Proposed 2013 rtf work plan october 23 2012
1 / 14

Proposed 2013 RTF Work Plan October 23, 2012 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

Proposed 2013 RTF Work Plan October 23, 2012. 2013 compared to 2012. Proposed 2013 Work Plan. Work Plan additions since draft. Populate remaining components of EUL default table ($16,000) Research project placeholder ($28,000) End-Use Business Case Recommendation Solicitation ($10,000)

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' Proposed 2013 RTF Work Plan October 23, 2012' - nili

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Proposed 2013 rtf work plan october 23 2012

Proposed 2013RTF Work PlanOctober 23, 2012

Work plan additions since draft
Work Plan additions since draft

  • Populate remaining components of EUL default table ($16,000)

  • Research project placeholder ($28,000)

  • End-Use Business Case Recommendation Solicitation ($10,000)

  • Coordination of UES and Standard Protocol data collection efforts ($24,000)

    • Re-worded from previous workplan item “Develop and execute RTF evaluation work plan”

Work plan changes since draft
Work Plan changes since draft

  • Decreased RTF Staff cost for updating UES workbooks with RBSA data (-$34,000)

  • Decreased contractor cost for Guidelines updates as needed (-$20,000)

  • Decreased website development and management ($-$10,000)

  • Increased measure component level information database development (+$10,000)

Comments received
Comments received

  • Q: Currently RTF only funded through 2014. Should work plan exclude budget and assumptions for 2015 until PAC has approved budget?

  • A: Indicating projections through 2015 helps build case for continuation of funding and priorities.

  • Q: Did not find line item for End-Use Load Shape work.

  • A: Added funding to cover development of brochure and marketing material to hand to regional entities for funding solicitation.

Comments received1
Comments received

  • Q: NEEA is funding ECAM, so what is purpose of additional funding from RTF?

  • A: Line item in RTF work plan for specific tailoring of ECAM time-series capability to RTF, and additional funding for maintenance.

  • Q: End-Use Load Data Library Development and Maintenance. Is this the work being done with PNNL?

  • A: No, this is for one-off end uses that may be discovered during 2013, and continual maintenance of database Cadmus developed.

Comments received2
Comments received

  • Q: See value in vetting non-RTF approved measures for 7th plan supply curves.

  • A: Expect review of non-RTF approved items to be handled through outside panel of experts.

  • Q: Valuable to allocate additional funds to regional research coordination.

  • A: Agree. Added line item to deal with research plans as they pertain to provisional data collection.

Comments received3
Comments received

  • Q: Is annual comparison of utility/SBC administrator TRM an RTF role?

  • A: Expect RTF-staff to perform research scan of regional TRMs for potential measures to help prioritize.

  • Q: Suggest increasing agenda time to 60 minutes for work plan discussion.

  • A: Agree. Compromising at 45 minutes.

Concerns about additional rtf staff
Concerns about additional RTF Staff

  • Commenter Concerns

    • Skill set of proposed 3 RTF staff may not be diverse enough to take on wide array of work

    • Learning curve to ramp-up may take time and expect 3rd party contractors still needed

    • Potential pool of applicants may be limited

  • Commenter Suggestions

    • Review with Ops subcommittee to weigh pros/cons

    • Limit 3rd party contracts to less specialized contract language

Concerns about additional rtf staff1
Concerns about additional RTF Staff

  • RTF Staff position

    • Agree, it will take time to get staff up to speed

      • New staff developing workbooks that have recommendation memos as outlines serve as good introductions

      • Existing staff will lend hand as needed and serve as internal review, similar to how it’s done now

    • Risk of not finding adequate staff is small

      • If qualified candidates do not exist, or too few candidates apply, RTF staff will default to current contracting model

Concerns about additional rtf staff2
Concerns about additional RTF Staff

  • RTF Staff position

    • Reviewed model with Ops committee prior to September meeting, and will continue to review staff selections, contracts, and budgetary issues

    • Mid-year programming effort will inform RTF how workload is progressing and allow for adjustments to budget as needed for remainder of year

    • Less time will be spent refining contractor work to fit RTF standards; more staff time will be spent on doing work

Rtf proposed motion
RTF Proposed Motion

  • “I _________ move that the RTF approve the 2013 Work Plan and accompanying Business Plan and recommend them to the Council for final approval.