The following is a post of perhaps 2010, surfaced to the present in error in the course of applying labels. I don't know how to put it back. Instead, please read this in the present, updated. I have been interested in the excuse given by my rebates organization, Energy Trust of Oregon, that their policies for weatherization incentives are based on payback studies by Bonneville Power Administration and its contracted Regional Technical Forum. No criticism or improvement I offer can have any effect, against this slow Goliath. I studied the RTF documents in 2010 and reported that numbers presented have no evident bases.
The RTF web presence for residential weatherization is now found at http://www.nwcouncil.org/energy/rtf/subcommittees/res/
Here I look for a cumbersome Excel spreadsheet, understood to be RTF's "Work Product."
This link works.
A 2011 document describes the RTF processes:
RTF receives large funding, for no evident good result. A half million dollars being spent on existing measures review in 2012. Is anyone watching?
The "work product" of Bonneville Power Administration/ Regional Technical
Forum, is in lists of "Deemed Measures." Such lists aim to give decisive figures from technical methodologies, of involved savings in Demand Side Management, DSM, for the power generator. Lists in areas of residential energy savings, are not for guidance of contractors or home owners.
The list at September, 2012 is:
This is a link for download of an Excel file. It is more conveniently viewed via my Google Drive:
My comparative study in 2010 is based on ResWXSF_FY10v2_1, which is no longer posted at nwcouncil.org. It may be seen instead where I have posted it at my Google Drive:
These Excel spreadsheets are large and I am entitled to consider significance of these to me, as a weatherization contractor, and as a home owner. I look only at residential weatherization matters, to see that worthy work, happens. In this BPA can't help, they only control rates paid to them by Utility customers. RTF has no direct role in helping. The existing courses of action are through government and other entities that handle funds to be given out or to be on-loan.
The lack of BPA heart in weatherization is evident in its posting of consumer and contractor links of end-result Specifications documents. The core authorship is at Portland, Oregon neighbor, Energy Trust of Oregon, ETO. Posted ETO specifications are two years out of date. Although BPA tries to push ETO specifications throughout the Columbia River watershed service area, and ETO blames specification deficiencies on RTF limitations, BPA is not paying much attention. No one is in charge; certainly not BPA.
I have asked BPA and RTF to justify their so-expensive work product vs. my measures review with understandable bases, done at no cost. They will not reply, being somehow beyond criticism. At September 2012, I look for changes on insulation measures that matter to me. Comparing documents v2.1, v2.3 and v2.4, I find no progress. A few numbers shift by strange small amounts.
A respondent to this survey, stated:
"It would be helpful to have actual savings data to back up estimated energy savings."
I know that savings Insulation Math has predicted for my customers, have been of no interest to my rebates organization. The improved utility bills of my customers are not being tracked.