371 



per single-family residence in order to more accurately represent the expected sav- 

 ings due to weatherization. As can be seen from this explanation, evaluation results 

 do inform planning estimates, and the two should not be confused or used inappro- 

 priately to characterize BPA's program. 



It is important to understand that the 1988-1989 Oak Ridge National Laboratory 

 evaluation results in question (ORNLi/CON-323), while defensible amd in accord 

 with professionally accepted standards of program evaluation, may not be represent- 

 ative of Pacific Northwest region and thus, of Bonneville's overall program. The data 

 from the Oak Ridge evaluation were taken from the Data Gathering Project (DGP) 

 database. The DGP were originally designed to be representative of the Northwest 

 region. However, in the last few years a number of utilities have dropped out of the 

 DGP and the loss has not been sjmametrical across the climate zones. For the 1988- 

 1989 study under consideration, only 6 and 8 utilities, respectively, of the original 

 16 remained from which to draw data. While the savings estimates are methodologi- 

 cally robust, and in fact, corroborate a 10 year trend of declining first year savings, 

 they are substantially lower than any previous year's savings. 



Due to those developments affecting the representativeness of the 1988-1989 

 data, Bonneville decided not to modify its planning estimates but to continue to use 

 the current estimates until a region-wide savings estimate is available. 



Currently, a region-wide Residential Weatherization evaluation, not based on 

 DGP data, is underway with final results due this fall. This evaluation is regionally 

 representative and will revisit the issue of declining first year savings. 



Mr. DeFazio. That will be helpful. There's been a lot of thought 

 and testimony, but my recollection is perhaps it was Jane Van 

 Dyke at Clark who was talking about when they get to the end 

 point, one of the things on the table that couldn't be resolved was 

 these sorts of treatments and that they wanted to continue the pro- 

 gram as part of their project, and you wanted to change that. 



Does that have anything to do, as I surmised, with your prob- 

 lems? 



Ms. HiCKEY. That's another one that I have to request to answer 

 in writing. I know that we are not consistently requiring additional 

 verification for utilities that are running on normal weatherization 

 measures. So that was unusual to me, as well, and I'd like a chance 

 to check into it, 



[The information follows:] 



BPA has acknowledged that Clark County PUD's (Clark) proposal for the con- 

 servation power plant did take longer to analyze than we would have liked. It is 

 important to remember that Clark also had some issues that took time to review, 

 and ultimately, it was Clark which withdrew the proposal. Our financial and Area 

 staff were informed by Clark's general manager on March 2, 1993, that the power 

 plant approach was not prudent for the utility to pursue because of potential fiscal 

 impacts on the utility. 



Clark's proposal suggested that "lost revenues will be viewed by Clark and BPa 

 as a contribution to the program by Clark and its customer owners." This position 

 was inconsistent with BPA's Energy Conservation Policies, since lost revenues are 

 a utility contribution and do not constitute a stake in the success of the program. 

 Because lost revenues is a very important issue to Clark, it probably would have 

 been a mjgor roadblock in the negotiation process, even if Clark had chosen to con- 

 tinue discussions. 



The document to which Ms. Van Dyke refers in her prefiled testimony was a draft 

 of the Master Financing Agreement for discussion purposes only, and was sent to 

 the region's mayor utilities to solicit their comments. Since this was a draft for dis- 

 cussion purposes, utilities were not expected to sign the Agreement. 



Ms. Van Dyke also makes reference to "a very simple amendment to our current 

 residential weatherization contract [that] took six months." This is the Watt N' 

 Water Savers contract that is a separate contract as opposed to an amendment to 

 Clark's existing Residential Conservation Agreement. The Area negotiated this con- 

 tract so that Clark could continue with their initial plans to blitz their service terri- 

 tory under the Appliance Efficient Exhibit with efficient showerheads. This was an 

 innovative effort by Clark and BPA to continue a cost-effective progrsun while ad- 

 justing to BPA's financial constraints. Again, this was a cumbersome process that 



