Background At its October 15, 2013 meeting, the RTF accepted Option 3 for dealing with measure interactions for residential heating and weatherization measures (see the October RTF Meeting Presentation for background). But, the RTF delegated deciding on the definition of the Full Measure Package to a subcommittee.
Rich Arneson, Andie Baker, David Baylon, Todd Blackman, David Bopp, Bruce Carter, Christian Douglass,Tom Eckman, Ryan Firestone, Lauren Gage,Charlie Grist, Bob Gunn, Adam Hadley, Jeff Harris,Mark Jerome, Mark Johnson, Rick Knori, Ben Larson, Nick O'Neil, Mark Percy, Cory Reed, Eugene Rosolie, Josh Rushton, Mohit Singh-Chhabra, Paul Sklar, Jeremy Stewart
This procedure is set out to ensure we get full engagement of the subcommittee. This is important since the decision was delegated by the RTF to the subcommittee. Since it is not possible to find a time when everyone can meet, the discussion and voting procedure will take place through a combination of online discussion and conference call
1. Discussion Period #1: Through Thursday November 7, 2013. Subcommittee members are encouraged to discuss via the subcommittee webpage the Full Measure Package definition and recommend specific changes to the proposal. RTF staff has provided its proposed definition in comments; this is intended to help start and guide the conversation.
2. Conference Call: Friday 9:00 am (Pacific) November 8, 2013. The purpose of this conference call will be to discuss the proposed Full Measure Package definition and come to consensus on the final proposed definition (this is the version that will be voted on). RTF staff will distribute meeting minutes and the final motion language to the group after the meeting.
3. Discussion Period #2: Through Wednesday November 13, 2013. Subcommittee members are encouraged to discuss via the subcommittee webpage the proposed motion language.
3.B. Conference Call #2: Wednesday November 13, 2013 at 1:00 pm (Pacific). The purpose of this conference call will be to finalize the text definition of full measure package and use it to define the proposed efficiency levels that make up the package.
4. Voting Period: A vote on the motion will be taken via email.Votes will be due Monday 5:00 pm (Pacific) November 18, 2013. Only RTF voting members on the subcommittee (those in bold) may vote.
Nick sent out the official vote email, but we've repeated it here for convenience:
Dear LMI Subcommittee Voting Members,
We have had two conference calls and some online discussion. At our last conference call, we decided we were ready for a vote.If you missed the calls, that's ok. We have very detailed notes from both meetings posted, as well as all of the online discussion. You can review everything on the subcommittee webpage.
The voting rules, as approved by the Ops Committee, are as follows:
For a motion to pass, at least 10 voting members of the subcommittee are required to vote, and at least 60% yea votes are required.
Under these rules, you can see that it's important for you to participate in the vote, or it would get kicked back up to the RTF. If you are a voting member of the RTF and are receiving this email, you are a voting member of the subcommittee.(Non-voting members of the subcommittee are also receiving this email in case they want to continue discussion on the subcommittee page.)
Please email JAnziano@nwcouncil.org your vote on both of the following two (2) motions. Votes are due by this Monday at 5:00pm PST. Your final votes will be made public on the subcommittee page (to be consistent with how RTF voting works).
1. The following specifications represent the subcommittee's best estimate of the average efficiency levels for the component after the full efficiency retrofit is completed under today's programs. If the RTF pursues LMI Option 3, these values should be used to represent the full measure package.
Infiltration: 0.50 ACHn
Duct Tightness: PTCS
Duct Insulation: n/a 9set at average RBSA levels)
Heat Pump HSPF: 9.0
HP CC&S: PTCS
Your Vote Options:
2. The RTF should not proceed with implementing Option 3 until it revisits the merits of Option 3. Option 1c, or similar, may be a better option.
Your Vote Options: