Refrigerator Decommissioning: Measure Status Update

Regional Technical ForumOctober 16, 2013

2

Grounds for Bringing Measure Back to the RTF

• PSE recently conducted an evaluation. Evaluated savings values are significantly lower than those approved by RTF (approx. 30%).– The difference is due to PSE’s investigation of secondary market effects.

• As per the Guidelines "At any time prior to the sunset date, the RTF may decide to place the measure under review. This may be the result of a review of the UES savings estimation procedure, the availability of new sources of data for baseline or efficient-case consumption or a change in the measure’s specification. The UES values will remain RTF-approved while the measure is under review. As a result of the review, the UES values may be re-estimated."

3

Presentation Objectives – RTF Decision Required on:

• In light of PSE’s evaluation findings, should the measure be placed “Under Review”?– We are not developing/proposing new savings

estimate today.

• If the measure is to be placed “Under Review”, should the Sunset Date be changed? Current Sunset Date is June, 2014. (Proposed: February)

4

PSE Program Overview• Program currently accepts both primary and secondary units. • Three delivery designs:

– Direct-to-Consumer: PSE markets the program directly to its customers. When a customer decides to participate, they call the provided number and schedule a refrigerator pickup. PSE currently contracts with JACO Environmental, who handles the bulk of the program implementation.

– Quick Link: PSE has partnered with appliance retailers like Sears or Lowes, and sales staff at these businesses alert customers about the Decommissioning program option when they are making a new refrigerator purchase. Sales staff can schedule a home unit pick up directly in the store during the sales transaction if the customer agrees to participate.

– Retailer Direct: PSE & JACO work with local retailers who accept refrigerators when delivering a new unit to a home to assure that these units are collected and recycled.

• PSE staff indicates that most of their program participation comes from promoting the program directly to its customers.

• Currently, the Program offers a $30 incentive and free removal to decommission the refrigerator.

5

PSE: Motivation to Conduct Evaluation

• Previous to 2013, PSE had not formally conducted an impact evaluation of the refrigerator decommissioning program

• RTF savings logic seemed reasonable; PSE simply wanted to test the validity of the RTF assumptions in it’s service area

• There was no previous work on second hand market impacts in the Northwest

6

PSE Approach Compared with UMP and RTF

• Logic used to calculate savings agrees with both UMP protocols and RTF. – PSE investigated used market effects. RTF made assumptions for these

secondary market effect factors. List of these factors on slide 10.

• This spring, the D.O.E released a series of Uniform Method Protocols (UMP) for the evaluation of utility sponsored energy efficiency programs. – Cadmus authored the refrigerator decommissioning UMP– Effects of the second hand market were addressed in the UMP and

evaluations are encouraged to include second hand market effects in program savings results

7

PSE Decommissioning Program

Existing (secondary unit) - $$$$

$ = kWh

Nothing - 0

Decommissioning Program

• A unit’s savings depends on “What would have happened in the absence of the program.” Three possibilities, two paths to savings, a unit can only do one.

– No savings: Unit would have been recycled anyway

– Direct savings: Lower the number of units in use at a home.

• Full UEC (as a secondary unit)

– Market effect savings: Lower energy consumption of secondary units purchased on the used unit market.

• Varying levels of UEC

• Following slides present evaluation results in PSE format

8

Decommissioning Flow Chart, Step 1Participant Actions in the Absence of the Program

Keep Equipment10.3%

Keep in Use60.6%

Direct Savings = UEC

as secondary unit

0.90 * 0.87 *

1012 kWh= 790 kWh

Keep Unused39.4%

Direct Savings = 0, not plugged in

Discard Equipment

89.7%

Transfer to another Customer (Sell to Dealer, Remove by dealer, Trade in for new

unit, Hire someone to remove, Give to charity, give to neighbor)

68.0%

Market Effect (savings per

transferred unit)

166 kWh

Destroyed32.0%

No Market Effect

66%: Same as RTF

34%: Same as RTF

Recent Acquirer of Used Unit

Details on next page

9

Decommissioning Flow Chart, Used Unit Market (RTF makes assumption to estimate these factors)

Recent Acquirer of Used Unit

Acquired a Used Unit as a Primary Unit

85.6%

Would Have acquired

similar used unit

55.2%

Market Effect = 0

Would have acquired new

unit41.6%

Market Effect = viable used primary UEC -

New UEC

839 kWh -464 kWh = 374 kWh

Would not have

acquired any unit3.2%

Market Effect = 0

Acquired a Used Unit as a Secondary Unit

14.4%

Would Have acquired

similar used unit

58.6%

Market Effect = 0

Would have acquired new

unit20.7%

Market Effect= viable

secondary used UEC -

New secondary

UEC

0.90 *(839 kWh -464 kWh) =

336 kWh

Would not have

acquired any unit

20.7%

Market Effect = viable used

UEC

0.90*839 kWh = 752 kWh

RTF does not distinguish

RTF assumes these factors to be combined; combined value is 50 %. PSE calculated value is 3 %.

Similarly, RTF assumes the rest of the factors (at this level) to be combined at 50 %; PSE calculates these to be 97%

10

Deommissioning Final Savings Estimate

• PSE evaluated per unit savings = 150 kWh.• PSE claimed savings (RTF) = 424 kWh.• Applying PSE’s market characterization results to RTF

methodology ~290 kWh

Disposition Percent of Total

Units Per Unit Savings

(kWh)

Kept Plugged in 6.24% 790.0 Un-plugged 4.06% 0.0

Destroyed 28.70% 0.0

Transferred

Primary Acquirer

No Change 28.82% 0.0

Upgrade 21.72% 374.5

Forego 1.67% 0.0

Secondary Acquirer

No Change 5.15% 0.0

Upgrade 1.82% 335.9

Forego 1.82% 752.4 Per Unit Savings 100% 150.4

11

Deommissioning Final Savings Estimate

• Differences with other published results– Lower “Direct” savings, fewer would be keepers.– Fewer used unit acquirers would switch to new or forgo

additional unit altogether– Used unit – new unit difference is getting smaller

Component CA 2002 (KEMA )

CA 2004-5 (ADM)

CA 2006-8 (Cadmus)

ETO 2010 (Innov.)

RTF 2010

PSE 2013 (DNV

KEMA) Kept in use 12% 12% 13% 8% 6%

Transfer, Not-destroyed 58% 47% 56% 60% 61%

Potential Savings kWH (UEC * Part-use)

1,712 1,655 1,059 1,087 908

Realization Percent 41% 62% 55% 50% 17%

Adjusted Programmatic Savings 702 1,029 582 544 482 150

12

PSE Used Market Characterization: Initial Feedback

• PSE surveyed customers in the used refrigerator market to understand customer decision making process.

– PSE did not interview potential recipients that were denied a refrigerator due to program presence.

– UMP acknowledges that these “potential recipients that were denied a refrigerator” are impossible to interview

– PSE did interview program participants to understand how they would have transferred their recycled refrigerator (recycle, peer-to-peer, sell) in program absence.

– The brother-in-law factor may be better estimated using PSE collected data, with subcommittee review. Present assumption is 50%

13

Staff Recommendation

• Measure status should be changed to “Under Review”– Staff finds evidence from the PSE study and it’s

potential impact on energy savings to be sufficient for measure review.

14

Decision

“I _______ move to:• Change the measure status for Refrigerator

Decommissioning to “Under Review”; and• Change the sunset date to February 28, 2014.”