sample of applications was drawn for all programs. For the PG&E programs, the stratification variable used was avoided cost. The stratification variable is used as a seed variable to develop the sample. Its impact on the final assessment and on the verification rates is limited to its indirect effects on the number of strata, the stratum boundaries, and the sample size within each stratum.

The sample design process begins by determining the optimum size for the census stratum, consisting of the applications with the highest stratification-variable values. The Delenius- Hodges frequency square root technique is applied to the remaining population to determine the optimal number of sample strata and their boundaries. This technique starts by dividing the population into numerous, narrow strata. These strata are then aggregated in such a way that the cumulative square root of the frequencies within the narrow strata are approximately equal in the aggregated strata. The Delenius-Hodges technique is applied on the natural

4 ...... logarithm of the stratification.. variable and the resulting stratum boundaries are transformed back to stratification variable.. levels by taking their antilogs. The Neyman allocation technique is then applied to determine optimal stratum sample sizes in the sample strata. Under the Neyman allocation, the sample size for given stratum, h, as a proportion of the NhSh

sample size for all strata, is calculated as where Nh is the population of stratum h Nh Sh еh

and Sh is the standard deviation of the stratification variable in stratum h. For most programs, the overall sample size is chosen to achieve 90 percent confidence of sample means being within 10 percent of population means.

In the refrigerator rebate program, the performance measure can take one of three values and the verification of that program either confirms or zeros out those values within the sample. Since the stratification variable is discrete and verification is a binary process, the sample design process for this program differs from the others. The number of strata and their boundaries are defined by the claimed levels of the performance variable. The sample size is determined from the variance of a Bernoulli distribution with an assumed probability of 0.9875 (i.e. an assumed verification rate of 98.75 percent). An assumption about the likely verification rate is required to determine the appropriate sample size because of the use of the Bernouli distribution.

The following tables present descriptive statistics by program by strata of the Avoided Cost variable. This sample design was applied to programs targeted to each sector. The nonresidential EEI programs, for example, three separate delivery mechanisms are used: direct rebate, customer incentives, and power saving partners (DSM Bidding). These mechanisms have been combined, and the programs have been sampled by sector. As a result, samples are not representative of the individual delivery mechanisms.

Nonresidential Energy Efficiency Programs ECONorthwest sampled 147 applications for application level review. These files were promptly sent in full and arrived on May 15, 1998.

Table 1: Nonresidential Energy Efficiency Incentives Programs Descriptive Statistics Population Sample EnergyEfficiency Obs. In Mean Standard Dev. Of % of Claimed Obs. In Mean Standard Dev. Of Incentive Programs Stratum Stratum Range Stratum Avoided Cost Avoided Cost Avoided Cost Stratum Avoided Cost Avoided Cost Commercial 1 -2,827 2,814 993 774 3.0% 6 1,166 857 2 2,828 - 8,710 1,156 5,085 1,648 6.3% 5 4,719 1,733 3 8,711 - 19,110 651 12,754 2,877 8.9% 5 13,894 1,819 4 19,111 - 37,200 361 26,316 5,032 10.2% 5 29,127 3,941 5 37,201 - 67,000 223 49,842 8,689 11.9% 6 48,921 6,912 6 67,001 - 117,700 135 87,997 13,518 12.8% 5 82,080 5,193 7 117,701 - 210,000 71 157,750 26,308 12.0% 5 150,295 13,178 8 210,001 - 400,000 36 285,693 51,925 11.1% 5 295,672 43,157 9 400,001 - 24 917,340 586,049 23.7% 24 917,340 856,049

Totals 5,471 17,002 88,786 100.0% 66 381,752 660,345

Industrial 1 -16,595 428 4,284 4,095 3.6% 7 7,578 4,689 2 16,596 - 71,148 114 35,378 14,819 7.8% 7 32,036 14,585 3 71,149 - 155,586 69 109,449 18,799 14.6% 6 120,667 10,924 4 155,587 - 360,054 33 218,840 47,787 14.0% 5 210,495 24,505 5 360,055 - 21 1,472,435 1,689,157 60.0% 21 1,472,435 1,689,157

Totals 665 77,536 395,728 100.0% 46 716,846 1,336,214

Agricultural 1 -9,906 100 5,409 2,758 7.4% 6 5,320 2,417 2 9,907 - 31,120 52 16,509 5,301 11.8% 6 15,109 4,774 3 31,121 - 71,201 22 47,171 9,956 14.2% 5 50,550 12,142 4 71,202 - 20 242,793 189,420 66.6% 20 242,793 189,421

Totals 194 37,593 93,413 100.0% 37 141,383 177,992

5 ...... New Construction Program .. ECONorthwest sampled. .63 applications from the Nonresidential New Construction Shared Savings Program and 38 applications from the Residential New Construction Shared Savings Programs. These files were promptly sent in full and arrived on May 15, 1998.

6 ...... Table 2: New.. Construction Programs Descriptive Statistics Population Sample Obs. In Mean Standard Dev. Of % of Claimed Obs. In Mean Standard Dev. Of New Construction Stratum Stratum Range Stratum Avoided Cost Avoided Cost Avoided Cost Stratum Avoided Cost Avoided Cost Nonresidential 1 - 28,409 234 12,200 8,233 4.8% 9 15,918 10,034 Shared Savings 2 28,410 - 113,494 138 59,986 23,973 13.8% 9 52,862 23,143 3 113,495 - 256,405 61 163,606 34,539 16.7% 8 166,987 21,704 4 256,406 - 467,504 35 334,761 54,176 19.5% 7 341,286 34,176 5 467,505 - 30 903,409 437,986 45.2% 30 903,410 437,986

Totals 498 120,345 242,907 100.0% 63 506,940 498,212

Residential 1 - 4,297 323 2,391 836 10.3% 8 2,683 913 Shared Savings 2 4,298 - 7,622 182 6,089 855 14.7% 5 6,601 774 3 7,623 - 11,806 106 9,569 1,037 13.5% 4 8,932 877 4 11,807 - 17,486 98 14,607 1,781 19.0% 6 14,451 1,466 5 17,487 - 25,661 59 20,541 2,173 16.1% 4 20,515 2,103 6 25,662 - 44,933 40 31,603 4,564 16.8% 6 32,026 5,448 7 44,934 - 13 55,191 11,465 9.5% 5 55,936 14,504

Totals 821 9,159 9,771 100.0% 38 19,232 18,172

Residential Appliance Efficiency Incentives Program The stratification variable for the Residential Appliance Efficiency Incentives Programs varied by program. ECONorthwest sampled 15 applications from the PowerSavings Partners Residential Lighting, which was stratified by the kWh Saved. These files were promptly sent in full and were received by ECONorthwest on May 15, 1998.

Table 3: RAEI PowerSavings Partners Residential Lighting Population Sample Residential Appliance Obs. In Mean kWh Standard Dev. Of % of Claimed Obs. In Mean kWh Standard Dev. Of Efficiency Incentives Stratum Stratum Range Stratum Save kWh Save kWh Save Stratum Save kWh Save PSP Lighting 1 - 77,921 10 38,627 16,659 16.3% 6 34,958 14,938 2 77,922 - 149,184 7 89,245 15,200 26.4% 4 86,715 9,988 3 149,185 - 5 271,093 221,516 57.3% 5 271,093 221,516

Totals 22 107,565 135,179 100.0% 15 127,471 160,095

ECONorthwest sampled 25 applications from the PowerSavings Partners Residential Boilers, which was stratified by the Thm Saved. These files were promptly sent in full and were received by ECONorthwest on May 15, 1998.

Table 4: RAEI PowerSavings Partners Residential Boilers Population Sample Residential Appliance Obs. In Mean Thm Standard Dev. Of % of Claimed Obs. In Mean Thm Standard Dev. Of Efficiency Incentives Stratum Stratum Range Stratum Save Thm Save Thm Save Stratum Save Thm Save PSP Boilers 1 - 7,939 27 5,453 1,221 18.6% 5 4,840 1,144 2 7,940 - 19,247 15 10,651 2,199 20.2% 5 10,818 3,026 3 19,248 - 15 32,269 11,373 61.2% 15 32,270 11,373

Totals 57 13,878 12,722 100.0% 25 22,493 15,174

As discussed above, the sample drawn for the Refrigerator Rebate program differed from the others in that it was not stratified because of the relative homogeneity of savings associated with these rebates. In addition, verification of the savings claims made for this program involves simply confirming whether the rebate was justified or not (rather than making adjustments in the size of the savings). The Bernoulli sampling scheme employed an assumed verification rate of 0.9875. As a consequence of these assumptions, ECONorthwest drew a simple sample of 75 applications from the Refrigerator Rebate. These files were promptly sent in full and were received by ECONorthwest on May 15, 1998.

7 ...... Table.. 5: RAEI Refrigerator Rebate Population Sample Residential Appliance Efficiency Incentives Measure % Obs Obs Refrigerator Rebate 20 10,614 22 25 14,433 37 30 5,150 16

Totals 30,197 75

Verification Ratios The verification ratios and their statistical significance are estimated from the verified and claimed amounts in each category.

Verification ratios are calculated for each performance measure reviewed in each program using verified and claimed amounts. The verification ratio is the ratio of population-weighted verified performance in the sample to population-weighted claimed performance in the sample.

The mean and standard deviation of this ratio allow a t-statistic to be computed (based on the null hypothesis that the verification ratio is one, i.e., the claimed values are correct). If the verification ratio is significantly different from one, it is multiplied by the claimed amounts to yield the corrected amounts used in adjusting the earnings claim.

The t-ratio against the null hypothesis that the verification ratio is one is calculated from the estimated verification ratio and its variance, and is equal to: ˆ Rc -1

V (Rˆ c)

derived in the following fashion 1 y R = combined (across strata) verification= ratioN h c е h N h xh

Nh = population in stratumh

nh = sample size in stratumh

xh = claimed quantity in stratumh

yh = verified quantity in stratumh

and ˆ V(Rc ) = variance of the verification ratio

calculated as

8 ...... N.. N - n ˆ 1 h..( h h)ж 2 2 2 Nh ц V(Rc ) = 2 Sy + R Sx - 2 cov(xh , yh) . е з h h ч (Nx ) h nh и Nh -1ш

This estimate of the variance is derived using Cochran’s analysis of ratio estimators.1

N2(1- f ) (1) V Yˆ = h h S2 + 2Rr S S from Cochran ( R c ) ( yh h yh xh ) еh nh where Yˆ = XR = estimate ofY obtained by applyingR to total claimed quantity R c c c 1 (2) V (Rˆ ) = 2 V (YˆR ) from Cochran (Nx ) so N2 1 - f 1 h ( h) 2 (3) V (Rˆc ) = 2 (Sy + 2RrhSy Sx ) from (1) and (2) е h h h (Nx ) h nh

nh fh = in Cochran's Notation Nh

cov(xh, yh) Nh rh = Ч in Cochran's notation Sxh Syh Nh -1

Sx = sample standard deviationx of

The critical value for the t-statistic calculated in this manner depends upon the sample size and the desired level of precision. For very large samples, and a 90.10 precision criterion the t-ratio must be greater than 1.645 if the null hypotheses that the verification ratio equals 1.0 is rejected. For smaller samples, larger t-ratios are required. The critical value is obtained from standard tabulations of these values for the t-distribution.

Engineering Review ECOTOPE and CESC conducted an engineering review of each selected, sampled file in the context of the specific program and type of savings claim. For files involving programs in which incentives were paid for pre-arranged rebated products (such as some certain lighting fixtures, efficient motors, etc.), savings calculations are determined by Advice Filings used by the utility to demonstrate its program to the CAPUC (Advice Letter No. 1978-G/1608-E, October 1, 1996). In these programs, the prescriptive energy conservation measures and estimated savings are compared against the normalized values in the Advice Filing for consistency with the engineering assumptions and savings calculations.

An alternative engineering analysis was used for custom measures. The utility’s conservation program subject to a direct engineering review of the specific set of proposed measures for a particular file, or alterations implied by the engineering standards associated with that end use or piece of equipment. These custom measures dominated the new construction sites in the

1 For further discussion of the properties of ratio estimates under stratified random sampling, see Cochran, W.G. 1977 Sampling Techniques. 3rd edition. New York: Wiley. Chapter 6.

9 ...... PG&E program, where the.. Title 24 standard is used as a base case. These projects involved custom engineering calculations.. for high efficiency controls or HVAC equipment.

The industrial sector similarly uses the custom program to design energy efficient processes which are partly supported by the utility’s conservation program. The engineering was reviewed for each file, documenting hours of operation, overall changes in connected load, and consistency with the Advice Filing and/or standard engineering practice for the particular implied load.

The deferred savings claims were reviewed for all custom incentive applications. This review checked the base production of the facility before the utility sponsored improvements. Savings were calculated using this level of production as a base and the reduction in energy use per unit of production as the basis for the load impact estimates. Where the upgrades resulted in increased production, no savings were allowed for this new production increment. While the status of these deferred savings is not resolved, this interpretation is consistent with reviews conducted in other utility DSM programs throughout California.

The engineering review was conducted for the entire CIA energy efficiency program. In all cases, incremental measure costs for the conservation measures and incentives were reviewed. However, changes to the incremental costs were made only in the cases where measures were prescriptive and the cost reported was inconsistent with the data sets. This was not a large problem; however, the standardized data sets cannot be appropriately applied to custom measures in the commercial or industrial sectors.

The residential new construction program was reviewed for incentives only since it was in effect a rebate program where savings claims were derived from the Advice Filing.

Verification for Nonresidential Energy Efficiency Programs Retrofit Express

PG&E provided the requested applications for the Commercial, Industrial, and Agricultural sectors separated into the three, separate groups. There is no indication on the forms as to which sector the application actually belongs. Hence, ECONorthwest based the review on the assumption that PG&E had placed these files in the correct sector. In addition, there are distinct building types that have different energy savings associated with the same measures. ECONorthwest has requested in the past that a building type designation be placed on the application. The building type often is not obvious from the name of the customer. ECONorthwest used the building designation reported in the database provided by PG&E.

 For each application, ECONorthwest verified that the rebate amount was calculated correctly by multiplying the number of units purchased by the rebate amount, using the rebate tables found on the customer application form.

 The number of units purchased was verified using the receipts that were included with each application.

 Measure savings were verified for each application by both ECOTOPE and CESC. The following savings categories were verified: annual kWh, kW, and therms. (See the Engineering Review Section)

 ECONorthwest verified the incremental measure costs using the appropriate Economic Summary and Measure Impact Tables, in conjunction with the receipts in the application and technical documentation for each measure.

10 ...... With minor variations, these.. procedural steps were followed for each of the three sectors within the Retrofit Express...

Retrofit Customized

 For each application, ECONorthwest verified that the rebate amount was calculated correctly, by reproducing the Project Cost and the Potential Incentives, as presented in the Documentation Worksheet of each file, taking the lesser of the Total Potential Incentives or 50% of Project cost.

 Measure savings were verified for each application by ECOTOPE and CESC. The following savings categories were verified: annual kWh, kW, and therms.

 ECONorthwest verified the incremental measure costs using the appropriate Economic Summary and Measure Impact Tables, in conjunction with the receipts in the application and technical documentation for each measure.

With minor variations, these procedural steps were followed for each of the three sectors within the Retrofit Express.

PowerSaving Partners

Due to the nature of the PowerSaving Partners Program, the file review required a different verification technique than the other Nonresidential Energy Efficiency Programs:

 For each site, ECONorthwest reviewed the Installation Year Store Invoice Calculations, Pre-and Post-Installation Records, Payment Stream Calculations, and Participant Costs.

 The rebate is based on the annual kWh savings and an agreed upon price per kWh between PG&E and the customer over a time period of ten years. The rebate was verified using information provided in the application as well as a spreadsheet provided by PG&E, upon request, containing payment growth indexes specified in the contract between PG&E and the customer.

 Measure savings were verified for each application by ECOTOPE and CESC. The following savings categories were verified: annual kWh, kW, and therms. (See the Engineering Review Section)

 ECOTOPE and CESC verified the incremental measure costs using the appropriate Economic Summary and Measure Impact Tables, in conjunction with the receipts in the application and technical documentation for each measure.

 Measure Costs were verified using receipts provided with the application and correspondence between the utility and the customer. For this program, Measure Cost and Incremental Measure Cost are the same by definition.

In any file where an adjustment was made to either the engineering analysis or the measure costs, an explanation of the change and, to the extent possible, a recalculation was produced. This record is contained in Appendix A and B for each program reviewed. These modifications were entered into the database for purposes of calculating the verification ratios and associated statistics for each program.

11 ...... Agricultural Energy Efficiency Programs.. Sampling Method / Size Of the three sectors of the Nonresidential Energy Efficiency Incentives programs, PG&E claims the lowest earnings for the Agricultural sector. The claim is $1.216 million for all Agricultural Energy Efficiency Programs. The Agricultural Energy Efficiency Programs have the smallest number of participants. Table 6 displays the disaggregation of Agricultural applications into four sample strata.

12 ...... Table 6: Sampling Distribution.. for the Agricultural Energy Efficiency Programs Population Sample EnergyEfficiency Obs. In Mean Standard Dev. Of % of Claimed Obs. In Mean Standard Dev. Of Incentive Programs Stratum Stratum Range Stratum Avoided Cost Avoided Cost Avoided Cost Stratum Avoided Cost Avoided Cost Agricultural 1 -9,906 100 5,409 2,758 7.4% 6 5,320 2,417 2 9,907 - 31,120 52 16,509 5,301 11.8% 6 15,109 4,774 3 31,121 - 71,201 22 47,171 9,956 14.2% 5 50,550 12,142 4 71,202 - 20 242,793 189,420 66.6% 20 242,793 189,421

Totals 194 37,593 93,413 100.0% 37 141,383 177,992 Verification Procedures This sector was reviewed separately because of various difficulties experienced in the past with assessing the savings from these files. A separate field review was planned. This was not performed. Instead, only a “paper” file review was conducted. Careful attention to the pump curves and specifications was paid. The verification ratio for the agricultural programs was approximately 95% for kW and 90% for therms. The results of the engineering review are reported in Appendix A.

Table 7 reports the means and standard deviations by stratum for the key variables. The “Reported” columns contain the values that were reported by PG&E in the database while the “Revised” columns reflect the changes made to these values by ECONorthwest, ECOTOPE, and CESC as a result of the paper verification process.

Table 7: Agricultural Energy Efficiency Programs, Means of Key Components by Stratum

Stratum / kWh kW Thm Rebate Measure Cost Statistics Reported Revised Reported Revised Reported Revised Reported Revised Reported Revised Stratum 1 Mean 14,929 14,929 3.81 3.81 - - 659 659 6,697 6,697 Std. Dev. 13,175 13,175 3.08 3.08 - - 477 477 4,826 4,826

Stratum 2 Mean 31,792 31,793 9.97 9.97 - - 1,361 1,361 11,701 11,701 Std. Dev. 12,525 12,525 2.79 2.79 - - 317 317 8,566 8,566

Stratum 3 Mean 139,100 74,894 21.86 21.86 - - 13,373 13,373 38,287 38,287 Std. Dev. 108,126 58,658 11.24 11.24 - - 13,474 13,474 26,067 26,067

Stratum 4 Mean 339,308 340,390 134.72 134.72 17,022 15,287 44,001 44,001 223,786 223,786 Std. Dev. 298,334 308,094 136.68 136.68 45,164 39,171 33,315 33,315 181,891 181,891

Results After ECONorthwest and CESC collected and updated the key variables, verification rates were expanded to the population by ECONorthwest. The overall verification ratio was then tested for statistical significance (against the null hypothesis that the ratio is 1.0).2 These results are reported in Table 8.

2 For large sample sizes, the t-statistic must exceed 1.645 in absolute value for the verification ratio to be considered significantly different from 1.0. For smaller samples, the critical value is higer.

13 ...... Table 8:.. Verification Results of the Agricultural Program Incremental kW Savings kWh Savings thm Savings Incentives Measure Cost (000) (000,000) (000) ($000) ($000) Reported 3.988 12.738 580.624 1.424 4,524 Revised 3.778 11.375 521.450 1.424 4,524 * * t (4.69) (1.22) ∞ (0.56) 1.72 Verification Ratio 0.9472 0.8929 0.8981 1.0000 1.0000 * Not statistically significant ∞ All thm adjustments made in census strata, therefore the correction is exact.

Commercial Energy Efficiency Programs

Sampling Method / Size The Commercial sector represents the largest earnings claim, $16.033 million for all Commercial Energy Efficiency Programs. The largest number of customers in the Nonresidential Energy Efficiency Programs is in the Commercial sector. Table 9 displays the disaggregation of the Commercial applications into nine sample strata.

Table 9: Sampling Distribution for the Commercial Energy Efficiency Programs

Population Sample EnergyEfficiency Obs. In Mean Standard Dev. Of % of Claimed Obs. In Mean Avoided Standard Dev. Incentive Programs Stratum Stratum Range Stratum Avoided Cost Avoided Cost Avoided Cost Stratum Cost Of Avoided Cost Commercial 1 -2,827 2,814 993 774 3.0% 6 1,166 857 2 2,828 - 8,710 1,156 5,085 1,648 6.3% 5 4,719 1,733 3 8,711 - 19,110 651 12,754 2,877 8.9% 5 13,894 1,819 4 19,111 - 37,200 361 26,316 5,032 10.2% 5 29,127 3,941 5 37,201 - 67,000 223 49,842 8,689 11.9% 6 48,921 6,912 6 67,001 - 117,700 135 87,997 13,518 12.8% 5 82,080 5,193 7 117,701 - 210,000 71 157,750 26,308 12.0% 5 150,295 13,178 8 210,001 - 400,000 36 285,693 51,925 11.1% 5 295,672 43,157 9 400,001 - 24 917,340 586,049 23.7% 24 917,340 856,049

Totals 5,471 17,002 88,786 100.0% 66 381,752 660,345

Verification Procedures ECONorthwest, ECOTOPE, and CESC followed the procedures outlined in Protocol Audit Procedures for the file review of the Commercial Energy Efficiency Programs. The results are reported in Appendix A.

Table 10 reports the means and standard deviations by stratum for the key variables. The “Reported” columns contain the claimed values that were reported by PG&E in their database while the “Revised” columns reflect the changes made to these values by ECONorthwest, ECOTOPE, and CESC as a result of the paper verification process.

14 ...... Table 10: Commercial.. Energy Efficiency Programs, Means of Key Components Stratum / kWh kW Thm Rebate Measure Cost Statistics Reported Revised Reported Revised Reported Revised Reported Revised Reported Revised Stratum 1 Mean 3,060 3,060 0.74 0.67 - - 309 309 1,202 1,202 Std. Dev. 3,060 3,060 0.74 0.67 - - 309 309 1,202 1,202

Stratum 2 Mean 11,289 10,081 2.46 2.00 - - 519 519 4,538 4,538 Std. Dev. 11,289 10,081 2.46 2.00 - - 519 519 4,538 4,538

Stratum 9 Mean 1,411,794 1,341,888 291.86 279.79 37,036 - 301,966 291,463 272,414 284,258 Std. Dev. 1,411,794 1,341,888 291.86 279.79 37,036 - 301,966 291,463 272,414 284,258

Results The statistical analysis performed on the Agricultural programs was repeated for the Commercial program. ECONorthwest then conducted two-tailed tests of the significance of the verification ratio. The results are reported in Table 11. The only significant adjustment was made to the therms saved, which were zeroed out due to an inappropriate calculation of energy savings.3 The incentives and incremental costs were correctly calculated and required no adjustments.

3 In all cases, the t-statistic must exceed 1.668 in absolute value for the verification ratio to be considered significantly different from 1.0.

15 ...... Table 11:.. Verification Results of the Commercial Programs Incremental kW Savings kWh Savings thm Savings Incentives Measure Cost (000) (000,000) (000) ($000) ($000) Reported 38.81 192.46 1,033.42 17,993.00 44,740.00 Revised 36.68 189.06 - 16,296.14 45,949.40 * * * * t (1.659) (1.523) ∞ (0.726) 0.442 Verification Ratio 0.945 0.982 - 0.906 1.027 * Not statistically significant ∞ All thm adjustments made in census strata, therefore the correction is exact.

Industrial Energy Efficiency Programs Sampling Method / Size The Industrial sector earnings claim is $9.549 million for all Industrial Energy Efficiency Programs. Table 12 displays the disaggregation of Industrial applications into five sample strata.

Table 12: Sampling Distribution for the Industrial Energy Efficiency Programs Population Sample EnergyEfficiency Obs. In Mean Standard Dev. Of % of Claimed Obs. In Mean Standard Dev. Incentive Programs Stratum Stratum Range Stratum Avoided Cost Avoided Cost Avoided Cost Stratum Avoided Cost Of Avoided Cost Industrial 1 -16,595 428 4,284 4,095 3.6% 7 7,578 4,689 2 16,596 - 71,148 114 35,378 14,819 7.8% 7 32,036 14,585 3 71,149 - 155,586 69 109,449 18,799 14.6% 6 120,667 10,924 4 155,587 - 360,054 33 218,840 47,787 14.0% 5 210,495 24,505 5 360,055 - 21 1,472,435 1,689,157 60.0% 21 1,472,435 1,689,157

Totals 665 77,536 395,728 100.0% 46 716,846 1,336,214

Verification Procedures ECONorthwest, ECOTOPE, and CESC followed the procedures outlined in Protocol Audit Procedures for the file review of the Industrial Energy Efficiency Programs. The results are reported in Appendix A.

Table 13 reports the means and standard deviations by stratum for the key variables. The “Reported” columns contain the values that were reported by PG&E in their database while the “Revised” columns reflect the changes made to these values by ECONorthwest, ECOTOPE, and CESC as a result of the paper verification process.

16 ...... Table 13: Industrial ..Energy Efficiency Programs, Means of Key Components Stratum / kWh . kW Thm Rebate Measure Cost Statistics Reported Revised Reported Revised Reported Revised Reported Revised Reported Revised Stratum 1 Mean 21,715 21,715 3.98 3.86 - - 958 958 5,579 5,579 Std. Dev. 14,091 14,091 3.71 3.76 - - 1,278 1,279 5,972 5,972

Stratum 4 Mean 403,848 391,411 89.73 83.20 16,507 16,507 34,700 34,701 193,825 193,825 Std. Dev. 267,636 267,875 70.29 68.92 36,911 36,911 16,134 16,135 126,749 126,749

Stratum 5 Mean 2,350,978 1,484,421 288.22 193.24 130,952 130,952 446,765 446,765 418,648 418,648 Std. Dev. 1,870,015 1,128,553 195.64 153.88 600,099 600,099 544,776 544,776 437,027 437,027

Results The statistical analysis performed on the Agricultural and Commercial programs was repeated for the Industrial program. ECONorthwest then calculated verification ratios and tested them for significance. The results are reported in Table 14. The verification ratio for the industrial programs studied is approximately 74% for kWh and approximately 77% for kW claimed. No adjustment was made to therms. The incentives and incremental measure cost were correctly calculated and also required no adjustments.

Table 14: Verification Results of the Industrial Programs Incremental kW Savings kWh Savings thm Savings Incentives Measure Cost (000) (000,000) (000) ($000) ($000) Reported 12.13 91.80 3,119.64 13,744.00 14,442.00 Revised 9.34 67.90 3,119.64 13,744.01 14,441.99 t (6.542) (6.450) (0.000) * 0.120 * (0.000) * Verification Ratio 0.7705 0.7396 1.00 1.00 1.00 * Not statistically significant

Verification for New Construction Programs Nonresidential New Construction Shared Savings Sampling Method / Size The nonresidential sector earnings claim is $12.414 million for all Nonresidential New Construction Shared Savings Programs. Table 15 displays the disaggregation of Nonresidential New Construction applications in to five strata.

17 ...... Table 15: Sampling Distribution.. for the Nonresidential New Construction Shared Savings . Program Population Sample Obs. In Mean Standard Dev. Of % of Claimed Obs. In Mean Avoided Standard Dev. New Construction Stratum Stratum Range Stratum Avoided Cost Avoided Cost Avoided Cost Stratum Cost Of Avoided Cost Nonresidential 1 - 28,409 234 12,200 8,233 4.8% 9 15,918 10,034 Shared Savings 2 28,410 - 113,494 138 59,986 23,973 13.8% 9 52,862 23,143 3 113,495 - 256,405 61 163,606 34,539 16.7% 8 166,987 21,704 4 256,406 - 467,504 35 334,761 54,176 19.5% 7 341,286 34,176 5 467,505 - 30 903,409 437,986 45.2% 30 903,410 437,986

Totals 498 120,345 242,907 100.0% 63 506,940 498,212

Verification Procedures ECOTOPE performed the engineering-based verification for the Nonresidential New Construction Program. The results are discussed in Appendix C.

Table 16 reports the means and standard deviations by stratum for the key variables. The “Reported” columns contain the values that were reported by PG&E in their database while the “Revised” columns reflect the changes made to these values by ECOTOPE as a result of the paper verification process.

Table 16: Nonresidential New Construction Shared Savings, Means of Key Components

Stratum / kWh kW Rebate Statistics Reported Revised Reported Revised Reported Revised Stratum 1 Mean 28,156 27,182 11.33 11.33 3,821 3,821 Std. Dev. 19,590 19,005 7.25 7.25 3,002 3,002

Stratum 2 Mean 101,738 101,738 28.54 26.55 11,446 11,446 Std. Dev. 85,288 85,288 11.80 14.91 6,103 6,103

Stratum 5 Mean 1,696,832 1,345,360 497.09 436.00 159,790 159,527 Std. Dev. 1,118,731 1,037,299 246.11 278.37 79,287 79,560 Results ECONorthwest then calculated verification ratios and tested them for significance. The results are reported in Table 17. As with the other programs, a modest reduction adjustment resulted. A verification ratio of approximately 93% was applied to claimed kWh and 88% to the claimed kW. A slight decrease in the claimed incentives was also made. (No savings were claimed for gas savings under this program.)

Table 17: Verification Results of the Nonresidential New Construction Program kW Savings kWh Savings Incentives (000) (000,000) ($000) Reported 32.68 125.63 18 10,969.00 Revised 30.30 110.99 10,961.05 t (8.246) (8.873) (20.957) Verification Ratio 0.9274 0.8835 0.9993 ......

Residential New Construction Shared Savings Sampling Method/Size The residential sector earnings claim is $1.003 million for all Residential New Construction Shared Savings Programs. Table 18 displays the disaggregation of the Residential New Construction Shared Savings Program in to seven strata.

Table 18: Sampling Distribution for the Residential New Construction Shared Savings Programs Population Sample Obs. In Mean Standard Dev. Of % of Claimed Obs. In Mean Standard Dev. New Construction Stratum Stratum Range Stratum Avoided Cost Avoided Cost Avoided Cost Stratum Avoided Cost Of Avoided Cost Residential 1 - 4,297 323 2,391 836 10.3% 8 2,683 913 Shared Savings 2 4,298 - 7,622 182 6,089 855 14.7% 5 6,601 774 3 7,623 - 11,806 106 9,569 1,037 13.5% 4 8,932 877 4 11,807 - 17,486 98 14,607 1,781 19.0% 6 14,451 1,466 5 17,487 - 25,661 59 20,541 2,173 16.1% 4 20,515 2,103 6 25,662 - 44,933 40 31,603 4,564 16.8% 6 32,026 5,448 7 44,934 - 13 55,191 11,465 9.5% 5 55,936 14,504

Totals 821 9,159 9,771 100.0% 38 19,232 18,172

Verification Procedures Table 19 reports the means and standard deviations by stratum for the key variables. The “Reported” columns contain the values that were reported by PG&E in their database while the “Revised” columns reflect the changes made to these values by ECONorthwest as a result of the paper verification process.

19 ...... Table 19: Residential New.. Construction Shared Savings, Means of Key Components by . Stratum Stratum / Incentives Statistics Reported Revised Stratum 1 Mean 663.00 685.50 Std. Dev. 229.34 239.30 Stratum 2 Mean 684.29 724.29 Std. Dev. 268.24 236.97 Stratum 3 Mean 781.67 781.67 Std. Dev. 236.28 236.28 Stratum 4 Mean 607.14 647.14 Std. Dev. 230.92 185.00 Stratum 5 Mean 551.25 596.25 Std. Dev. 209.88 252.43 Stratum 6 Mean 5,972.79 5,972.79 Std. Dev. 14,001.59 14,001.59

Results Because this is a measure based program, no savings were computed in the files. Only the number of measures were is reported. No verification of savings implications could be conducted, but an incentive review was conducted which resulted in no significant change. The summary results of this review are shown in Table 20.

Table 20: Residential New Construction Verification Summary Incentives Paid ($000) Reported 2,927.75 Revised 3,012.65 t 0.094 Verification Ratio 1.029 * * Not statistically significant.

Verification for Residential Appliance Efficiency Incentives Programs Refrigerator Rebate

Sampling Method / Size The refrigerator rebate sector earnings claim is roughly $.337 million, which is approximately 26% of the total $1.286 million associated to the Residential Appliance Efficiency Incentives Programs. Table 21 displays the disaggregation of Refrigerator Rebate applications in to three categories.

20 ...... Table 21: Sampling.. Distribution for the Refrigerator Rebate Program Population Sample Residential Appliance Efficiency Incentives Measure % Obs Obs Refrigerator Rebate 20 10,614 22 25 14,433 37 30 5,150 16

Totals 30,197 75

Verification Procedures Table 22 reports the mean and standard deviation by stratum for the key variable. The “Reported” columns contain the values that were reported by PG&E in their database while the “Revised” columns reflect the changes made to these values by ECONorthwest as a result of the paper verification process.

Table 22: Refrigerator Rebate, Means of Key Components Stratum / Rebate Statistics Reported Revised Stratum 1 Mean 40 40 Std. Dev. - -

Stratum 2 Mean 60 60 Std. Dev. - -

Stratum 3 Mean 80 80 Std. Dev. - -

Results ECONorthwest did not perform any statistical testing because there was no difference between the Reported and Revised values. ECONorthwest recommends no change to the 1997 Refrigerator Rebate Program.

PowerSavings Partners Residential Lighting Sampling Method/Size The powersavings partners residential lighting sector earnings claim is roughly $0.261 million, which is approximately 20% of the total $1.286 million associated to the Residential Appliance Efficiency Incentives Programs. Table 23 displays the disaggregation of the PowerSavings Partners Residential Lighting Program in to three strata.

21 ...... Table 23: Sampling Distribution.. for the PowerSavings Partners Residential Lighting . Programs Population Sample Residential Appliance Obs. In Mean kWh Standard Dev. Of % of Claimed Obs. In Mean kWh Standard Dev. Of Efficiency Incentives Stratum Stratum Range Stratum Save kWh Save kWh Save Stratum Save kWh Save PSP Lighting 1 - 77,921 10 38,627 16,659 16.3% 6 34,958 14,938 2 77,922 - 149,184 7 89,245 15,200 26.4% 4 86,715 9,988 3 149,185 - 5 271,093 221,516 57.3% 5 271,093 221,516

Totals 22 107,565 135,179 100.0% 15 127,471 160,095

Verification Procedures ECONorthwest followed the procedures outlined in Protocol Audit Procedures for the file of the Residential Appliance Efficiency Incentives Programs. The results are reported in Appendix B.

Table 24 reports the means and standard deviations by stratum for the key variables. The “Reported” columns contain the values that were reported by PG&E in their database while the “Revised” columns reflect the changes made to these values by ECONorthwest as a result of the paper verification process.

Table 24: PowerSavings Partners Residential Lighting, Means of Key Components by Stratum Stratum / kWh Statistics Reported Revised Stratum 1 Mean 39,958 35,022 Std. Dev. 14,938 14,868

Stratum 2 Mean 86,715 86,706 Std. Dev. 9,988 9,991

Results Adjustments made to the residential lighting program, while statistically significant, were slight. The summary results of this review are shown in Table 25.

22 ...... Table 25: PowerSavings.. Partners Residential Lighting Verification Summary kWh Savings (000,000) Reported 2.366 Revised 2.356 t (27.327) Verification Ratio 0.996

PowerSavings Partners Residential Boilers Sampling Method/Size The powersavings partners residential boilers sector earnings claim is roughly $.686 million, which is approximately 53% of the total $1.286 million associated to the Residential Appliance Efficiency Incentives Programs. Table 26 displays the disaggregation of the PowerSavings Partners Residential Boilers Program in to three strata.

Table 26: Sampling Distribution for the PowerSavings Partners Residential Boilers Programs Population Sample Residential Appliance Obs. In Mean ThmStandard Dev.% Of of ClaimedObs. In Mean ThmStandard Dev. Of Efficiency IncentivesStratum Stratum RangeStratum Save Thm Save Thm SaveStratum Save Thm Save PSP Boilers 1 - 7,939 27 5,453 1,221 18.6% 5 4,840 1,144 2 7,940 - 19,247 15 10,651 2,199 20.2% 5 10,818 3,026 3 19,248 - 15 32,269 11,373 61.2% 15 32,270 11,373 Totals 57 13,878 12,722 100.0% 25 22,493 15,174

Verification Procedures ECONorthwest followed the procedures outlined in Protocol Audit Procedures for the file of the Residential Appliance Efficiency Incentives Programs. The results are reported in Appendix B.

Table 27 reports the means and standard deviations by stratum for the key variables. The “Reported” columns contain the values that were reported by PG&E in their database while the “Revised” columns reflect the changes made to these values by ECONorthwest as a result of the paper verification process.

23 ...... Table 27: PowerSavings.. Partners Residential Boilers, Means of Key Components by . Stratum

Stratum / thm Statistics Reported Revised Stratum 1 Mean 4,840 4,840 Std. Dev. 1,144 1,144

Results Although there were slight differences between claimed and verified amounts, none resulted in significant changes. The summary results of this review are shown in Table 28.

Table 28: PowerSavings Partners Residential Boilers Verification Summary

thm Savings (000,000) Reported 0.791 Revised 0.778 t - 1.212 * Verification Ratio 0.984 * Not statistically significant Measure Cost Verification Due to the important role that measure costs and incremental measure costs play in the earnings calculations and the E and D Tables, it is necessary to verify the method used to obtain the measure cost and whether any adjustments to the costs are necessary.

Procedures ECONorthwest reviewed the incremental measure costs as part of the file verification process of the Commercial, Industrial, and Agricultural Energy Efficiency Programs. The adjustments that were made to the incremental measure costs are displayed in the previous sections.

ECONorthwest evaluated PG&E’s measure cost method based on the definition provided in the M&E Protocol C Tables, the implied method as provided by PG&E March 28, 1997 (see Appendix C), and the files themselves. The definition is as follows:

Measure Cost estimates must be based on (a) costs shown on collected customer invoices adjustments to calculate incremental measure costs, or if not available, (b) incremental costs collected and reported in the biennial Measure Cost Study filed by the California DSM Measurement Advisory Committee (CADMAC), or if not available, (c) incremental measure costs collected and used to conduct customer cost-effective analysis, or if not available, (d) estimates of incremental measure costs filed in the target earnings forecast.

24 ...... Results .. For Nonresidential Energy. Efficiency Programs, PG&E was found to be in compliance with the M&E Protocols.

For Retrofit Express programs, PG&E defined incremental cost as the “incremental materials and contract labor cost.” The assumption for controls and add-on equipment, is that incremental cost is equal to full cost. This is true for lighting as well. Incremental cost is equal to full cost because, for energy saving reasons, functional equipment is being replaced. For other end uses, such as refrigeration and motors, the program assumes that incremental cost is the incremental materials and labor costs because equipment is being replaced on burnout. The sources of the data are the CADMAC Measure Cost study or cost estimates from references such as MotorMaster and vendor surveys.

For Power Savings Partners the incremental costs were developed from incremental costs for other nonresidential PG&E programs for the same end-use, by size of customer, and by sector. This method creates a weighted average incremental cost by end-use, customer size, and sector. This assumes that the mix of measures by end-use in the PSP program and other PG&E programs is similar for each sector and customer size category. The actual customer costs were used to when available.

For New Construction Programs, PG&E was found to be in compliance with M&E Protocols.

Nonresidential New Construction program used equipment costs that were based on information gathered during PG&E’s 1991 - 1993 programs and from the Measurement Cost Study sponsored by CADMAC. Additional data, from the California Energy Commission and the Washington State Energy Office, was evaluated to substantiate vendor information. This cost information was analyzed and used to develop an average incremental cost for equipment in the four primary end-use categories: lighting, cooling, motors, and refrigeration.

The Residential New Construction program defines incremental cost as the cost difference between the action taken due to the existence of the program and what the participant would have done in the absence of the program. For air conditioning, it was assumed that in the absence of the program, builders would not have installed an AC unit with SEER’s greater than 0.2 above the SEER used in their Title 24 compliance. Therefore, a base case SEER level was determined by the applicants Title 24 run as submitted for the applicants permit. In order to participate, the applicant would have had to exceed the Title 24 SEER by 1.5 SEER. Incremental cost then, was the difference between the Title 24 SEER AC and the installed SEER AC. For HVAC, PG&E assumed that in the absence of the program, HVAC contractors would have followed the standard practice when installing HVAC Ducts and not followed the enhanced installation procedures as specified by PG&E. Therefore, the additional costs above standard practice included contractor labor and equipment, is used for the incremental cost.

Administrative Cost Verification Due to the important role that administrative costs play in the earning calculations, it is necessary to verify how these administrative costs are obtained and whether any adjustments to the costs are necessary. This is the third year that PG&E has fully implemented a comprehensive administrative costs reporting system using a time reporting system called “positive time reporting.” It is upon the implementation of this system that ECONorthwest focused the administrative cost review.

25 ...... Procedure .. One of the most difficult. aspects of the verification process is the review of the allocation of administrative costs between individual programs and program elements, and to DSM generally. Our procedure for evaluating the administrative cost allocation process has three elements.

 A review of available documents that describe the cost allocation process in addition to a discussion of the implementation of the cost allocation system

 A comparison, across programs, of administrative costs relative to project expenditures

 Comparison, across utilities, of administrative costs associated with gross program categories

Results

Review of Policy Documents Administrative costs are primarily labor costs; hence, the allocation of staff time across DSM programs, and between DSM and other utility activities is the most important aspect of a review of administrative costs. An administrative cost management process thus should have the following elements in some form:

 A system for continuously accounting for employee time spent on individual programs and projects. Ideally, this is achieved through time-sheets filed weekly by employees, in which the employee accounts for his/her time by project/activity number. Alternatively (but less desirably) this can be achieved by periodic surveys of employees to establish proper time allocation percentages;

 A system for monitoring and periodically reviewing the employees' reported time allocations. Typically this is achieved by calculating performance statistics, by employee, and by activity;

 A system for rapidly redeploying staff time from surplus areas to deficit areas;

 An internal incentive structure that rewards accurate accounting of staff and other administrative cost allocations.

PG&E has fully implemented a system for the 1997 program year that achieves most of these goals. The process is as follows:

 An accounting manual was developed with numeric codes assigned to different tasks and individual programs. All of the Marketing and Sales Division employees have a copy of this accounting manual. Other departments are given the manual or necessary sections as needed;

 Each week, affected staff members are required to complete time cards using the manual to assign numeric codes to the activity and programs they had worked on during that week;

 The time card data is then entered into the Time Entry System (payroll system) in quarter hour increments. Any time that could not be allocated in quarter hour increments is placed in an activity code called "unreported time”;

26 ......  Any employees. .who did not fill in a time card had their hours for that week placed in unreported time. A decision is then made to either ask the employee to reproduce the time card, or leave the hours in unreported time, based on the number of hours and the frequency of unreported time cards;

 There is an activity code titled "administrative activity" into which items and activities benefiting all programs (e.g., copy paper) were placed. This section is divided across programs based on the labor allocation;

 Invoices that are received from outside vendors are routed to the project manager. When this invoice is reviewed for payment, an accounting breakdown is attached that charges the costs to the appropriate activity;

 The Time Entry System is directly linked to their General Ledger, and the labor costs and expenses were directly transferred into the General Ledger;

 The recorded costs are pulled directly from the General Ledger into a report called the Prorations Report. It is this Prorations Report that determines the allocations of labor and material costs across programs for the earnings claim.

What makes this different from the procedures employed in previous years, is not the process but the data that goes into the process. Although PG&E has previously queried the general ledger to get a Prorations Report, past prorations were based on surveys done by the program managers approximating how much time each employee would spend on which programs, with quarterly re-evaluations of those surveys. The key difference is that PG&E is now using actual labor hours resulting in a more accurate labor and expense cost allocation system.

Administrative Costs as a Share of Program Costs A disaggregation of total and contract administrative costs by program is displayed in Table 29. "Contract" administrative costs appear to refer to administrative costs incurred through the use of outside contractors who provide administrative services. With a contract, more assurance is given that the contractors are actually working on DSM projects, and if embedded in a competitive bidding process, there is some assurance that total costs are contained as well. For residential programs, a large portion of the administrative costs is contract costs (total contract costs are over 80 percent of the total administrative costs for all residential programs) providing increased confidence that the residential administrative costs are relatively "hard" costs. For nonresidential programs, contract costs represent a much lower percentage of total costs (total contract costs are approximately 45 percent of the total administrative costs for all nonresidential programs) so that PG&E's internal cost allocation system plays a more important role.

27 ...... Table 29: 1996.. Administrative Costs by DSM Program Table TA 1.8A - 1997 Recorded Costs-Preliminary Adj. ($000) . Conservation Energy Efficiency Electric Gas

Non- Alloc. ClaimSH Labor Labor Contract Admin. Total Labor Incent Contract Alloc. Admin. Total Residential Res. Information 110 1,160 231 48 1,549 93 1,062 190 43 1,388 Res. EM Services 757 276 801 262 2,097 977 410 1,019 337 2,742 Res. New Constr. 414 780 674 127 1,996 56 106 92 17 272 Res. Appliance Eff. 31 7 587 13 639 - (0) 227 - 227 Direct Assistance 212 305 10,919 71 11,507 249 358 11,803 83 12,494 Other Residential 449 523 1,368 141 2,481 59 41 191 17 308 Total Residential 1,974 3,053 14,580 662 20,269 1,434 1,977 13,522 498 17,431 Non-Residential Non-Res. Information 486 297 1,536 216 2,536 159 108 685 84 1,035 Comm'l EM Services 1,638 493 1,599 421 4,151 222 67 210 57 556 Ind'l EM Services 354 47 377 113 892 145 19 154 46 364 Ag EM Services 499 49 422 142 1,112 10 2 1 2 15 Comm'l Incentives 1,783 (2,164) 6,843 468 6,929 4 (6) 291 1 290 Ind'l Incentives 768 (279) 4,290 207 4,986 226 29 279 51 586 Ag Incentives 134 (8) 144 32 302 46 (286) 415 13 187 Non-Res. New Constr. 1,199 212 1,622 353 3,385 0 (0) 1 0 1 Other Non-Residential 380 670 1,184 318 2,552 173 170 164 127 634 Total Non-Residential 7,241 (684) 18,016 2,269 26,843 984 104 2,199 382 3,669 Total Conserv/Energy Efficiency 9,215 2,369 32,597 2,932 47,112 2,418 2,081 15,721 880 21,099 Additional Programs Load Management (E & C) 422 51 301 142 931 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Fuel Substitution ------Load Ret/Load Building n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a MFRR (E & C) 2,116 127 5,301 702 12,762 456 (26) 1,438 200 2,161 Total DSM (E&C) 11,752 2,547 38,198 3,776 60,805 2,874 2,055 17,160 1,079 23,260

Program administrative costs (which includes hardware costs) are further compared to program incentives and total program costs (which includes rate incentives, shareholder earnings and other costs). These costs, along with the ratio of administrative to total costs, are presented in Table 30. There is a wide range of values for this ratio showing the extreme differences in cost allocation based on the program type. For example the largest programs, CIA Incentives has a relatively low administrative costs ratios, albeit more than double that of last years, while the majority of other programs within the Nonresidential sector have high administrative cost ratios. Because of the size of these three programs, the overall Nonresidential Programs administrative cost ratio is quite low.

28 ...... Table 30: 1996 PG&E.. DSM Program Costs - Electric and Gas ($000’s) Table TA 1.8-1996 Recorded Costs-Preliminary. Adj. ($000) Conservation Energy Efficiency Electric Gas Utility Utility Admin as Admin Incentive Total Admin as a Admin Incentive Total a % of Costs Cost Costs % of total Costs Cost Costs total Residential Res. Information 1,549 - 1,549 100.0% 1,388 - 1,388 100.0% Res. EM Services 2,097 112 2,209 94.9% 2,742 143 2,885 95.1% Res. New Constr. 1,996 2,464 4,460 44.8% 272 382 654 41.6% Res. Appliance Eff. 639 2,368 3,007 21.3% 227 835 1,062 21.4% Direct Assistance 11,507 315 11,822 97.3% 12,494 342 12,836 97.3% Other Residential 2,481 721 3,203 77.5% 308 377 685 44.9% Total Residential 20,269 5,980 26,249 77.2% 17,431 2,079 19,510 89.3% Non-Residential Non-Res. Information 2,536 - 2,536 100.0% 1,035 - 1,035 100.0% Comm'l EM Services 4,151 229 4,380 94.8% 556 31 587 94.8% Ind'l EM Services 892 53 945 94.4% 364 22 386 94.4% Ag EM Services 1,112 54 1,166 95.3% 15 1 16 95.3% Comm'l Incentives 6,929 27,892 34,821 19.9% 290 953 1,243 23.3% Ind'l Incentives 4,986 13,397 18,383 27.1% 586 1,876 2,461 23.8% Ag Incentives 302 2,157 2,459 12.3% 187 483 670 27.9% Non-Res. New Constr. 3,385 23,390 26,774 12.6% 1 - 1 100.0% Other Non-Residential 2,552 (43) 2,509 101.7% 634 74 708 89.6% Total Non-Residential 26,843 67,130 93,973 28.6% 3,669 3,439 7,107 51.6% Total Conserv/Energy Efficiency 47,112 73,110 120,222 39.2% 21,099 5,517 26,617 79.3% Additional Programs Load Management (E & C) 916 47,340 48,256 1.9% n/a n/a n/a n/a Fuel Substitution - - - n/a - - - n/a Load Ret/Load Building n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a MFRR (E & C) 8,245 51,634 59,879 13.8% 2,068 93 2,161 95.7% Total DSM (E&C) 56,274 172,084 228,358 24.6% 23,168 5,610 28,778 80.5%

Peer Group Comparisons of Administrative Cost Ratios In Table 31 recorded costs and benefits data from the Annual Summary Report on Demand- Side Management Programs in 1997 and 1996 (Table E-1), are tabulated by utility. The utility administrative costs and measurement costs (UAC) are presented as percentages of various normalizing quantities, including utility incentive costs (UIC), net incremental measure costs (NIMC), and net total resource benefits (NTRB), all of which are (arguably) alternative measures of the scale of the activities conducted by the utilities. In the final panel of the table, these ratios are compared to the average of these ratios across the four utilities. Only ratios that exceed the mean by more than 50 percent, or are smaller than the mean by more than 50 percent are flagged as, respectively, "high" or "low". (Others cannot be calculated because the divisor is zero.) Thus, the criteria for detecting deviations from typical practice are quite generous.

With these threshold values, PG&E's administrative cost ratios are quite similar to those of other utilities. The only area in which PG&E's administrative costs are particularly high was the ratio of UAC to NIMC for the Residential Energy Efficiency Incentives Programs and the ratio of UAC to NTRB for the Energy Management Services Program. Because the Residential Energy Efficiency program is a Shared Savings Program and higher administrative costs lead to a smaller PEB, it is in the utilities best interests to maintain a low ratio. Due to the low earnings claim of these programs, the utilities incentive to keep the administrative costs low and the low overall costs for PG&E, the "High" rating for this ratio is not a concern. Similarly for the Energy Management Program, because the nature of the program and the low earnings claim, the “High” UAC to NTRB ratio is not a concern.

29 ...... The three largest programs,.. Commercial, Industrial, and Agricultural Energy Efficiency Programs has a low UAC.. to NIMC ratio in comparison to other utilities. This is a concern because these are all Shared Savings Programs and account for the majority of PG&E's 1997 earnings claim. Low administrative costs tend to raise shareholder earnings. Due to the implementation of the new labor allocation system, however, PG&E should have an accurate allocation of labor costs and should have been able to maintain increased control over costs to keep them within budget.

In all, the comparison suggests that administrative costs were probably not reallocated inappropriately to Shared Savings or Performance Adder Programs.

30 ...... Table 31: Peer Review.. of 1996 DSM Administration Expenditures . Program Amounts (000)

SoCalGas UAC $1,492 $780 $0 $3,216 $1,755 $4,971 $7,243 UIC $2,220 $633 $0 $0 $11,707 $11,707 $14,560 NIMC $3,381 $1,660 $0 $480 $11,161 $11,641 $16,682 NTRB $14,462 $3,750 $0 $11,861 $3,051 $14,912 $33,124 UAC/UIC 67% 123% - - 15% 42% 50% UAC/NIMC 44% 47% - 670% 16% 43% 43% UAC/NTRB 10% 21% - 27% 58% 33% 22% SCE UAC $2,120 $1,526 $752 $13,510 $2,370 $15,880 $20,278 UIC $13,856 $6,501 $1,556 $0 $5,022 $5,022 $26,935 NIMC $26,608 $3,930 $4,473 $31,494 $3,843 $35,337 $70,348 NTRB $89,238 $7,890 $7,436 $74,236 $4,801 $79,037 $183,601 UAC/UIC 15% 23% 48% - 47% 316% 75% UAC/NIMC 8% 39% 17% 43% 62% 45% 29% UAC/NTRB 2% 19% 10% 18% 49% 20% 11% PG&E UAC $12,931 $1,111 $5,653 $11,698 $4,437 $16,135 $35,830 UIC $33,161 $4,606 $13,979 $0 $19,795 $19,795 $71,541 NIMC $52,379 $1,572 $18,822 $10,337 $21,013 $31,350 $104,123 NTRB $148,220 $7,982 $66,688 $23,036 $11,562 $34,598 $257,488 UAC/UIC 39% 24% 40% - 22% 82% 50% UAC/NIMC 25% 71% 30% 113% 21% 51% 34% UAC/NTRB 9% 14% 8% 51% 38% 47% 14% SDG&E UAC $6,017 $806 $2,252 $2,289 $940 $3,229 $12,304 UIC $4,394 $5,470 $1,851 $0 $3,226 $3,226 $14,941 NIMC $10,209 $9,813 $7,558 $6,706 $2,654 $9,360 $36,940 NTRB $48,365 $14,462 $26,419 $20,652 $1,360 $22,012 $111,258 UAC/UIC 137% 15% 122% - 29% 100% 82% UAC/NIMC 59% 8% 30% 34% 35% 34% 33% UAC/NTRB 12% 6% 9% 11% 69% 15% 11% Cost Ratios High or Low by >50%? SoCalGas UAC/UIC High na na Low UAC/NIMC na High Low UAC/NTRB na High SCE UAC/UIC Low na High High UAC/NIMC Low Low High UAC/NTRB Low PG&E UAC/UIC na UAC/NIMC High UAC/NTRB High High SDG&E UAC/UIC High Low High na UAC/NIMC High Low Low UAC/NTRB Low Low

Definitions: UAC = utility admin costs + measurement costs, UIC = utility incentive costs, NIMC = net incremental measure cost, NTRB = net total resource benefits,

Earnings Calculation Process Shared Savings Programs The earnings calculation used for PG&E's Shared Savings Programs is complex. However, one can discuss the basic structure of the process. There are two steps:

 The program accomplishments are compared to a minimum performance standard and a determination is made as to whether the program receives a penalty, no action is taken, or shareholder incentives are claimed.

31 ......  The earnings, or.. penalty, is then calculated for each program. For each Shared Savings program, the lifecycle energy savings of DSM measures for 1996 must be calculated. For the rebate programs, the energy savings are based on pre-determined values in the Advice Filing (1867-G/1481-E and the update 1867-G-A/1481-E-A). The energy savings estimates for the custom measures are calculated in the customer applications. These values are then converted into lifecycle avoided costs and lifecycle net benefits.

Each program must then pass the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test and a portfolio level Performance Earnings Basis (PEB) must be calculated. The PEB is defined as net avoided costs minus the sum of utility administrative cost, two-thirds of net participant cost, one-third of the customer rebate, and measurement costs. If a program fails the TRC test, with a positive PEB, remove the PEB from the portfolio. If a program fails the TRC test with a negative value, it must be left in the portfolio.

Portfolios must meet 75 percent of the target PEB to claim earnings. If the portfolio PEB falls between 0 and 75 percent of the target, no earnings are claimed on that portfolio, and if the PEB falls below 0 a penalty is assessed.

Penalties, if applicable, are calculated as the amount that falls below zero, up to 100 percent of the total utility expenditures for that portfolio.

Earnings, if applicable, are calculated as the flat SSR multiplied by the PEB. The SSR for 1996 is 30 percent.4

Performance Earnings Basis Calculation The Performance Earnings Basis is calculated as:

PEB = ACnet - (UAC + (2/3) * PCnet) + ((1/3) * UIC) + MC)

where,

ACnet is the Net Present Value Avoided Costs calculated from the programs actual energy savings accomplishments from DSM measures installed in 1996

UAC is the Utility Administrative Cost

PCnet is the Net Participant Cost (Incremental Measure Cost)

UIC is the Utility Incentive Cost (Rebate Amount)

MC is the Measure Cost (Customer Cost)

ECONorthwest has examined the components of this calculation.

Performance Adder Programs Earnings claims for Performance Adder Programs are calculated as follows:

4Information based on "Pacific Gas and Electric Company 1997 Annual Earnings Assessment Proceeding Shareholder Incentive Recovery for Pacific Gas and Electric Company's 1996, 1995 and 1994 Demand-Side Management Programs Testimony and Appendices."

32 ......  Equity and Services.. Programs: The incentive is calculated as five percent of the program expenditures over the ratio of the current year average utility costs per MWh or Therm to the prior year costs.

 New construction programs: Decision 94-10-059 requires that contracts committed to after October 26, 1994 fall under the Shared Savings Mechanism. Only applications agreed to before this date still are subject to the Performance Adder earnings claim calculation. The incentives are based on a rate that varies with the extent to which the building exceeds Title 24 standards. This rate is multiplied by utility-recorded expenditures to calculate the shareholder incentive.

The way earnings are calculated for Shared Savings Programs compared to that of Performance Adder Programs leads to an incentive to allocate administrative costs away from Shared Savings and toward Performance Adder Programs. PG&E appears not to have improperly shifted administrative costs.

System and Documentation We have described above the strengths and weaknesses of the PG&E DSM Annual Report. PG&E appears to have successfully operated its PY1997 program.

In summary, the data provided by PG&E were generally accurate and earnings verification proceeded without major difficulty. The main problems were found in inconsistencies in the Economic Summary Sheet Tables and seemingly random errors in individual files. The earnings claims of the programs that were verified through this process over-reported energy savings in both the Commercial and Industrial sectors of the Nonresidential Energy Efficiency Programs. (These two sectors in the EE programs comprise 83 percent of the entire earnings claim.) The administrative costs of the utility are reasonable in comparison to other utilities. With the positive time-reporting system currently in place ECONorthwest has a higher confidence level in PG&E's administrative costs than in previous years.

E-Table Adjustments

This verification produced values designed to be used to adjust the savings claims in the E- Tables. Table 32 summarizes the savings per unit in each of the nonresidential program elements. The IEEI and CEEI claims have been separated for this purpose, although the level of adjustment and the significance were calculated together, as previous discussed.

TABLE 32: E-TABLE GROSS LOAD IMPACT ADJUSTMENTS Program Load Type Impact Adjustment CEEI kWh 1.0000 kW 1.0000 Therm 0.0000 IEEI kWh 0.7396 kW 0.7705 Therm 1.0000 AEEI kWh 1.0000 kW 0.9472 Therm 0.8981 NRNC kWh 0.8835 kW 0.9274

33 ...... Incentives 0.9993

34 ...... Appendix

Appendix A

Adjustments to PG&E’s AEEI, CEEI, and IEEI Programs

AFB1012 Control No.: 1.24 Concern: File Final Inspection Report Differs from Engineering. Calculations. File ASD Energy Calculation Shows High Savings. Description: Engineer calculation assumes 93% efficiency for the 600 HP motors, but the final Inspection report states 85.8% efficiency. Adjust savings with 85.8% efficient motor. Engineer estimate on ASD control is overestimated. Rated Power should be 85% of full load with dampers and 42% with ASD at 70% rated flow. Adjust savings with our rated power assumptions Adjustment: Demand (kW) Electricity (kWh) Gas (Therm) Reported 213.00 8356551.00 .00 Revised 190.00 1658076.00 .00 Verification Ratio 89.20% 19.84% .00%

ANR6509 Control No.: 1.3 Concern: File Uses Motor Load Factor Greater than 100% Description: On page 12, the motor load factor for the existing VTR fans stated at 125% when it should be less than 100%? Adjust saving with assumed motor load factor of 0.9. Adjustment: Demand (kW) Electricity (kWh) Gas (Therm) Reported 502.00 1623000.00 .00 Revised 409.00 1275049.00 .00 Verification Ratio 81.47% 78.56% .00%

ANR7701 Control No.: 1.26 Concern: File has Transfer Errors Description: Transfer errors between worksheets. The values on page 23 are incorrect. Adjust savings using page 31 and 36 information. Adjustment: Demand (kW) Electricity (kWh) Gas (Therm) Reported 114.70 424598.00 .00 Revised 82.00 362416.00 .00 Verification Ratio 71.49% 85.36% .00%

35 ...... ATC0009 Control No.:.. 1.22 Concern: File Summary Report does Not Match Supporting Documents Description: Summary of Saving on pages 27-29 does not match Rod Star" simulation output on pages 30-527. Requested information from the utility. Based on the phone conversation between Curtis Clark and Mike Wan and the confirming email of July 6, this question has been modified to the following: explain Balance - minimum energy, Balance - minimum torque, and Existing values and how these relates to the actual conditions? Response: The Balance - minimum energy is the minimum energy to run the pump without regard to the amount of torque load. The Balance - minimum torque shows the energy use with the proper loading for the pump. The Existing shows the pump energy usage before (a larger pump size) and after (a smaller pump size) the retrofit. In order to maximize the optimization of the entire system, the Balance - minimum torque figure was used. Several of the items on the summary report still did not match supporting documents. Reviewed twenty wells and found a 5% error in KWH savings. Adjusted the file accordingly. Adjustment: Demand (kW) Electricity (kWh) Gas (Therm) Reported 305.20 2636640.00 .00 Revised 305.20 2393562.03 .00 Verification Ratio 100.00%90.78% .00%

ATC0205 Control No.: 1.28 Concern: File has Conflicting Pump Efficiency Calculation Description: Pump efficiency increased from 45% to 55%, but the calculation shows savings from 0.041 kW/BPD to 0.263 kW/BPD on 56% savings. Requested clarification how savings were calculated from utility. Demand: 426 kW (33% Saving / 56% Saving) = 251 kW Energy: 3693304 KWH (33% Saving / 56% Saving) = 2176411 KWH Adjustment: Demand (kW) Electricity (kWh) Gas (Therm) Reported 426.00 3693304.00 .00 Revised 251.00 2176411.00 .00 Verification Ratio 58.92% 58.93% .00%

ATK1012 Control No.: 1.21 Concern: File is Shows High Savings for New Storage Tank Description: A winery expands its operation and installs new storage tanks. The baseline assumption is the tank is uninsulated. We unable to follow the calculation for energy savings. Requested documentation for baseline assumption and energy saving calculation from the utility. Coordinate with Mike Kennedy with NRNC program. As coordination with NRNC program for new uninsulated tanks reduce energy savings by 84%. Demand savings = 428.00 KW filed * 16% = 68 KW Energy savings = 795367.00 * 16% = 127258 KWH Adjustment: Demand (kW) Electricity (kWh) Gas (Therm) Reported 428.00 795367.00 .00 Revised 68.00 127258.00 .00 Verification Ratio 15.89% 16.00% .00%

AVV0008 Control No.: 1.40 Concern: File uses Baseline Chiller Assumptions that are Low Efficiency Description: The chiller is over 35 years old and past its equipment life. It is being replaced because of its age and the load is reduced. Should the baseline efficiency be based on Title 24? Should the baseline capacity of the chiller be the same for the new chiller? Adjust savings using current practice as baseline. Adjustment: Demand (kW) Electricity (kWh) Gas (Therm) Reported 279.00 794721.00 .00

36 ...... Revised 268.00.. 764000.00 .00 Verification Ratio 96.06% 96.13% .00%

DJN2321 Control No.: 1.45 Concern: Files use Unknown Baseline Fixture Type. File has Incorrect Count of Lamps Based on Invoice Information Description: Unable to match kW and KWH saving claimed for the baseline fixture. Adjust savings with assumed fixtures based on file information. In addition. invoice does not match Retrofit Express Lighting Supplement Form. Adjustment: Demand (kW) Electricity (kWh) Gas (Therm) Reported 1.775545.00 .00 Revised .44 1735.00 .00 Verification Ratio 24.86% 31.29% .00%

DJQ9239 Control No.: 1.45 Concern: Files use Unknown Baseline Fixture Type. File has Incorrect Count of Lamps Based on Invoice Information Description: Unable to match kW and KWH saving claimed for the baseline fixture. Adjust savings with assumed fixtures based on file information. In addition. invoice does not match Retrofit Express Lighting Supplement Form. Adjustment: Demand (kW) Electricity (kWh) Gas (Therm) Reported 180.52 1078800.00 .00 Revised 166.17 1019640.00 .00 Verification Ratio 92.05% 94.52% .00%

DJQ9289 Control No.: 1.45 Concern: Files use Unknown Baseline Fixture Type. File has Incorrect Count of Lamps Based on Invoice Information Description: Unable to match kW and KWH saving claimed for the baseline fixture. Adjust savings with assumed fixtures based on file information. In addition. invoice does not match Retrofit Express Lighting Supplement Form. Adjustment: Demand (kW) Electricity (kWh) Gas (Therm) Reported 35.96 112776.00 .00 Revised 17.32 68820.00 .00 Verification Ratio 48.16% 61.02% .00%

DJQ9320 Control No.: 3.45 Concern: Files use Unknown Baseline Fixture Type. File has Incorrect Count of Lamps Based on Invoice Information Description: Unable to match kW and KWH saving claimed for the baseline fixture. Adjust savings with assumed fixtures based on file information. In addition. invoice does not match Retrofit Express Lighting Supplement Form. Adjustment: Demand (kW) Electricity (kWh) Gas (Therm) Reported 112.88 792608.00 .00 Revised 131.65 557872.00 .00 Verification Ratio 116.63%70.38% .00%

DJT6289 Control No.: 4.46 Concern: File uses Incorrect Reflector Count Description: The count of invoiced ballast and the associated lamps exceeds the count of removed lamps under the reflector retrofit measure. Adjustment: Demand (kW) Electricity (kWh) Gas (Therm) Reported 39.39 178495.00 .00

37 ...... Revised 23.42 .. 106140.00 .00 Verification Ratio 59.46% 59.46% .00%

38 ...... DNR7100 Control No.:. 2.45 Concern: Files use Unknown Baseline Fixture Type. File has Incorrect Count of Lamps Based on Invoice Information Description: Unable to match kW and KWH saving claimed for the baseline fixture. Adjust savings with assumed fixtures based on file information. In addition. invoice does not match Retrofit Express Lighting Supplement Form. Adjustment: Demand (kW) Electricity (kWh) Gas (Therm) Reported 1.245670.00 .00 Revised .76 3438.00 .00 Verification Ratio 61.29% 60.63% .00%

DRG6258 Control No.: 1.47 Concern: File has Different Fixture Counts in the Lighting Invoice and Measure Description: Invoice quantity differed from the measure count. Adjust savings based on file information. Adjustment: Demand (kW) Electricity (kWh) Gas (Therm) Reported 53.88 255968.00 .00 Revised 53.62 254676.00 .00 Verification Ratio 99.52% 99.50% .00%

DRN4878 Control No.: 1.48 Concern: File uses Incorrect Program Year Description: Energy savings were calculated using the 1997 Retrofit Express Program for the application of 1996 Retrofit Express Program. Adjust savings based on file information for 1996 Program year. Adjustment: Demand (kW) Electricity (kWh) Gas (Therm) Reported 1.905340.00 .00 Revised .90 1236.00 .00 Verification Ratio 47.37% 23.15% .00%

DRN4878 Control No.: 2.48 Concern: File uses Incorrect Program Year Description: Energy savings were calculated using the 1997 Retrofit Express Program for the application of 1996 Retrofit Express Program. Adjust savings based on file information for 1996 Program year. Adjustment: Demand (kW) Electricity (kWh) Gas (Therm) Reported 7.1520025.00 .00 Revised 3.384635.00 .00 Verification Ratio 47.27% 23.15% .00%

DRN4878 Control No.: 4.48 Concern: File uses Incorrect Program Year Description: Energy savings were calculated using the 1997 Retrofit Express Program for the application of 1996 Retrofit Express Program. Adjust savings based on file information for 1996 Program year. Adjustment: Demand (kW) Electricity (kWh) Gas (Therm) Reported 2.035686.00 .00 Revised 1.402112.00 .00 Verification Ratio 68.97% 37.14% .00%

39 ...... DRN4878 Control No.:. 5.48 Concern: File uses Incorrect Program Year Description: Energy savings were calculated using the 1997 Retrofit Express Program for the application of 1996 Retrofit Express Program. Adjust savings based on file information for 1996 Program year. Adjustment: Demand (kW) Electricity (kWh) Gas (Therm) Reported 1.624549.00 .00 Revised .98 1326.00 .00 Verification Ratio 60.49% 29.15% .00%

DRN4881 Control No.: 2.45 Concern: Files use Unknown Baseline Fixture Type. File has Incorrect Count of Lamps Based on Invoice Information Description: Unable to match kW and KWH saving claimed for the baseline fixture. Adjust savings with assumed fixtures based on file information. In addition. invoice does not match Retrofit Express Lighting Supplement Form. Adjustment: Demand (kW) Electricity (kWh) Gas (Therm) Reported 9.5457040.00 .00 Revised 8.7453912.00 .00 Verification Ratio 91.61% 94.52% .00%

DRN5101 Control No.: 5.47 Concern: File has Different Fixture Counts in the Lighting Invoice and Measure Description: Invoice quantity differed from the measure count. Adjust savings based on file information. Adjustment: Demand (kW) Electricity (kWh) Gas (Therm) Reported 7.4731512.00 .00 Revised 4.2217784.00 .00 Verification Ratio 56.49% 56.44% .00%

40 ...... DRN5221 Control No.:. 80.45 Concern: Files use Unknown Baseline Fixture Type. File has Incorrect Count of Lamps Based on Invoice Information Description: Unable to match kW and KWH saving claimed for the baseline fixture. Adjust savings with assumed fixtures based on file information. In addition. invoice does not match Retrofit Express Lighting Supplement Form. Adjustment: Demand (kW) Electricity (kWh) Gas (Therm) Reported 10.60 42400.00 .00 Revised 6.6924340.00 .00 Verification Ratio 63.11% 57.41% .00%

DTK6228 Control No.: 6.45 Concern: Files use Unknown Baseline Fixture Type. File has Incorrect Count of Lamps Based on Invoice Information Description: Unable to match kW and KWH saving claimed for the baseline fixture. Adjust savings with assumed fixtures based on file information. In addition. invoice does not match Retrofit Express Lighting Supplement Form. Adjustment: Demand (kW) Electricity (kWh) Gas (Therm) Reported 14.60 59860.00 .00 Revised 10.80 44280.00 .00 Verification Ratio 73.97% 73.97% .00%

DVT2324 Control No.: 7.45 Concern: Files use Unknown Baseline Fixture Type. File has Incorrect Count of Lamps Based on Invoice Information Description: Unable to match kW and KWH saving claimed for the baseline fixture. Adjust savings with assumed fixtures based on file information. In addition. invoice does not match Retrofit Express Lighting Supplement Form. Adjustment: Demand (kW) Electricity (kWh) Gas (Therm) Reported 29.80 155848.00 .00 Revised 19.14 105432.00 .00 Verification Ratio 64.23% 67.65% .00%

EBG1004 Control No.: 1.4 Concern: Files are Missing Micro Irrigation Crop & Pumping Types Description: Files calculated saving with the incorrect crop and water source (well vs. surface). Made adjustment with stated crop and water source selection. Adjustment: Demand (kW) Electricity (kWh) Gas (Therm) Reported 83.75 175545.00 .00 Revised 83.75 175545.00 .00 Verification Ratio 100.00%100.00%.00%

EBM2027 Control No.: 1.7 Concern: File Uses Traffic Lighting Duty Cycle that are High Description: Requested documentation for diversity factor and pre and post light wattage. Adjust saving based on 54% duty cycle. This duty cycle with derived from these assumptions: 1) 50% saving for 4-way single intersection, 2) 60% saving for 4-way and 2-left turn single intersection, and 3) 70% saving for 4-way and 4-left turn single intersection. Adjustment: Demand (kW) Electricity (kWh) Gas (Therm) Reported 1.3011441.00 .00

41 ...... Revised 1.1810296.90.. .00 Verification Ratio 90.77% 90.00% .00%

EBM2027 Control No.: 2.7 Concern: File Uses Traffic Lighting Duty Cycle that are High Description: Requested documentation for diversity factor and pre and post light wattage. Adjust saving based on 54% duty cycle. This duty cycle with derived from these assumptions: 1) 50% saving for 4-way single intersection, 2) 60% saving for 4-way and 2-left turn single intersection, and 3) 70% saving for 4-way and 4-left turn single intersection. Adjustment: Demand (kW) Electricity (kWh) Gas (Therm) Reported .46 4038.00 .00 Revised .41 3634.20 .00 Verification Ratio 89.13% 90.00% .00%

EBM2027 Control No.: 6.7 Concern: File Uses Traffic Lighting Duty Cycle that are High Description: Requested documentation for diversity factor and pre and post light wattage. Adjust saving based on 54% duty cycle. This duty cycle with derived from these

42 ...... assumptions: 1) 50% saving.. for 4-way single intersection, 2) 60% saving for 4-way and 2-left turn single intersection, and.. 3) 70% saving for 4-way and 4-left turn single intersection. Adjustment: Demand (kW) Electricity (kWh) Gas (Therm) Reported .61 5384.00 .00 Revised .56 4845.60 .00 Verification Ratio 91.80% 90.00% .00%

43 ...... EBM2027 Control No.:.. 15.7 Concern: File Uses Traffic Lighting Duty Cycle that are High Description: Requested documentation for diversity factor and pre and post light wattage. Adjust saving based on 54% duty cycle. This duty cycle with derived from these assumptions: 1) 50% saving for 4-way single intersection, 2) 60% saving for 4-way and 2-left turn single intersection, and 3) 70% saving for 4-way and 4-left turn single intersection. Adjustment: Demand (kW) Electricity (kWh) Gas (Therm) Reported .61 5384.00 .00 Revised .56 4845.60 .00 Verification Ratio 91.80% 90.00% .00%

EBM2027 Control No.: 20.7 Concern: File Uses Traffic Lighting Duty Cycle that are High Description: Requested documentation for diversity factor and pre and post light wattage. Adjust saving based on 54% duty cycle. This duty cycle with derived from these assumptions: 1) 50% saving for 4-way single intersection, 2) 60% saving for 4-way and 2-left turn single intersection, and 3) 70% saving for 4-way and 4-left turn single intersection. Adjustment: Demand (kW) Electricity (kWh) Gas (Therm) Reported .53 4711.00 .00

44 ...... Revised .49 4239.90.. .00 Verification Ratio 92.45% 90.00% .00%

EBM2027 Control No.: 38.7

46 ...... Concern: File Uses.. Traffic Lighting Duty Cycle that are High Description: Requested documentation for diversity factor and pre and post light wattage. Adjust saving based on 54% duty cycle. This duty cycle with derived from these assumptions: 1) 50% saving for 4-way single intersection, 2) 60% saving for 4-way and 2-left turn single intersection, and 3) 70% saving for 4-way and 4-left turn single intersection. Adjustment: Demand (kW) Electricity (kWh) Gas (Therm) Reported .84 7403.00 .00 Revised .77 6662.70 .00 Verification Ratio 91.67% 90.00% .00%

EBM2027 Control No.: 40.7 Concern: File Uses Traffic Lighting Duty Cycle that are High Description: Requested documentation for diversity factor and pre and post light wattage. Adjust saving based on 54% duty cycle. This duty cycle with derived from these assumptions: 1) 50% saving for 4-way single intersection, 2) 60% saving for 4-way and 2-left turn single intersection, and 3) 70% saving for 4-way and 4-left turn single intersection. Adjustment: Demand (kW) Electricity (kWh) Gas (Therm) Reported 1.2310768.00 .00 Revised 1.109691.20 .00 Verification Ratio 89.43% 90.00% .00%

EBM2027 Control No.: 43.7 Concern: File Uses Traffic Lighting Duty Cycle that are High Description: Requested documentation for diversity factor and pre and post light wattage. Adjust saving based on 54% duty cycle. This duty cycle with derived from these assumptions: 1) 50% saving for 4-way single intersection, 2) 60% saving for 4-way and 2-left turn single intersection, and 3) 70% saving for 4-way and 4-left turn single intersection. Adjustment: Demand (kW) Electricity (kWh) Gas (Therm) Reported .38 3365.00 .00 Revised .35 3028.50 .00

47 ...... Verification Ratio.. 92.11% 90.00% .00% EBM2027 Control No.: 44.7 Concern: File Uses Traffic Lighting Duty Cycle that are High Description: Requested documentation for diversity factor and pre and post light wattage. Adjust saving based on 54% duty cycle. This duty cycle with derived from these assumptions: 1) 50% saving for 4-way single intersection, 2) 60% saving for 4-way and 2-left turn single intersection, and 3) 70% saving for 4-way and 4-left turn single intersection. Adjustment: Demand (kW) Electricity (kWh) Gas (Therm) Reported .69 6057.00 .00 Revised .62 5451.30 .00 Verification Ratio 89.86% 90.00% .00%

EBM2027 Control No.: 49.7 Concern: File Uses Traffic Lighting Duty Cycle that are High Description: Requested documentation for diversity factor and pre and post light wattage. Adjust saving based on 54% duty cycle. This duty cycle with derived from these assumptions: 1) 50% saving for 4-way single intersection, 2) 60% saving for 4-way and 2-left turn single intersection, and 3) 70% saving for 4-way and 4-left turn single intersection.

48 ...... Adjustment: Demand.. (kW) Electricity (kWh) Gas (Therm) Reported .61. 5384.00 .00 Revised .56 4845.60 .00 Verification Ratio 91.80% 90.00% .00%

EBM2027 Control No.: 50.7 Concern: File Uses Traffic Lighting Duty Cycle that are High Description: Requested documentation for diversity factor and pre and post light wattage. Adjust saving based on 54% duty cycle. This duty cycle with derived from these assumptions: 1) 50% saving for 4-way single intersection, 2) 60% saving for 4-way and 2-left turn single intersection, and 3) 70% saving for 4-way and 4-left turn single intersection. Adjustment: Demand (kW) Electricity (kWh) Gas (Therm) Reported 1.008749.00 .00 Revised .90 7874.10 .00 Verification Ratio 90.00% 90.00% .00%

EBM2027 Control No.: 67.7

50 ...... Concern: File Uses.. Traffic Lighting Duty Cycle that are High Description: Requested documentation for diversity factor and pre and post light wattage. Adjust saving based on 54% duty cycle. This duty cycle with derived from these assumptions: 1) 50% saving for 4-way single intersection, 2) 60% saving for 4-way and 2-left turn single intersection, and 3) 70% saving for 4-way and 4-left turn single intersection. Adjustment: Demand (kW) Electricity (kWh) Gas (Therm) Reported .69 6057.00 .00 Revised .62 5451.30 .00 Verification Ratio 89.86% 90.00% .00%

EBM2027 Control No.: 74.7 Concern: File Uses Traffic Lighting Duty Cycle that are High Description: Requested documentation for diversity factor and pre and post light wattage. Adjust saving based on 54% duty cycle. This duty cycle with derived from these assumptions: 1) 50% saving for 4-way single intersection, 2) 60% saving for 4-way and 2-left turn single intersection, and 3) 70% saving for 4-way and 4-left turn single intersection. Adjustment: Demand (kW) Electricity (kWh) Gas (Therm) Reported .77 6730.00 .00 Revised .69 6057.00 .00

51 ...... Verification Ratio.. 89.61% 90.00% .00% EBM2027 Control No.: 77.7 Concern: File Uses Traffic Lighting Duty Cycle that are High Description: Requested documentation for diversity factor and pre and post light wattage. Adjust saving based on 54% duty cycle. This duty cycle with derived from these assumptions: 1) 50% saving for 4-way single intersection, 2) 60% saving for 4-way and 2-left turn single intersection, and 3) 70% saving for 4-way and 4-left turn single intersection. Adjustment: Demand (kW) Electricity (kWh) Gas (Therm) Reported .23 2019.00 .00 Revised .20 1817.10 .00 Verification Ratio 86.96% 90.00% .00%

EPS6007 Control No.: 1.4 Concern: Files are Missing Micro Irrigation Crop & Pumping Types Description: Files calculated saving with the incorrect crop and water source (well vs. surface). Made adjustment with stated crop and water source selection. Adjustment: Demand (kW) Electricity (kWh) Gas (Therm) Reported 19.00 43400.00 .00 Revised 19.00 40950.00 .00 Verification Ratio 100.00%94.35% .00%

ERN7112 Control No.: 1.43 Concern: File uses Incorrect Floorspace Description: Estimated saving calculation used the incorrect building floorspace. Adjusted the value accordingly using the proper floorspace information from the file. Adjustment: Demand (kW) Electricity (kWh) Gas (Therm) Reported .00 .00 168525.00 Revised .00 .00 123632.00 Verification Ratio .00% .00% 73.36%

52 ...... ETC0129 Control No.:. 1.4 Concern: Files are Missing Micro Irrigation Crop & Pumping Types Description: Files calculated saving with the incorrect crop and water source (well vs. surface). Made adjustment with stated crop and water source selection. Adjustment: Demand (kW) Electricity (kWh) Gas (Therm) Reported 184.47 264450.00 .00 Revised 163.40 352170.00 .00 Verification Ratio 88.58% 133.17%.00%

ETC0130 Control No.: 1.4 Concern: Files are Missing Micro Irrigation Crop & Pumping Types Description: Files calculated saving with the incorrect crop and water source (well vs. surface). Made adjustment with stated crop and water source selection. Adjustment: Demand (kW) Electricity (kWh) Gas (Therm) Reported 212.78 305040.00 .00 Revised 188.48 406224.00 .00 Verification Ratio 88.58% 133.17%.00%

ETC0163 Control No.: 1.31 Concern: Files have Motors that Exceed Allowed hp in Filing and are Missing Load Factors Description: The motors are greater then the 400 hp allowed in the filing (page AG-3). #ETC0163 @ 1,000 and 1,500 hp. # ETC0165 @ 2,250 hp. Requested information from the utility. Response. In a few exceptional cases, specific projects beyond the defined scope of this program were permitted into this program. For these pumping applications, rebates and savings for pumps larger than 400 hp were adjusted proportionally to the 400 hp pump category. Adjustment.Information received from the utility did not document the OPE for the baseline condition. It also did not document the calculation methodology. Zeroed out savings. Adjustment: Demand (kW) Electricity (kWh) Gas (Therm) Reported 9.64177301.00 .00 Revised .00 .00 .00

53 ...... Verification Ratio.. .00% .00% .00%

54 ...... ETC0163 Control No.:. 2.31 Concern: Files have Motors that Exceed Allowed hp in Filing and are Missing Load Factors Description: The motors are greater then the 400 hp allowed in the filing (page AG-3). #ETC0163 @ 1,000 and 1,500 hp. # ETC0165 @ 2,250 hp. Requested information from the utility. Response. In a few exceptional cases, specific projects beyond the defined scope of this program were permitted into this program. For these pumping applications, rebates and savings for pumps larger than 400 hp were adjusted proportionally to the 400 hp pump category. Adjustment.Information received from the utility did not document the OPE for the baseline condition. It also did not document the calculation methodology. Zeroed out savings. Adjustment: Demand (kW) Electricity (kWh) Gas (Therm) Reported 9.64176406.00 .00 Revised .00 .00 .00 Verification Ratio .00% .00% .00%

ETC0165 Control No.: 1.31 Concern: Files have Motors that Exceed Allowed hp in Filing and are Missing Load Factors Description: The motors are greater then the 400 hp allowed in the filing (page AG-3). #ETC0163 @ 1,000 and 1,500 hp. # ETC0165 @ 2,250 hp. Requested information from the utility. Response. In a few exceptional cases, specific projects beyond the defined scope of this program were permitted into this program. For these pumping applications, rebates and savings for pumps larger than 400 hp were adjusted proportionally to the 400 hp pump category. Adjustment.Information received from the utility did not document the OPE for the baseline condition. It also did not document the calculation methodology. Zeroed out savings. Adjustment: Demand (kW) Electricity (kWh) Gas (Therm) Reported 9.64318582.00 .00 Revised .00 .00 .00 Verification Ratio .00% .00% .00%

PPDCLOTALE Control No.: 1.34 Concern: File Shows High % of Inoperative Lighting Fixtures Beyond that Allowed in the Filing Description: The file shows waiver of the Blue Book guidelines on inoperative fixtures in excess of 10% of the total in the Della Majorie facility. Adjustments for non-operable fixtures as per 47% on page 36 inspection on 1/30/1997as follows: Adjusted KWH = 1485935.97 KWH original estimate * 47% *1.03 other savings = 719341,60 Adjusted KW = 298.44 KW original estimate * 47% * 1.03 other savings = 144.47 Adjustment: Demand (kW) Electricity (kWh) Gas (Therm) Reported 307.39 1530514.00 .00 Revised 162.92 811172.00 .00 Verification Ratio 53.00% 53.00% .00%

55 ...... PPRGGILERG Control. No.: 1.41 Concern: File uses Baseline and Proposed Assumptions for a Campus Boiler and Distribution System that are Low Efficiency Description: A campus boiler and distribution system is past its equipment life and was shut down for several years. They want to replace the system with new equipment at the buildings. The calculations establish the existing energy used based on 1990 bills. The calculation also establishes the energy use of proposed building based on proxy buildings. The approach to calculate energy saving is inappropriate. The energy saving should be based on energy simulations. In general, the baseline assumptions should be based on Title 24 and calibrated to the existing energy use, and the proposed assumption is based on actual design of the new system. Zeroed out savings. Adjustment: Demand (kW) Electricity (kWh) Gas (Therm) Reported .00 .00 888861.00 Revised .00 .00 .00 Verification Ratio .00% .00% .00%

PTACH1601M Control No.: 1.12 Concern: Files are Missing Monitoring Data, Calculation Methodology, and Post- instillation Production Data Description: Monitoring data, calculation methodology and post-instillation production data for the measures for the site are needed to verify savings. Requested information from the utility. Responses for PTACH1665M and PTACH1601M (Chevron Projects) PTACH1665M. The baseline for this project is an adjusted pump curve that is verified with spot measurements. See graph, Attachment #2, Document #1. The install year demand and energy savings estimates are based on conservative estimates. See Documents #2 and #3. The load profiles (motor demand, flow rates, and hours of operation) are metered continuously and savings are trued up annually with metering data. PTACH1601M. The baseline for this project is an adjusted pump curve that is verified with spot measurements. See graph, Attachment #2, Document #4. The installed year demand and energy savings estimates are based on conservative estimates. See Document #5. The load profiles (motor demand, flow rates, and hours of operation) are metered continuously and savings are trued up annually with metering data. Adjustement for PTACH1665M: Utility provided energy saving calculations for PTACH1665M, but the baseline assumption is incorrect. The peak production rate decreased from 71 MBPD (million barrels per day) to 45 MBPD. The energy saving calculation includes the energy saved from this reduction. The saving calculation should be based on 45 MBPD production rate with properly sized equipment. Trimming the impeller would accomplish this task. Below calculation adds a variable speed drive to a baseline system with a peak production rate of 45 MBPD. We assumed 30 MBPD as an average production rate. Water horsepower: WHP = Q * H / 3960 Where: Q = fluid flow rate, GAL / MIN H = total head, FT Q = (45 – 30) MBPD * 42 GAL / BARREL * 1 DAY / 1440 MIN * 0.74 SP oil / 1 SP water = 323.75 GAL / MIN H = (499 FT + 574 FT + 744 FT) / 3 = 605 FT WHP = 323.75 GAL / MIN * 605 FT / 3960 FT * GAL / MIN / HP = 40 HP

56 ...... HP = WHP / (MOTOR. .EFFICIENCY) / (DRIVE EFFICIENCY) = 54 HP / 0.935 / 0.97 = 54 HP .. Demand Savings = 54 HP * 0.746 KW / HP = 70 KW Use = 8280 HOURS Energy Savings = 70 KW * 8280 HOURS = 336,864 KWH Adjustment for PTACH1601M: Utility did provide energy saving calculation that differed from the filing. The submitted lacked the description of the project, supporting information for the calculation, and pre- and post- production data. We accepted the calculation on face value and adjusted the saving claim accordingly. Adjustment: Demand (kW) Electricity (kWh) Gas (Therm) Reported 631.00 5300000.00 .00 Revised 227.00 1907000.00 .00 Verification Ratio 35.97% 35.98% .00%

PTACH1665M Control No.: 1.12 Concern: Files are Missing Monitoring Data, Calculation Methodology, and Post- instillation Production Data Description: Monitoring data, calculation methodology and post-instillation production data for the measures for the site are needed to verify savings. Requested information from the utility. Responses for PTACH1665M and PTACH1601M (Chevron Projects) PTACH1665M. The baseline for this project is an adjusted pump curve that is verified with spot measurements. See graph, Attachment #2, Document #1. The install year demand and energy savings estimates are based on conservative estimates. See Documents #2 and #3. The load profiles (motor demand, flow rates, and hours of operation) are metered continuously and savings are trued up annually with metering data. PTACH1601M. The baseline for this project is an adjusted pump curve that is verified with spot measurements. See graph, Attachment #2, Document #4. The installed year demand and energy savings estimates are based on conservative estimates. See Document #5. The load profiles (motor demand, flow rates, and hours of operation) are metered continuously and savings are trued up annually with metering data. Adjustement for PTACH1665M: Utility provided energy saving calculations for PTACH1665M, but the baseline assumption is incorrect. The peak production rate decreased from 71 MBPD (million barrels per day) to 45 MBPD. The energy saving calculation includes the energy saved from this reduction. The saving calculation should be based on 45 MBPD production rate with properly sized equipment. Trimming the impeller would accomplish this task. Below calculation adds a variable speed drive to a baseline system with a peak production rate of 45 MBPD. We assumed 30 MBPD as an average production rate. Water horsepower: WHP = Q * H / 3960 Where: Q = fluid flow rate, GAL / MIN H = total head, FT Q = (45 – 30) MBPD * 42 GAL / BARREL * 1 DAY / 1440 MIN * 0.74 SP oil / 1 SP water = 323.75 GAL / MIN H = (499 FT + 574 FT + 744 FT) / 3 = 605 FT WHP = 323.75 GAL / MIN * 605 FT / 3960 FT * GAL / MIN / HP = 40 HP HP = WHP / (MOTOR EFFICIENCY) / (DRIVE EFFICIENCY) = 54 HP / 0.935 / 0.97 = 54 HP Demand Savings = 54 HP * 0.746 KW / HP = 70 KW

57 ...... Use = 8280 HOURS .. Energy Savings = 70 KW.. * 8280 HOURS = 336,864 KWH Adjustment for PTACH1601M: Utility did provide energy saving calculation that differed from the filing. The submitted lacked the description of the project, supporting information for the calculation, and pre- and post- production data. We accepted the calculation on face value and adjusted the saving claim accordingly. Adjustment: Demand (kW) Electricity (kWh) Gas (Therm) Reported 241.60 2000000.00 .00 Revised 40.00 336864.00 .00 Verification Ratio 16.56% 16.84% .00%

PTACH1671M Control No.: 1.10 Concern: File is Missing Information for Baseline Motor Efficiency Description: The motor listed as saving energy is not listed in the file or any sizing of the motor (hp or kW base) listed. Requested backup information on motor #1671 which none was received. The motor was retrofitted with a used rotor. It improved the efficiency from 61% to 76.5%. The improved motor is still below the standard efficiency of 95% or better. The file does not give a detail description to the project. We believe that the efficiency improvement through standard maintenance of the motor with the replacement of the rotor. Adjustment: Demand (kW) Electricity (kWh) Gas (Therm) Reported 271.00 2308408.00 .00 Revised .00 .00 .00 Verification Ratio .00% .00% .00%

PTACH401BM Control No.: 1.9 Concern: File Does Not use Coincidental Demand Savings as Basis for Peak Demand Savings Calculated Description: Calculation for demand saving was based on maximum kW saving over a variable flow system. It should calculate demand saving on the probability of coincidental demand. Requested justification for kW savings. Adjust savings using demand diversity procedures. Adjustment: Demand (kW) Electricity (kWh) Gas (Therm) Reported 782.00 3818618.00 .00 Revised 436.00 3818618.00 .00 Verification Ratio 55.75% 100.00%.00%

PTAMO1FM Control No.: 1.15 Concern: Files are Missing % Rated Flow Profile for ASD and Calculation Methodology Description: The production Rated Flow Profile (by hours and %) data for the base case process and savings calculation methodology are not in the file. Requested information from the utility. Response. Annual flow and load data for these projects were not used to establish the baseline. For these projects the method to establish the baseline was to take power measurements over the range of expected flow (95 to 105 gpm) and develop a baseline "curve" that correlates flow rate and power. The attached pages (Attachment #2, Documents #6-8) show the measurements for each motor. Also attached are two pages (Documents #9 and #10) of supplementary information including damper position. The energy savings are found by measuring the flow rate and taking power measurements at 15-minute intervals in the post-installation phase. The baseline for each post-installation measurement is then determined by using the power-flow correlation that was established during the pre-

58 ...... installation phase. For the.. year of installation, however, flow profiles were not consistently available. Therefore, the.. baseline for these motors for the year of installation only was considered (conservatively) to is the power associated with the lowest expected flow (95 gpm). Adjustment. From the project description, the average vortex opening is 40%. From standard fan curves, the average flow is at 90% rated flow. This was confirm from the "Generator Blower Motor Variable Speed Drive Test, " dated January 10, 1998, with a percent rated power of 85% (53 KW / 62 KW). With the additional inefficiency of the variable speed drive, projected savings are negative. Adjustment: Demand (kW) Electricity (kWh) Gas (Therm) Reported 27.00 231784.00 .00 Revised .00 .00 .00 Verification Ratio .00% .00% .00%

PTAMO32AM Control No.: 1.15 Concern: Files are Missing % Rated Flow Profile for ASD and Calculation Methodology Description: The production Rated Flow Profile (by hours and %) data for the base case process and savings calculation methodology are not in the file. Requested information from the utility. Response. Annual flow and load data for these projects were not used to establish the baseline. For these projects the method to establish the baseline was to take power measurements over the range of expected flow (95 to 105 gpm) and develop a baseline "curve" that correlates flow rate and power. The attached pages (Attachment #2, Documents #6-8) show the measurements for each motor. Also attached are two pages (Documents #9 and #10) of supplementary information including damper position. The energy savings are found by measuring the flow rate and taking power measurements at 15-minute intervals in the post-installation phase. The baseline for each post-installation measurement is then determined by using the power-flow correlation that was established during the pre- installation phase. For the year of installation, however, flow profiles were not consistently available. Therefore, the baseline for these motors for the year of installation only was considered (conservatively) to is the power associated with the lowest expected flow (95 gpm). Adjustment. From the project description, the average vortex opening is 40%. From standard fan curves, the average flow is at 90% rated flow. This was confirm from the "Generator Blower Motor Variable Speed Drive Test, " dated January 10, 1998, with a percent rated power of 85% (53 KW / 62 KW). With the additional inefficiency of the variable speed drive, projected savings are negative. Adjustment: Demand (kW) Electricity (kWh) Gas (Therm) Reported 20.90 179418.00 .00 Revised .00 .00 .00 Verification Ratio .00% .00% .00%

PTAMO32IMControl No.: 1.15 Concern: Files are Missing % Rated Flow Profile for ASD and Calculation Methodology Description: The production Rated Flow Profile (by hours and %) data for the base case process and savings calculation methodology are not in the file. Requested information from the utility. Response. Annual flow and load data for these projects were not used to establish the baseline. For these projects the method to establish the baseline was to take power measurements over the range of expected flow (95 to 105 gpm) and develop a baseline "curve" that correlates flow rate and power. The attached pages (Attachment #2, Documents

59 ...... #6-8) show the measurements.. for each motor. Also attached are two pages (Documents #9 and #10) of supplementary.. information including damper position. The energy savings are found by measuring the flow rate and taking power measurements at 15-minute intervals in the post-installation phase. The baseline for each post-installation measurement is then determined by using the power-flow correlation that was established during the pre- installation phase. For the year of installation, however, flow profiles were not consistently available. Therefore, the baseline for these motors for the year of installation only was considered (conservatively) to is the power associated with the lowest expected flow (95 gpm). Adjustment. From the project description, the average vortex opening is 40%. From standard fan curves, the average flow is at 90% rated flow. This was confirm from the "Generator Blower Motor Variable Speed Drive Test, " dated January 10, 1998, with a percent rated power of 85% (53 KW / 62 KW). With the additional inefficiency of the variable speed drive, projected savings are negative. Adjustment: Demand (kW) Electricity (kWh) Gas (Therm) Reported 20.90 179418.00 .00 Revised .00 .00 .00 Verification Ratio .00% .00% .00%

PTAMORIVEM Control No.: 1.15 Concern: Files are Missing % Rated Flow Profile for ASD and Calculation Methodology Description: The production Rated Flow Profile (by hours and %) data for the base case process and savings calculation methodology are not in the file. Requested information from the utility. Response. Annual flow and load data for these projects were not used to establish the baseline. For these projects the method to establish the baseline was to take power measurements over the range of expected flow (95 to 105 gpm) and develop a baseline "curve" that correlates flow rate and power. The attached pages (Attachment #2, Documents #6-8) show the measurements for each motor. Also attached are two pages (Documents #9 and #10) of supplementary information including damper position. The energy savings are found by measuring the flow rate and taking power measurements at 15-minute intervals in the post-installation phase. The baseline for each post-installation measurement is then determined by using the power-flow correlation that was established during the pre- installation phase. For the year of installation, however, flow profiles were not consistently available. Therefore, the baseline for these motors for the year of installation only was considered (conservatively) to is the power associated with the lowest expected flow (95 gpm). Adjustment. From the project description, the average vortex opening is 40%. From standard fan curves, the average flow is at 90% rated flow. This was confirm from the "Generator Blower Motor Variable Speed Drive Test, " dated January 10, 1998, with a percent rated power of 85% (53 KW / 62 KW). With the additional inefficiency of the variable speed drive, projected savings are negative. Adjustment: Demand (kW) Electricity (kWh) Gas (Therm) Reported 188.10 1614763.00 .00 Revised .00 .00 .00 Verification Ratio .00% .00% .00%

60 ...... Appendix B ..

PowerSavings Partners Residential Lighting APCODE – PCCCC388CE

The site name was 388 Market. The first problem was regarding the number to be sampled by the inspector. The selected sample description found on the last page of the post-installation TimeFrame Universal Report indicated that the sample size was 80. That is, the inspector would verify the validity of 80 fixtures. However, in the Report, the inspector only verified 73 fixtures. Fixture #166, location 3,43 was noted in error by the inspector. On this fixture, the inspector noted a change in quantity which was reflected neither in the LE-2 table nor in the database. ECONorthwest changed the quantity from 3 fixtures to 4 fixtures to reflect the inspector’s note. The alteration in quantity increased the kWh savings for this fixture to 195 kWh. An additional error was found on ID# 986, location 15,16. The LE-2 table and electronic database report the quantity of this fixture as 2. However, the inspector verified only 1 fixture at this site. The total kWh savings for this fixture increased to 1,121 kWh. Another fixture, ID# 609, location 9,32 was found to be in error. The inspector verified that this fixture existed, yet it was not present in either the LE-2 table or the electronic database. ECONorthwest added this entry per the post-installation TimeFrame Universal Report verified by the inspector. The appropriate pre- and post-installation retrofit codes and kW were entered. Thus, 6 units of post retrofit code CFT13/1 were appended to the electronic database. Since there was no evidence that this fixture existed in the pre-installation TimeFrame Universal Report, total kWh must be reduced by 321 kWh. The total kWh savings for this site are revised to 661,947 kWh.

APCODE – PCCCCORDE

The inspector noted a change in quantity for fixture ID # 38, location1, 2. The inspector verified that there were 8 fixtures, not 6. The alteration decreased total kWh savings for this fixture to 2,488 kWh. The LE-2 Table and electronic database did not reflect this change. Thus, the total kWh savings were verified by ECONorthwest to be 84,630 kWh.

APCODE – PCCCDORIE

The selected sample description located on the page 4 of the TimeFrame Universal Report indicated that 13 fixtures were to be verified by the inspector. The inspector actually verified 29 fixtures, thus ECONorthwest also verified these 29 fixtures. The quantity of fixture ID # 18, location 0,0 was verified by the inspector to be 6 in the TimeFrame Universal Report. However, the LE-2 Table and the electronic database entered the quantity as 7. For this fixture, total kWh savings increased to 1,734. The total kWh savings were changed to 49,306 kWh.

APCODE – PCCCCNAPAE

ECONorthwest altered the entry on fixture ID#116, location 1,43. The inspector indicated on the post-installation TimeFrame Universal Report that no fixtures fitting this description were found and thus, that this entry should be deleted entirely. However, the LE-2 table and electronic database both still contained this entry. ECONorthwest has deleted this item when calculating the gross kWh total savings for this site. The total kWh savings is recalculated to be 138,552 kWh.

APCODE – PCCCPINOE

61 ...... On each of these alterations,.. the inspector did not find error in the post-installation TimeFrame Universal Report... However, in all of the cases, there is a discrepancy between the TimeFrame Universal Report and the LE-2 table and electronic database. Fixture ID#1, location 2,11, fixture ID#3, location 2,13, fixture ID#5, location 1,1, and fixture ID#7, location 1,2are classified by the inspector as having post-retrofit codes of F42LL. The LE-2 table and electronic database have different codes for these fixtures. Thus, the post-retrofit kW savings will change when the code changes. The recalculated total kWh savings are 20,994 kWh.

Power Savings Partners Residential Boiler APCODE – PCCGAKEAGG

In the verification of AP code PCCGAKEAGG, site name Westlake Terrace East, a problem was found in one of the units. The inspector verified boiler #2 to save 9,641therms/unit. However, the electronic database allocated 9,642therms/unit. ECONorthwest changed this error. The total therms saved for this site was recalculated to 24,103 therms.

APCODE – PCCGAKEYSAG

ECONorthwest found an error in the verification of AP code PCCGAKEYSG, site name Keys Condominium. The inspector noted that boilers #6 and #7 should save 3,725 therms/unit and 5,809 therms/unit respectively. The electronic database did not reflect these savings, however, the paper copy of total therms saved found in the verification materials (audit document #1) contained the total the ECONorthwest obtained. ECONorthwest altered the total terms to 32,125 therms saved.

APCODE – PCCGALLOWG

In the verification of AP code PCCGALLOWG, site name Willow Tree Apartments, ECONorthwest could not verify the check Request form and summary savings information. These items were missing from the verification documents.

APCODE – PCCGARIOGG

For AP code PCCGARIOGG, site name Rio Lindo, the electronic database did not reflect the same total as the hard copy verification documents or ECONorthwest verified totals. The correct total should be 4,603 therms saved per the inspection materials.

APCODE – PCGASTOLG

ECONorthwest could not verify the total therms saved for AP code PCGASTOLG, site name Bristol Commons. The table HW-2 of post-installation measure/normalized results is missing page two, thus the total cannot be verified.

62 ...... Appendix C

Nonresidential New Construction

PGE Estimate Ecotope Estimate OBS Site # kwh kw kwh kw Correction 1 CJN6019 39,796 20 32,008 20 (7,788) Note: Based on field performance data (fax to and from rep) and model data the cooling equipment does not perform as well as that which was evaluated. Due to number of systems and discrepancies in unit capacities, it is difficult to make a "correct" adjustment. Correction is made by removing cooling energy savings by taking percentage of electric source kbtu and applying to the output kwh savings. delta electric source kbtu=24.83. Cooling kbtu=4.86. Savings adjustment=4.86/24.83=19.57%. Note than fan energy savings are ignored here and partly or mostly could be attributable to the decrease in lighting energy. 2 CJN6030 3,339,732 598 3,149,332 598 (190,400) Note: Also most of building is coded as precision Commer/Ind but has an lpd of 0.49. What makes it precision. The 7/28 response document does not address what makes the space precision. Only that the space was permitted as such. Savings will be adjusted for general commercial/industrial figures of 1.2 down from 2.0.

3 CJQ7436 54,919 18 53,938 18 (981) Note: Exits use 40watt per fixture base. Remove 50% of savings. 4 CJR7409 1,312,905 359 1,291,198 359 - Note: Model assumes HVAC is always on. PGE states this is a biotech pharecutical company with live animal testing and therefore 8760 hour operation is expected.

5 CNL6007 1,846,694 340 323,171 43 (1,523,523) Note: This isPGE a project Estimate to insulate new refrigeratedEcotope wine Estimate vats. Basecase seems seriously unreasonable. Based upon this savings are reduced by 82.5% to make assumption that the tank has R2.8 worth of insulation in addition to the R0.4 OBS Site # kwh kw kwh kw Correction surface coefficient assumption. If the basecase was deemed reasonable then corrections to the calculation should 9 CRN1043 be made 301,395 as follows. 106 The calculation 276,519 method uses the ASHRAE 100 SolAir method. (24,876) Four mistakes are made in the Note: annualTitle24 savingslpd calc iscalc. area First, based, incident incentive solar savings radiation done is taken with wholefrom design building values value. for Title24 40 degrees watts=53387, latitude from installed the handbook.watts 34001, This savings is not 19.4kw, the average kwh @3500=67851.solar for the site Siteand pointstherefore out is double erroneously counting high. issue Second, with hours there in is EER no mention calcs ofwhen the lightinglongwave or termwindows (day are and improved. nightsky, Notday clearand night on what ground should rad). be This done. is knownExit signs to be at negative40 watts andadjusted on an to annual 20 basis roughly balances the solar effect otherwise the climate would quickly get warmer. The third results from 10 CRN1046 incomplete 1,850,563 calculation. 612 One calculation 1,334,743 of four is presented 612and the total (470,820) is for all four. A calculation by the same Note: Perscriptiveengineer for programsimilar facilities Final Incentive uses solair Estimate temperatures form fields to calculate are blacked gain out through (copy theproblem). tank bottom. Exhaust fans are really 6 CNL6016 relief 1,243,832 fans interlocked 239 with the economizer 217,671 and therefore according 30 to (1,026,161)PGE excludable. Air distribution calcs are based upon design air flow which will only happen a few hours of the year and this being a VAV system with VFD Note: Wine Tank, cont. Fourth, there is a huge uncertainty in the surface coefficient which leads to this calc having at which will have significantly reduced air flow and motor energy use savings are reduced by 50% for both fan best a factor of 2 accuracy. No supporting data is presented for the average windspeed used to lookup the U2.5 systems value used. The engineer states. "ho=2.5 For 2 to 3 MPH air velocity over fairly smooth surface." In the table 11 CRN1063 referenced, 520,692 this value 148 is for a surface 263,012 between concrete and 148 smooth plaster. (143,020) The only surface remotely similar to Note: Fansteel motors would beand the air "white system paint incented, on pine" remove which 10940kwh would yield for a doublevalue around counting. 2.1. Since The ASHRAE air distribution table usedcalcs isare based based on uponstudy designof 1 square air flow foot which samples. will only Larger happen surfaces a few result hours in of lower the year values. and thisRecent being studies a VAV show VFD significantly system which lower will have significantlynumbers. Given reduced the incredibleair flow and sensitivity motor energy of the use base the case air distributioncalcultion, andsavings the errorsare reduced and the by uncertainty 50%. of applying an inappropriate surface coefficient, if the uninsulated basecase is accepted, savings should be reduced by 50%. 12 CRN1073 1,288,947 453 826,607 453 (462,340) 7 CNL6017Note: Fan 2,243,701 motors EF1-3, SPF1-3 478 and EPF1-4 392,648 not accounted for in fan 60 power (1,851,053) calculation. PGE response indicates these Note: areWine relief Tank, fans. cont. Fan In schedules ora_dr22.doc included it is stated with file that indicate a list of relief recently fans installed are denoted uninsulated as "RF" tanks and EF1 used is fora bathroom year round exhaustchilled storage fan. Energy was sent consumption July 17th. for This these list hasfans never has been been added received. to the air distribution calculation. For these and 8 CPS6543 main 994,727 supply fan motors 259 efficiency credit 992,165 is also taken. EF1-3,SPF1-3, 259 and (2,562) EPF1-4 consume 62664 watts Note: (assumingExit lights calcbhp=hp with and 40 watt100% base. efficiency). Document Air distribution use of complete savings building reduced base 250656kwh. calc. Does Remaining this project air really distribution have 8 buildings?savings reduced If not then by 50%. lighting Efficient savings motor will besavings reduced reduced by 50%. by 24355.6 plus 5655.3 plus 10001.3kwh. 13 CRN1080 820,547 173 810,854 173 (9,693) Note: Exit lights calc with 40 watt base. Savings reduced by 50%. 14 CTR9009 3,596,137 908 (1,741) - (3,597,878) Note: Base versus enchanced case made the following changes: CAV to half-VAV/half-CAV, increased lighting, improved chilling, and added VSD where appropriate. Though this is a hospital, the CAV-VAV occurs in zones that would typically be VAV. CAV-VAV is not a base case system for these zones. VAV in enhanced case was inlet vane, which would be the base case. Remove one-third of chiller savings and all of vent fan savings. (Note there are more savings in each of these categories than the run deltas indicate. The increased light would cause the enhanced case to have higher consumption in both of these so taking the delta is similar to take a % of the savings if the lighting hadn't changed between runs.) The reason for the negative savings is the increased lighting energy. Lighting data is a mess. No summaries except simulation summary. LPD in summaries do not agree with that simulated. Since no summaries of audit lighting data will be adjusted for summary table. Models have third set of values Prop 1.63, Base 1.3. 15 CVP1086 364,748 67 358,616 67 (6,132) Note: Remove half of exit light savings 16 CVP1135 822,392 80 619,221 80 (203,171) Note: Package AC savings calculated using 4000 full load hours. PGE uses 1200 hours for precision Industry. Error by the field rep AC savings adjusted by 12/40. Since these calcs are based upon design air flow which will only happen a few hours of the year and this being a VAV system which will have significantly reduced air flow and motor energy use, air distribution savings are reduced by 50% for both fan systems 63 17 CVP1136 1,730,804 287 1,329,699 287 (401,104) Note: Package AC savings calculated using 4000 full load hours. PGE uses 1200 hours for precision Industry. Error by the field rep AC savings adjusted by 12/40. Since these calcs are based upon design air flow which will only happen a few hours of the year and this being a VAV system which will have significantly reduced air flow and motor energy use, air distribution savings are reduced by 50% for both fan systems. Adjust exit light base, reduce saving 50%...... PGE Estimate .. Ecotope Estimate OBS Site # kwh kw .. kwh kw Correction 18 CVV1919 1,207,442 343 1,182,544 343 (15,899) Note: There is math error that leads to 9000 kwh short fall when final estimate form is summed. Half of exit lights savings removed.

19 CVV6042 1,025,960 451 969,770 451 (56,190) Note: Tower not matched to chiller. Chiller puts out 82.42 and assumes entering 74F. Cooling tower is set with 80.5 and 73. Resulting true condensor water temp is speculation. Savings adjusted 7.5/8.42. 20 CVV6046 856,579 894 856,579 894 - Note: kWh savings are based upon utility savings from generating at night. Materials offer no support for this number but PGE is sending supporting documents.

21 CVV6068 5,766,604 632 4,903,683 632 (862,921) Note: Industrial performance. Silicon ingot manufacturing. 80% of savings result from closed circuit coolers which utilize evaporative cooling to cool main process load. File notes that chilled water is often used to meet process loads and that they have installed chiller driven systems in other ingot plants. The equipment results in a major reduction in chiller capacity (576 tons). For an incremental cost of $29,000. Base case is suspect, as is assumption that base case chiller will deliver water at 40F. Savings from measure are strongly a function of the temperature the chilled water is delivered at. Coolers deliver 75F water. Chiller is assumed to do major cool down I'm sure in concert with other needs. The nature of the load lends itself to using a dedicated chiller with it's own set points. Savings reduced 20% (20% of 4314606) to adjust for warmer chilled water temperature.

22 CVV6072 264,317 72 248,987 72 (15,330) Note: Exit light, half of savings removed. 23 CXV6177 394,784 131 392,120 131 (2,663) Note: Exit lights, half of savings removed. 24 SRA7023 264,665 108 257,918 91 (6,747) Note: When doing area category method every area must pass code. This is stated on page 13 (middle column, first bulleted item, third sentence) of the program pamplet. One area of this project does not meet code, and so would not qualify based upon that. Dennis Fitzpatrick stated that it is utility practice to accept the project as long as the actual lpd exceeds the sum of the area code lpds by the threshold amount. Savings are then calculated as negative in zones exceeding code. This was not done in this case. If it had been then a correction of 3423kwh (8kw) should be made. Technically savings should be zeroed, however the utility approach if applied seems reasonable. Savings for the lpd measure have been reduced 3423.

25 SRA7030 59,443 30 59,443 30 - Note: why is there a difference between post field lighting by chris tanner (12/9/97) and the comply24 run by dodd on 12/12/97 (page 14). PGE explaination unsatisfactory. No adjustment made.