Commercial Showerhead UES Measure Update

1. Commercial ShowerheadUES Measure Update Regional Technical Forum Staff Update June 18, 2013

2. Updates since April 2013 RTF Approval • Added mail-by-request delivery mechanism back to measure (RTF request) • Updated material costs for direct install and mail-by-request delivery mechanisms to reflects costs provided by Fluid Market Strategies • Switched retail measure costs from full material cost to incremental material cost (EnerNOC QC suggestion) • Changed electric hot water saturations to reflect CBSA 2009 findings • Added schools and gyms (RTF request)

3. 1. Added mail-by-request delivery mechanism • Changes from retail and direct install delivery mechanisms • Cost – material costs from Fluid, S&H cost from residential specialty CFL • Installation rate – 60% • Based on RTF professional judgment. • Assume lower uptake with lower GPM for retail and mail-by-request to address concerns of lower satisfaction at lower flow rates

4. 2. Update bulk material costs • The update to the Commercial Showerhead measure was presented at the April 2013 RTF meeting, and was approved. • In this update, RTF staff removed the Mail-by-Request delivery mechanism because they had not heard from any utilities that they used this delivery mechanism. • Material costs for the retail and direct install delivery mechanisms were based on a small online review of retail showerhead costs. The material costs for the direct install mechanism were discounted by 15% to account for wholesale discounts. • At the April 2013 RTF meeting, Mark Jerome indicated that Fluid Market Strategies has implemented a Mail-by-Request showerhead measure at the end of 2012 and could provide cost data. • After the meeting, Jerome provided RTF staff with a bulk purchase cost for low-flow showerheads: $6/showerhead. (2012$) • This value was used to develop a Mail-by-Request cost. • This value was also used to develop a new direct install cost, because the purchase routes for Mail-by-Request and direct-install would likely be similar.

5. 3. Switch from full to incremental costs for retail delivery mechanism • To date, the material cost for commercial showerheads has been the full retail cost for all delivery channels • As part of their QC process, EnerNOC recommended changing to incremental cost for retail delivery channel • Direct install costs will continue to use full measure cost

6. 4. Electric water heat saturation changed to reflect CBSA, where possible • Version 2_2 of the analysis, approved in April 2013, used some values derived from 2003 CBECS data. • Updated 2009 CBSA data provides a more recent snapshot of electric water heater saturation in the PNW.

7. 5. Added schools and gyms • Schools • Used a metered study of two high schools to estimate annual gallons/showerhead. • Assumed same in situ flow rate as for other building types (2.2 gpm). • Gyms • Informal phone survey of five gyms across the NW conducted and used to estimate minutes/showerhead. • Finding – usage (minutes per showerhead) is ~30x other commercial applications • This suggests that water and energy savings from low flow showerheads at gyms would result in a more water-efficient baseline than in other applications • No data found to inform this - RTF judgment required

8. Workbook Review • [see Commercial Showerheads Analysis, v2_3]

9. B/C Ratio - Hospitality

10. B/C Ratio – Health Care

11. B/C Ratio – Small Commercial Employee Shower

12. B/C Ratio - Schools

13. B/C Ratio - Gyms

14. Staff Proposal • Update the Small Saver Commercial Showerheads UES measure with the data presented, excluding gyms. • Develop a UES measure for gyms that is categorized by baseline flow rate.