energy trust board of directors meeting · 2020-04-16 · 421 sw oak street, suite 300 portland, or...

421 SW Oak Street, Suite 300 Portland, OR 97204 1.866.368.7878 503.546.6862 fax energytrust.org

Energy Trust Board of Directors Meeting April 6, 2016

5135th Board Meeting Wednesday, April 6, 2016 421 SW Oak Street, Suite 300 Portland, Oregon

Agenda Tab Purpose

10:30am Executive Session The board will meet in Executive Session pursuant to bylaws section 3.19.1 to discuss internal personnel matters.

The Executive Session is not open to the public.

12:15 pm Call to Order (Debbie Kitchin) Approve agenda

General Public Comment The president may defer specific public comment to the appropriate agenda topic.

Consent Agenda .............................................................................................. The consent agenda may be approved by a single motion, second and vote of the board. Any item on the consent agenda will be moved to the regular agenda upon the request from any member of the board.

1 Action

February 24 Board meeting minutes Corporate Authorization (bank signing authority)—R770

12:20 pm President’s Report (Debbie Kitchin)

12:30 pm Audit Committee (Ken Canon) Presentation and review of results of financial audit by Moss Adams Accept audited financial report for period ending 12/31/15—R771 ............... 2 Action

1:00 pm Break

1:10 pm Energy Programs Waive program incentives for Red Rock Biofuels LLC—R772 ..................... 3 Action Approve Medford Airport Solar Incentive—R773 .......................................... 3 Action

1:50 pm Committee Reports Evaluation Committee (Alan Meyer) .............................................................. 4 Info Executive Director Transition Committee (Ken Canon) Compensation Committee (Dan Enloe) Finance Committee (Dan Enloe) ................................................................... 5 Info Policy Committee (Roger Hamilton) .............................................................. 6 Info

2:15 pm Staff Report Highlights (Margie Harris) Legislative Update (Hannah Cruz and Jay Ward) ......................................... 8 Info

3:00 pm Adjourn

Agenda April 6, 2016

The Energy Trust Board of Directors

will hold its annual strategic planning workshop on

Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 8:00am–5:00pm (breakfast available for board at 7:30am)

Friday, May 20, 2016 at 8:00am–12:30pm (breakfast available for board at 7:30am)

at Mercy Corps, Aceh Conference Room, 45 SW Ankeny St, Portland.

Tab 1 Consent Agenda

February 24 Board meeting minutes Corporate Authorization (bank signing authority)—R770

Tab 2 Audit Committee Presentation on results of financial audit by Moss Adams Report of Independent Auditors and Financial Statements Accept audited financial report for period ending 12/31/15—R771

Tab 3 Energy Programs Waive program incentives for Red Rock Biofuels LLC—R772 Approve Medford Airport Solar Incentive—R773

Tab 4 Evaluation Committee LED Streetlights Market Assessment Study and Staff Response

Tab 5 Finance Committee February 11 meeting notes March 16 special meeting notes Notes on January 2016 financial statements January financials and contract summary report Financial glossary

Tab 6 Policy Committee March 10 meeting notes

Tab 7 Advisory Council Notes February 10 RAC meeting notes February 10 CAC meeting notes March 16 RAC meeting notes—notes will be sent via e-mail prior to board meeting

Note: the March 16 CAC meeting was moved to April 13. Meeting notes will be included in the June 8 board packet.

Tab 8 Staff Report

Legislative update

Tab 9 Glossary of Energy Industry Terminology & Acronyms

Board Meeting Minutes—140th Meeting February 24, 2016

Board members present: Susan Brodahl, Ken Canon, Heather Beusse Eberhardt, Dan Enloe, Roger Hamilton (by phone), Lindsey Hardy, Mark Kendall, Debbie Kitchin, Alan Meyer, John Reynolds, Anne Root, Warren Cook (special advisor, Oregon Department of Energy), Steve Bloom (OPUC ex officio) Board members absent: Melissa Cribbins, Eddie Sherman Staff attending: Margie Harris, Ana Morel, Debbie Menashe, Amber Cole, Fred Gordon, Steve Lacey, Peter West, Pati Presnail, Hannah Cruz, Thad Roth, Mike Bailey, Erika Kocielek, Phil Degens, Mia Hart, Betsy Kauffman, Sarah Castor, Cheryle Easton, Jay Ward Others attending: Jim Abrahamson (Cascade Natural Gas), Don Jones, Jr. (PacifiCorp), Elaine Prause (Oregon Public Utility Commission), Bob Stull (CLEAResult), Dave Backen (Evergreen Consulting), BJ Moghadam (NEEA), Bill Henry (EQL Energy), Chris Elsenbach (Jones Lang)

Business Meeting Debbie Kitchin called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. Reminder that consent agenda items can be changed to regular agenda items at any time.

General Public Comments There were no public comments.

Consent Agenda The consent agenda may be approved by a single motion, second and vote of the board. Any item on the consent agenda will be moved to the regular agenda upon the request from any member of the board. MOTION: Approve consent agenda Consent agenda includes: 1) December 11 Board meeting minutes 2) Amend Policy on Self-Direct Incentives—R769

RESOLUTION 769 AMEND POLICY ON SELF-DIRECT INCENTIVES

WHEREAS:

1. PGE and Pacific Power customers in Oregon are required by law to pay a basic, three-percent charge for investment in energy conservation, market transformation and renewable energy measures, except that those who use more than one average megawatt per year may direct their own investments and deduct the cost from the public-purpose charge on their utility bills. This is called "self-direction," administered by the Oregon Department of Energy (ODOE).

2. Energy Trust’s policy on self-direction defines circumstances in which self-directors may receive Energy Trust incentives:

a. No incentives are allowed for a measure for which self-direction credit is used.

b. Self-directors get full incentives if they agree not to use self-direct credits at the site for three years; if they do not agree, they get only a 50% incentive.

c. Self-directors get full incentives for unitary HVAC and motor replacement measures.

Discussion Minutes February 24, 2016

page 2 of 13

d. No more than $1.5 million can be paid for efficiency projects for self-directors.

3. The policy is functioning well. Most firms eligible to self-direct choose to participate in Energy Trust programs, and as a result, more energy has been saved at low cost.

4. At the same time, funding for energy conservation and renewable energy measures for large customers is under increasing pressure. Allowing reduced incentives to firms using self-direct credits at a site could help manage finite incentive funds.

5. In addition, the policy can be improved to make it easier for customers and for Energy Trust to administer.

It is therefore RESOLVED:

The Energy Trust policy on eligibility of self-direct businesses for Energy Trust incentives is amended by: (1) allowing discretion to pay less than 50% incentives at sites that continue to use self-direct credits; (2) replacing the policy’s list of specific exemptions with categories of exemptions that allow full incentives for prescriptive and small measures; and (3) removing the $1.5 million cap on incentives for self-directors, as shown in the Attachment.

Moved by: Ken Canon Seconded by: John Reynolds Vote: In favor: 11 Abstained: 0 Opposed: 0

ATTACHMENT: 4.10.000-P Eligibility of Self-Direct Businesses for Energy Trust Incentives

History Source Date Action/Notes Next Review Date

Board Decision May 8, 2001 Approved (R27) November 28, 2001 Board November 28, 2001 Reviewed, Revised (R58) January 30, 2002 Board January 30, 2002 Reviewed, Revised (R69, R70) April 3, 2002 Board April 3, 2002 Reviewed, Revised (R96) October 30, 2002 Board October 30, 2002 Reviewed, Revised (R137) October 2005 Board May 25, 2006 Reviewed, Revised (R392) May 2009

Policy Comm/Board September 2, 2009 Reviewed, no changes August 2012 Policy Committee October 23, 2012 Ditto October 2015

Board December 12, 2014 Amended (R732) December 2017 Board February 24, 2016 Amended (R769) February 2019

Introduction Oregon law allows entities that use over one average megawatt of electricity a year at a single site to direct their own electric efficiency and renewable energy projects and deduct the cost from the public purpose charge on their electric bills. In 2002, Energy Trust adopted a policy allowing self-directors a full Energy Trust incentive for the new project only if the self-director agrees not to use self-direct credits at the same site for 36 months. The policy recognizes that self-directors should not have the same access to Energy Trust incentives as electric users who pay the public purpose charge.

Policy Purpose: Energy Trust generally supports projects only of energy users who pay into the three percent public purpose fund on which Energy Trust programs are based. At the same time, Oregon’s self-direction requirement can lead to situations in which an energy user reduces or eliminates its contribution to the public purpose fund by implementing energy efficiency or renewable energy measures certified by


page 3 of 13

the Oregon Department of Energy at a self-direct site. This policy outlines circumstances in which a self-directing energy user nevertheless qualifies for Energy Trust support. 1. Limitations on incentives at sites that are eligible to self-direct:

A. No incentives for self-directed measures: No Energy Trust incentive will be given for any measure (“measure” includes technical studies and commissioning services) for which self-direction credit is also claimed.

B. All other measures: However, Aan energy user that is eligible to self-direct may that seeks an

Energy Trust incentive for a measure if the energy userother than those exempted above: • must agrees not to use any self-direct credits for 36 months at the same ODOE-certified site as

the site of the proposed Energy Trust measure, and may receive 100% of the standard Energy Trust incentive for the measure. After 36 months, the energy user may resume using self-direct credits, or

• if the energy user continues to use any self-direct credits for non-Energy Trust measures at the same site, the energy user will may receive up to 50% of the standard Energy Trust incentive for the measure for which an Energy Trust incentive is sought.

BC. Measures exempted: As long as it claims no self-direct credit for these measures, an energy

user may receive 100% of the standard Energy Trust incentive for the following measures even if the energy user uses self-direct credits for other measures at the same site:

_ unitary HVAC systems; _ motor replacement; 2. Non-lighting prescriptive measures. These are measures where Energy Trust offers consumers a

fixed payment per piece of efficient equipment, per watt, per square foot, or other simple basis. Prescriptive measures are subject to eligibility requirements but involve no site-specific technical analysis. In most situations, customers may apply for prescriptive measures after installation. In some situations, the customer has an option to assign the incentive to a contractor. This exemption does not include prescriptive lighting measures where incentives are calculated and pre-approved in a standardized procedure, or other measures where incentives are based on multi-variable calculations and include pre-approval of incentive offers.

2.3. Midstream and upstream incentives. These incentives are offered to retailers, distributors, manufacturers or other agents in the supply chain to provide efficient equipment or efficiency services to customers.

3.4. _ measures Measures determined by Energy Trust staff to have modest costs to Energy Trust ($35,000 or less per project) and savings, and where application of this policy's requirements would unreasonably interfere with efforts to encourage participation in an Energy Trust program.

2. Restrictions on funding for self-directors: No more than $1.5 million/year of Energy Trust funds

(combined total) will be paid for efficiency projects to all firms that self-direct. With board approval (in the annual budget process or otherwise), this amount could be adjusted upward if program demand is running behind funding for a sustained period.

23. Allocation by customer class. Allocation of Energy Trust funds to self-directing end-users will not change the allocation of funds by customer class. 34. Repayment requirement: If the energy user accepts a full Energy Trust incentive for a measure and agrees not to use self-direction credits on its electric bill at a site for a 36-month period, Energy Trust staff:


page 4 of 13

A. Shall require repayment if the self-director begins using credits before the 36 months has ended.

If required, recovery will be by the following formula: Refund Amount = 0.5 x A x B, where A = total amount of Energy Trust incentives paid and B = 36 minus the number of months elapsed since measure installation or completion, divided by 36. Repayment must be completed within two years of the time the repayment obligation is triggered.

B. May waive repayment for projects whose repayment obligation would be $3,000 or less.

45. Energy efficiency and renewable energy measures considered separately: Energy efficiency and renewable energy measures shall be considered separately for the purposes of this policy. That is, during the 36 months after a measure is installed at a site, a self-director may use self-direction credits for a renewable energy project at an ODOE-certified site if it receives Energy Trust incentives for an energy efficiency project at that site, or vice versa, with no repayment requirement.

Nominating Committee John Reynolds reviewed the resolutions. Resolution 766 elects Heather Beusse Eberhardt, Debbie Kitchin, Alan Meyer and John Reynolds to another three-year term on the board. Resolution 767 elects the current officers of the board to another term.

RESOLUTION 766 ELECTING HEATHER BEUSSE EBERHARDT, DEBBIE KITCHIN,

ALAN MEYER, AND JOHN REYNOLDS TO NEW TERMS ON THE ENERGY TRUST BOARD OF DIRECTORS

WHEREAS:

1. The terms of incumbent board members Heather Beusse Eberhardt, Debbie Kitchin, Alan Meyer, and John Reynolds expire in 2016.

2. The board nominating committee has recommended that four of these members’ terms be renewed.

It is therefore RESOLVED that the Energy Trust of Oregon, Inc., Board of Directors elects Heather Beusse Eberhardt, Debbie Kitchin, Alan Meyer, and John Reynolds, incumbent board members, to new terms of office that end in 2019.

Moved by: Ken Canon Seconded by: Dan Enloe Vote: In favor: 11 Abstained: 0 Opposed: 0

RESOLUTION 767 ELECTING OFFICERS OF

ENERGY TRUST OF OREGON, INC.

WHEREAS:

1. Officers of the Energy Trust of Oregon, Inc. (other than the Executive Director and Chief Financial Officer) are elected each year by the Board of Directors at the board’s annual meeting.


page 5 of 13

2. The Board of Directors nominating committee has nominated the following directors to renew their terms as officers: Debbie Kitchin, President Ken Canon, Vice President Alan Meyer, Secretary Dan Enloe, Treasurer

It is therefore RESOLVED that the Board of Directors hereby elects the following as officers of Energy Trust of Oregon, Inc., for 2016:

Debbie Kitchin, President Ken Canon, Vice President Alan Meyer, Secretary Dan Enloe, Treasurer

Moved by: Heather Beusse Eberhardt Seconded by: Susan Brodahl Vote: In favor: 11 Abstained: 0 Opposed: 0

President’s Report Debbie reviewed Resolution 765, the committee assignments for 2016. Assignments are largely the same as 2015 with a few changes. Roger Hamilton has chosen to step down as chair of the Executive Director Review Committee; Melissa Cribbins has agreed to serve as chair. The Executive Director Transition Committee was added to the resolution. The resolution also indicates the voluntary participation of board members at the Conservation Advisory Council (CAC) and Renewable Energy Advisory Council (RAC) meetings. It was clarified the councils advise the board, and board members attend the council meetings to report to the full board on council discussions.

RESOLUTION 765 BOARD COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS

WHEREAS:

1. Energy Trust of Oregon, Inc. Board of Directors are authorized to appoint by resolution committees to carry out the Board’s business.

2. The Board President has nominated new directors to serve on the following committees.

It is therefore RESOLVED:

1. This resolution supersedes Resolution 736, adopted by the board at its February 24, 2016, meeting.

2. That the Board of Directors hereby appoints the following directors to the following committees for terms that will continue until a subsequent resolution changing committee appointments is adopted:

Audit Committee

Ken Canon, Chair Melissa Cribbins Mark Kendall Heather Buesse Eberhardt Karen Ward, outside expert Debbie Kitchin (ex officio)


page 6 of 13

Board Nominating Committee John Reynolds, Chair Roger Hamilton Alan Meyer Anne Root Eddie Sherman Steve Bloom, OPUC (ex officio) Debbie Kitchin (ex officio)

Compensation Committee (formerly 401(k) Committee) Dan Enloe, Chair Melissa Cribbins Mark Kendall Debbie Kitchin (ex officio)

Executive Director Review Committee Melissa Cribbins, Chair Ken Canon John Reynolds Debbie Kitchin (ex officio)

Finance Committee Dan Enloe, Chair Susan Brodahl Anne Root Debbie Kitchin (ex officio)

Policy Committee Roger Hamilton, Chair Ken Canon Alan Meyer John Reynolds Eddie Sherman Debbie Kitchin (ex officio)

Program Evaluation Committee Alan Meyer, Chair Susan Brodahl Heather Beusse Eberhardt Lindsey Hardy Anne Root Ken Keating, expert outside reviewer Debbie Kitchin (ex officio)

Strategic Planning Committee Mark Kendall, Chair Susan Brodahl Ken Canon Lindsey Hardy John Reynolds Eddie Sherman Warren Cook, ODOE (ex officio) Steve Bloom, OPUC (ex officio) Debbie Kitchin (ex officio)

Executive Director Transition Committee Ken Canon, Chair Susan Brodahl


page 7 of 13

Mark Kendall Debbie Kitchin John Reynolds Elaine Prause, OPUC

3. The executive director, general counsel, or chief financial officer are authorized to sign routine 401(k) administrative documents on behalf of the board, or other documents if authorized by the Compensation Committee.

4. The board also acknowledges that the following board members have committed to attend advisory council meetings:

a. Conservation Advisory Council: Lindsey Hardy and Alan Meyer

b. Renewable Energy Advisory Council: Alan Meyer and John Reynolds

Moved by: Alan Meyer Seconded by: John Reynolds Vote: In favor: 11 Abstained: 0 Opposed: 0

Committee Reports Audit Committee, Ken Canon The committee is starting the annual financial audit process. The audit will be conducted by Moss Adams, who conducted the 2014 audit. Unlike in past years, the scope of the audit will not include areas for extra review by Moss Adams. The committee was satisfied with the results of expanded review items included in past audits, which showed no areas of concern by the auditor. Additionally, Finance staff have responded to improvements recommended in the additional reviews previously completed. This year’s audit will be finalized in time for the April 15 delivery date of the 2015 Annual Report. The board requested Moss Adams provide suggestions for implementing electronic payments. Margie noted she had raised this subject with Moss Adams. Anticipating the board’s interest and the organization’s desire to maintain internal controls and gain efficiencies, Margie requested Moss Adams provide recommendations related to electronic payments. Executive Director Transition Committee, Ken Canon The application period for the Executive Director position closed Monday, February 22. The committee received 46 applications from a range of qualified candidates. The committee will meet in the next few weeks to narrow the list of applicants and expects to schedule a first round of interviews in the latter part of March. The full board will be engaged later in the process to interview and vet a shorter list of candidates. The committee thanked human resources manager, Greg Stokes for his support. Evaluation Committee, Alan Meyer The committee met in December. The 2015 Products Process Evaluation assessed the transition of the program to a new Program Management Contractor (PMC). The evaluation noted the transition was successful; a large component of the transition was use of a transition contract. The evaluation examined an issue with the regional sales allocation tool, which allocates costs and savings for qualifying products sold by retailers in both Energy Trust and Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) service territories. Staff commented they are sorting this allocation out and nearing resolution. Since learning of the issue, changes have been made to the Products program and to the regional sales allocation tool to make sure it fairly represents various utility customers that may be purchasing products. Thad Roth noted there are costs associated with a regional approach and collaboration and there are a number of places, especially in rural areas, where small consumer-owned utilities have decided not to participate in the regional


page 8 of 13

program. There is value to Energy Trust to still be visible in those areas. Thad noted the costs of including stores serving customers from utilities not affiliated with Energy Trust is approximately 2.5 percent of the program’s total lighting budget. The board asked whether staff and PMC staff turnover was a contributing factor. Thad said there was staff, PMC staff and BPA staff turnover. At one point, Energy Trust’s residential staff had nearly one-half of its positions vacant due to various transitions. When key players change it impacts resident knowledge of the program as well as information flow. At the December meeting, the committee reviewed an LED Streetlights Market Assessment. The market is transitioning to LEDs, which result in savings in energy and maintenance costs. Streetlights can be owned by a municipality, by a utility or by another entity. There is a high adoption rate to LEDs in PGE territory, largely because PGE has lower rates for LED streetlights than for traditional streetlights. The assessment concluded there is benefit to Energy Trust continuing its incentive offer and monitoring when the market fully transforms. The board commented on the features of LEDs that allow them to flash or change color in times of emergency. The committee reviewed the Commercial and Industrial Lighting Controls Savings and Persistence Study. Savings persist at a high rate of 99 percent. The board asked if there is quality control with lighting controls projects. Phil Degens responded that lighting projects receive site verification depending on the size of the project. In cases where the controls were not found, it was unclear whether the controls were removed or not originally installed. The committee reviewed the Tier I Advanced Power Strips Pilot Evaluation. The product senses load and turns plugged-in appliances and electronics off if they are not being used. The pilot was conducted in multifamily rental units, and was determined to be cost effective. Another pilot will be completed on Tier II power strips. The board suggested staff share the pilot results with Nest and other advanced smart thermostat manufacturers. Finance Committee, Dan Enloe The committee reviewed the December 2015 financial statement. Investment income came in at 91.5 percent of target and reflects a good job by Finance staff. Revenue was lower than budgeted and lower than last year, resulting in drawing down program reserves as planned. Staff will stay in close conversation with the utilities to align rates and budgets carefully. As of December, Energy Trust was projected to come in under budget. One piece to this was the restructuring of Program Management Contractor (PMC) and Program Delivery Contractor (PDC) contracts to incentivize achieving mid-year savings targets. Incentive spending was forecasted to be $1.3 million more than budgeted. $81 million in energy-efficiency incentives were provided. The organization still experienced the “hockey stick” in December. The mid-year performance incentives did not eliminate the hockey stick effect though it did save money on performance payments. The board asked about the Software Development in Progress asset line item going down while the Computer Hardware and Software line item increased by more than double. Interim CFO and controller, Pati Presnail, clarified the change reflects the large new project tracking system installed and completed in summer 2015. Dan and Margie introduced Resolution 768. Energy Trust’s current lease at the Lincoln Building expires June 30, 2019. At this time, staff is proposing a lease extension to the board. The real estate market for office space is extremely hot in the area with rents going up significantly and vacancy rates very low. Projections show these trends continuing and becoming more pronounced in the future. As proposed, the current lease would be extended to December 31, 2025. Over time, costs in the proposed lease extension w incrementally increase and will not exceed $35 per square foot in the final year, an amount below projected market rates in that final year.


page 9 of 13

Margie listed major drivers contributing to a competitive market for Portland commercial office space, which led staff to investigate the economics of a lease extension and avoid undue increases in costs per square foot for our office space. This is also a moment in time when Energy Trust can lock in future lease costs when the current building owner is anticipating selling the building. Energy Trust being a stable long-term tenant carries some appeal as part of a potential sale. Consistent with our grant agreement, staff has alerted the OPUC of the possibility of the lease extension. Margie then introduced Chris Elsenbach of Jones Lang, Energy Trust’s tenant representative. Chris described the market indicators showing low vacancy rates, the lowest since 2000, and increasing rental rates. Overall, the Portland Metro area has the fourth lowest commercial office vacancy rate in the country at 6.7 percent. In Class B office space, Energy Trust’s current leased space, rental rates are increasing 15.4 percent year over year. Class B rates are up 17 percent in the central city area and new buildings under construction are already 42 percent pre-leased. Supply is constrained and is expected to remain so in future years, even with a healthy new construction pipeline. The board asked about the different influences on Class A and Class B space. Chris described growth in Class A, but not as much as Class B. He noted that for the first time ever, Class B space is more highly coveted than a Class A building. Creative companies, like tech, apparel, clean tech and the maker market desire the Class B space. Chris noted cities north and south of Portland are more expensive, and the Portland “brand” has hit nationally and internationally. Major companies from San Francisco are relocating to Portland. The current new construction boom is largely mixed-used, not all office space, and any new construction office space starts at $45 per square foot. Margie reviewed the benefits to utility customers if the current lease were extended as proposed. Staff estimated about $100,000 to prepare for a move, $130,000 to physically move and office closure of two to four days. Alternatively, the lease extension locks in the rate per square foot and also includes some abatement from future rent charges. Margie noted staff will start determining if there are any tenant space improvements needed, including the possibility of more conference room space. The board asked about the surety of building improvements to non-leased spaces of the building, especially with the landlord’s intention to sell. Chris predicted that whomever buys the building will probably slowly reposition it to appeal to the changing market. Energy Trust could anticipate a new lobby and more improvements. The board noted employee time, creativity and money has already been invested in renovating the floor for Energy Trust’s needs and for energy efficiency. By the end of the current lease period in mid-2019, Energy Trust rent will be at $22 per square foot, which is significantly below market. With the new lease starting at $29 per square foot, Energy Trust rent will continue to be below market based on current projections. Margie said Energy Trust is required to notify the OPUC of any contractual obligation greater than two years. Staff has already submitted to the OPUC the intent to consider the extension. The OPUC has a 45-day period to voice comments or concerns. Resolution 768 would allow the Executive Director to negotiate a final lease extension and execute the extension, if OPUC approval is obtained. Staff will present the final terms to the Finance Committee. The process is expected to conclude before the next board meeting.

RESOLUTION 768 AUTHORIZE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR TO NEGOTIATE

FAVORABLE BUILDING OFFICE SPACE LEASE EXTENSION

WHEREAS: 1. Energy Trust’s current office space lease expires June 30, 2019.


page 10 of 13

2. Energy Trust’s current office space is Class B, and in a favorable location for Energy Trust operations. Costs and resources associated with relocating can be substantial.

3. The downtown Portland office building market is active, and rental rates are increasing significantly and are expected to continue to increase.

4. Energy Trust’s current landlord is willing to negotiate a lease extension and to commit to favorable rent rates through 2025.

5. To maintain Energy Trust’s ability to negotiate favorable terms, the board authorizes the executive director to complete lease extension negotiations within certain parameters.

It is therefore RESOLVED, the Board authorizes the Executive Director or her designee to negotiate and sign a lease extension for a lease extension term consistent with the following general terms:

c. Cost per square foot may not exceed $35.00 per year for the lease extension period d. Lease term extension will begin July 1, 2019 and end not earlier than December 31, 2025

In addition, the negotiations will seek to:

o Maximize reimbursement to Energy Trust for minor tenant improvements o Obtain some amounts of rent abatement under the current lease o Maximize flexibility related to both current and future space requirements o Enhance productivity and efficiency of staff functions and foster teamwork

As required by the Oregon Public Utility Commission (OPUC) Grant Agreement, the Executive

Director or her designee will obtain approval by the OPUC for the terms of the lease extension prior to signing the final lease extension documentation.

The Executive Director or her designee will submit the final lease extension proposal for review by the Board Finance Committee prior to signing final lease extension documentation.

Moved by: John Reynolds Seconded by: Anne Root Vote: In favor: 11 Abstained: 0 Opposed: 0

The board noted the factors affecting the rental market are also considerations the Strategic Planning Committee should be aware of. Chris noted Oregon now ranks first in the U.S. for in-migration due to livability, cost of hiring employees, education, brand, cost of living, mass transit and general affordability when compared to other West Coast cities. The board commented the potential for in-migration spill over into other cities and towns in Oregon, which will affect demand for programs. The board welcomed receiving the information Chris referenced on Portland’s changing market conditions. Policy Committee, Alan Meyer At the last meeting, the committee reviewed many items the board has taken action on or will hear about in today’s meeting, including the self-direct policy adopted in the consent agenda, Commissioner Steve Bloom replacing Commissioner John Savage as the ex officio OPUC representative, the Energy Trust office lease extension and state legislation under consideration. The committee also briefly discussed a waste-to-heat power project proposal which is expected to come to the committee at its next meeting and then to the full board. Strategic Planning Committee, Mark Kendall The committee met in early February in preparation for the board strategic planning workshop on May 19 and 20. The committee worked with staff to finalize the structure and content of the workshop agenda, which will focus on five major components of the strategic plan: energy goals, emerging energy-efficiency resources, expanding customer participation, key process improvements and new opportunities. The


page 11 of 13

information will be packaged into an implementation dashboard. The dashboard provides information at an executive level for the board to monitor progress to goals and to make quick, responsive determinations over the five-year plan period. The committee heard from staff on an approach to measuring the expand participation goal, including what baseline metrics to develop to help determine how and in what markets to broaden participation. Expanding participation can take on different meanings. The board could look at market segments and geographic distribution. Both are areas Energy Trust programs are fairly present, including in all four utility territories and with residential, commercial and industrial customers. Driving deeper into demographics of specific customer and business types, including social and cultural distinctions, is more difficult to assess given a lack of baseline information available or easy to obtain cost-effectively. Staff is looking at what Energy Trust can measure that is effective and meaningful that programs can influence. The committee also received a proposed diagram displaying information on emerging energy-efficiency resources, new market transformation pipelines and new markets Energy Trust is trying to commercialize. The diagram distinguishes Energy Trust’s role from NEEA’s role in market transformation and communicates how Energy Trust efforts build off of, and connect to, NEEA’s robust market innovation. The diagram is a follow-up to one of the objectives from last year’s strategic planning workshop and the board’s request to know more about which markets to be in and how to measure progress. Board members commented on how impressed they are with how far the organization has come in linking the five-year strategic plan to annual program goals and activity. The board took a break from 2:50 to 3:00 p.m.

Staff Report Highlights & Preliminary Year-End Results, Margie Harris Margie reviewed the 2015 preliminary annual results. Official results will be published April 15 in the 2015 Annual Report. Preliminary results show Energy Trust exceeding both annual energy efficiency and renewable energy generation goals, exceeding energy-saving targets for three of four utilities and nearly meeting the target for PGE. Margie noted these are great results and the organization is operating in a high performing manner. The shortfall in PGE is largely due to Production Efficiency and Existing Buildings programs delivering fewer savings than expected in the utility territory. In Production Efficiency, there were fewer savings in industrial Strategic Energy Management and a higher-than-usual number of projects moving out of 2015 into 2016 for completion. In the Existing Buildings program, fewer dual-fuel projects completed and the program also saw projects shift into 2016. Staff has adjusted plans for 2016 to account for these factors. Preliminary results show Energy Trust achieving 78 percent of the stretch savings goal for NW Natural in Washington territory. The residential programs exceeded goals and the Existing Buildings program fell short of goal. This shortfall is due to a few, large projects delayed to 2016. For the Renewable Energy sector, the Other Renewables program met its annual generation goal and the Solar program exceeded its annual generation goal. Demand for solar increased as equipment prices dropped, and by year end, the program completed 500 more installations than in 2014. The Other Renewables program saw all four custom projects come on-line and recorded growth in the number of Project Development Assistance projects. The board asked whether people who installed a solar system five or more years ago are now installing a second system. Betsy Kauffman said customers typically install the largest system they can at the start.


page 12 of 13

Betsy confirmed the two Southern Oregon geothermal projects Energy Trust supported in prior years are still generating renewable energy. Margie reviewed a few highlights in a year marked by a clear growth trend. Energy Trust processed more than 108,000 customer transactions, which is a 9 percent increase over 2014 and speaks to the increasing volume of projects. The Solar program installed the highest number of solar systems in a year, a 30 percent increase over 2014. The commercial sector completed a record high 7,200 commercial energy-efficiency projects. Lighting, especially LEDs, was in high demand in all sectors. The Production Efficiency program completed its largest ever industrial project for gas savings, a regenerative thermal oxidizer and heat recovery project that brought in 191 percent of the gas goal for the industrial sector. The sector is now looking at how replicable this approach is for other projects. NEEA came in at 152 percent of its savings goal for Energy Trust, largely due to a standard change to energy-efficient chargers. The organization also benefited from changes made to improve accuracy in budgeting and forecasting. Incentive spending was above budget and greater than 2014, and operating costs were flat compared to 2014. Overall, costs are staying low and results high. Margie reviewed preliminary year-end and projected reserves by utility. The year ended with approximately $60 million in program reserves. Energy Trust set out to reduce reserve amounts over a three-year period and expects to achieve that plan in two years. Margie completed her staff report highlighting the recent TriMet Orange Line expansion, which received Energy Trust incentives for LED lighting at stations, energy-efficient construction of a building and bifacial solar modules at stations. Margie provided an update on staffing transitions for the Chief Financial Officer and the Executive Assistant. The CFO hiring process is nearly complete. The board acknowledged and thanked Ana for her role and contributions to the organization over the past four years as Executive Assistant. 2016 Legislation Update, Jay Ward & Hannah Cruz Jay Ward explained that Energy Trust tracks legislation to understand how it may affect Energy Trust programs and provides information when requested. Energy Trust does not take positions on bills or proposed policies and does not lobby. Hannah Cruz described the Oregon state legislative session, which ends March 6. More than 260 bills were introduced and Energy Trust is tracking 12 bills relating to energy. She reviewed four of the bills being tracked. The public purpose charge bill, SB 1509, was introduced and did not move forward due to some unresolved issues among its stakeholders. She described the large customer funding benefits that would have come from the bill. She said that Energy Trust awaits next steps on large customer funding limitations. Margie clarified that next steps may be in the form of an OPUC docket. Hannah described a large solar bill, HB 4037, that would provide incentives through Oregon Business for solar systems two to 10 megawatts in size, and those projects would not be eligible for Energy Trust incentives. She also described the Healthy Climate Initiative, SB 1574, which would require the Environmental Quality Commission to adopt by rule statewide greenhouse gas reduction goals and would implement a “cap and invest” proposal. SB 1572 would require the OPUC to establish a community solar program for systems 25 kilowatts or larger. Jay described the “emergency clause” that appears in many bills, and explained that its main function is to enable quicker implementation when legislation passes. It also has some impact on referendums and how they are presented to the public.


page 13 of 13

Jay described the Oregon Clean Electricity and Coal Transition plan, HB 4036, and said that ongoing legislative activities of the day mean his update could be out-of-date very quickly. Jay described some of the activity, including amendments to the bill since the bill passed out of the House and was assigned to the Senate Committee on Business and Transportation. One area of potential impact for Energy Trust is in a proposed amendment that would require investor-owned utilities to meet 8 percent of the utility’s retail electric load with small-scale renewable energy projects 20 megawatts or less in size. Jay described his role during session, which is to brief legislators about Energy Trust program activities and help ensure they are aware of how their constituents can work with Energy Trust. The board discussed the energy storage provisions in HB 4036 and asked whether the storage would be utility-scale or home-scale in size. Jay said he believed the former. The board asked for an update by email once the session ends.

Adjourn The meeting adjourned at 3:50 p.m. The next regular meeting of the Energy Trust Board of Directors will be held Wednesday, April 6, 2016, at 12:15 p.m. at Energy Trust of Oregon, Inc., 421 SW Oak Street, Suite 300, Portland, Oregon. _______________________________________ Alan Meyer, Secretary

Board Decision Corporate Authorization (Bank Signing Authority) April 6, 2016

RESOLUTION ___

AUTHORIZING APPROVED BANK SIGNERS

WHEREAS:

1. Umpqua Bank and Bank of the Cascades provide general banking services to Energy Trust (collectively, the “Banks”).

2. Section 7.3 of the Energy Trust bylaws requires that the board of directors authorize officers or agents to sign checks, drafts, or other orders for the payment of money, notes and other evidences of indebtedness (“authorized bank signers”) by way of resolution from time to time.

3. Effective February 17, 2016 Courtney Wilton retired as Chief Financial Officer of Energy Trust.

4. Effective March 28, 2016 Mariet Steenkamp became Chief Financial Officer of Energy Trust.

It is therefore RESOLVED that,

1. Courtney Wilton is to be removed from the list of authorized bank signers for the Banks.

2. Mariet Steenkamp is to be added to the list of authorized bank signers for the Banks.

3. The resulting list of authorized bank signers for the Banks is as follows: a. Debbie Kitchin, Board President b. Dan Enloe, Board Treasurer c. Margie Harris, Executive Director d. Mariet Steenkamp, Chief Financial Officer e. Peter West, Director of Programs f. Steve Lacey, Director of Operations g. Debbie Goldberg Menashe, General Counsel

4. The Executive Director is authorized to execute all required documentation to

implement this resolution. Moved by: Seconded by:

Vote: In favor: Abstained:

Opposed:

Energy Trust of Oregon

APRIL 6, 2016

2015 Audit ResultsCOMMUNICATION WITH THOSE IN CHARGE OF GOVERNANCE

Agenda

• Auditor’s Opinion and Report• Communication with Those Charged with Governance

2

Auditor’s Opinion & Report

Auditor’s Report on the Financial Statements

Unmodified Opinion• Financial statements are presented fairly

and in accordance with US GAAP.

4

Communication with Those Charged with Governance

Our Comments

COMMUNICATION WITH GOVERNING BODY

Deficiencies in Internal Control

Any material weaknesses and significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal control that came to the auditor’s attention during the audit must be reported to the audit committee.

• Material weakness• None noted

• Significant deficiencies & non‐compliance• Nothing to communicate

• Recommendations • Expense report approval• Electronic payments

6

Jennifer [email protected](503) 478‐2209

Ashley [email protected](503) 478‐2251

Report of Independent Auditors and Financial Statements for

Energy Trust of Oregon, Inc.

December 31, 2015 and 2014

CONTENTS PAGEREPORTOFINDEPENDENTAUDITORS 1–2MANAGEMENT’SDISCUSSIONANDANALYSIS 3–8FINANCIALSTATEMENTS Statementsoffinancialposition 9 Statementsofactivities 10 Statementsoffunctionalexpenses 11–12 Statementsofcashflows 13 Notestofinancialstatements 14–26

1

REPORTOFINDEPENDENTAUDITORSTotheBoardofDirectorsEnergyTrustofOregon,Inc.ReportontheFinancialStatementsWehaveauditedtheaccompanyingfinancialstatementsofEnergyTrustofOregon,Inc.,whichcomprisethestatementsof financialpositionasofDecember31,2015and2014,andtherelatedstatementsofactivities, functional expenses, and cash flows for the years then ended, and the related notes to thefinancialstatements.Management’sResponsibilityfortheFinancialStatementsManagementisresponsibleforthepreparationandfairpresentationofthesestatementsinaccordancewithaccountingprinciplesgenerallyacceptedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica;thisincludesthedesign,implementation,andmaintenanceofinternalcontrolrelevanttothepreparationandfairpresentationoffinancialstatementsthatarefreefrommaterialmisstatement,whetherduetofraudorerror.Auditor’sResponsibilityOur responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits. Weconductedouraudits inaccordancewithauditingstandardsgenerallyacceptedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica.Thosestandardsrequirethatweplanandperformtheauditstoobtainreasonableassuranceaboutwhetherthefinancialstatementsarefreefrommaterialmisstatement.Anauditinvolvesperformingprocedurestoobtainauditevidenceabouttheamountsanddisclosuresinthe financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditor’s judgment, including theassessmentof therisksofmaterialmisstatementof the financialstatements,whetherdue to fraudorerror. Inmakingthoseriskassessments, theauditorconsidersinternalcontrolrelevant to theentity’spreparationand fairpresentationof the financial statements inorder todesignauditprocedures thatare appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on theeffectiveness of the entity’s internal control. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit alsoincludes evaluating the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness ofsignificantaccountingestimatesmadebymanagement,aswellasevaluatingtheoverallpresentationofthefinancialstatements.

2

REPORTOFINDEPENDENTAUDITORS(continued)

Webelievethattheauditevidencewehaveobtainedissufficientandappropriatetoprovideabasisforourauditopinion.OpinionIn our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in allmaterial respects, thefinancialpositionofEnergyTrustofOregon,Inc.asofDecember31,2015and2014,andthechangesinits net assets and its cash flows for the years then ended in accordance with accounting principlesgenerallyacceptedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica.OtherMattersOurauditwasconductedforthepurposeofforminganopiniononthefinancialstatementsasawhole.Management’sdiscussionandanalysisonpages3to8ispresentedforpurposesofadditionalanalysisand isnotarequiredpartof the financialstatements.Such informationhasnotbeensubjected to theauditingproceduresapplied intheauditof thebasic financialstatements,and,accordingly,wedonotexpressanopinionorprovideanyassuranceonit.Portland,OregonMarch23,2016

MANAGEMENT’SDISCUSSIONANDANALYSIS

ENERGYTRUSTOFOREGON,INC.MANAGEMENT’SDISCUSSIONANDANALYSIS

Seeaccompanyingnotes. 3

The following narrative overview and analysis of Energy Trust of Oregon, Inc.’s financial activities isprovided for readers of our annual financial statements. This discussion has been prepared bymanagementandshouldbereadinconjunctionwiththeorganization’sfinancialstatementsandnotes.Although the primary focus of this document is the results of activity for the calendar year endedDecember31,2015,comparativedataisalsopresentedforpreviousyearsasareferencepoint.WeofferthissupplementalinformationtoillustrateissuesandtrendsrelatedtoEnergyTrust’sfinancialhealth.Thefinancialstatements,notesandthisdiscussionaretheresponsibilityofmanagement.FinancialHighlights

EnergyTrust’sassetsexceededitsliabilitiesatDecember31,2015,by$68.2million(netassets).All of this is unrestricted. Energy Trust entered into contractual commitments for variousenergy efficiency and renewable generation project incentives that will result in future yearpaymentsnotaccruedasliabilitiesinthesefinancialstatements.AsofDecember31,2015,thesecommitmentsareestimatedat$80million.

During2015,EnergyTrust’stotalnetpositiondecreasedby$19.0million.Followingaresome

significantfinancialhighlightsaccountingforthedecreasefromtheprioryear.

o Totalrevenueof$146.4millionwasalmostidenticaltotheamountbudgeted,anddownfrom the prior year by $17.2 million, or 10.5%. Energy Trust’s energy efficiencyrevenues are established annually in collaboration with its affiliated investor‐ownedutilitiesand theOregonPublicUtilityCommission inanamountdeemednecessary toacquire all cost‐effective energy efficiency and conservation. Renewable generationrevenuesarefixedasapercentageofeachelectricutility’srevenue.Revenueestimatesare provided by utilities and are relatively predictable, although weather and otherchangesinenergyconsumptiondocausesomevariability.Incoordinationwithutilities,energyefficiencycollectionrateswereadjusteddownmodestlyin2015toloweroverallcollectionsandintentionallydrawdownreservesfromprioryearlevels.

o Operatingexpensesincreasedby$11.1millionor7.2percentfrom2014.Totalexpensesof $165.4 million were within $4.5 million (‐2.6%) of the total amount budgeted of$169.9 million. The increase in total spending was almost exclusively tied to energyconservation and renewable generation incentive payments which rose by $10.6million. All other operating costs were essentially flat and increased $0.5 million, orunder1%.

EnergyTrustexceededelectricandgasefficiencysavingsgoals inOregon, fellshortofthegassavings goal in SouthwestWashington, and exceeded goals for renewable energy generation.Electricefficiencysavingstotaled54.1averagemegawatts(aMW),achieving101.8%ofthe2015goal of 53.1 aMW. Natural gas savings totaled 6.5 million annual therms of gas, achieving116.1% of the 2015 goal of 5.6million annual therms. Some of the ways we achieved thesesavingsinclude:


4 Seeaccompanyingnotes.

o Weprocessedover108,000customertransactions.Thisisa9%increaseover2014andisthehighestvolumeofcustomertransactionsthroughourITsystemsinasingleyear.

o Wecompletedthemostevercommercialprojects–approximately7,200.o We completed our largest ever industrial project for gas savings, which helped that

sectorachieve191%ofitsgasgoal.o Lightingwas instrongdemandacrossallsectors.Weinstalled4.1millionbulbs inthe

ResidentialProductsprogramalone.LEDdemandcontinuestogrowinallsectors.o We achieved 129% of the solar generation goal. Demand for solar increased as

equipmentpricesdropped,andwewereable tocomplete1,800installations,whichis500morethanlastyear.

Energy Goals

2015 2015 goalcompared

to goal 2014*Change '14

to '15

Efficiency electric savings (aMW) 54.1 53.1 1.0 59.2 (5.1)

Renewable Resources electric generation (aMW) 3.9 5.6 (1.7) 2.4 1.5

Oregon Gas (million therms) 6.5 5.6 0.9 5.5 1.0 Washington Gas (million therms) 0.2 0.3 (0.1) 0.3 (0.1)

* after true-up



OverviewoftheFinancialStatementsThisdiscussionandanalysisisintendedtoserveasanoverviewofEnergyTrust’sfinancialstatements.Thefinancialstatementsconsistofthefollowing:Thestatementsof financialposition show the various assets ownedor controlled, related liabilitiesandotherobligations,andthevariouscategoriesofnetposition.Asnotedearlier,netassetsmayserveover time as a useful indicator of Energy Trust’s financial position. Energy Trust assets exceededliabilitiesby$68.2millionatyearend.AlmostallEnergyTrustassetsareheldincashandinvestments;capitalandotherassetscomprisearound6%ofthetotal.Liabilitiesarecenteredinaccountspayable,andreflectprimarilyyear‐endincentivepayments.EnergyTrustcarriesnolongtermdebt.

Statement of Financial Position(in millions of dollars)

2015 2014Change '14 to '15 2013

Change '13 to '14

Cash & Investments 91.1$ 115.9$ (24.8)$ 101.7$ 14.2$ Restricted Cash - - - 0.1 (0.1) All other Assets 5.8 4.9 0.9 4.0 0.9

Total Assets 96.9 120.8 (23.9) 105.8 15.0

Total Liabilities 28.7 33.6 (4.9) 27.9 5.7

Board Designated Net Assets - - - 0.1 (0.1) Assets Available for Programs & Operations 68.2 87.2 (19.0) 77.8 9.4

Total Liabilities & Net Assets 96.9$ 120.8$ (23.9)$ 105.8$ 15.0$



The statementsofactivities show the various revenues and expenses, reconciling the beginning netassetstotheendofyeartotal.ThesestatementsshowhowEnergyTrust’snetassetschangedduringtheyear. As planned, wewere able to draw down net assets (reserves) from prior year levels by $19.0million.Actualrevenuesandexpenditureswereveryclosetobudgetedamounts.

Statements of Activities(in millions of dollars)

2015 2014Change '14 to '15 2013

Change '13 to '14

Public Purpose Funding 82.8$ 88.9$ (6.1)$ 88.0$ 0.9$ Incremental Funding 63.1 74.5 (11.4) 74.5 0.0

Other Income 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1

Total Funding 146.4 163.6 (17.2) 162.6 1.0

Program Expenses 159.9 149.2 10.7 126.0 23.2 Administrative Expenses 5.5 5.1 0.4 4.3 0.8

Total Expenses 165.4 154.3 11.1 130.3 24.0

Increase (Decrease) in Net Assets (19.0)$ 9.3$ (28.3)$ 32.3$ (23.0)$



The statement of functional expenses shows costs by major category organized into program andadministrative categories. In 2015, program expenses comprised96.7%of total costs; administrativeexpensesof3.3%madeuptheremainder.Thiscompositionisconsistentwiththeprioryear.

Statement of Functional Expenses(in millions of dollars)

2015 2014Change '14 to '15 2013

Change '13 to '14

Energy Efficiency 142.7$ 136.1$ 6.6$ 118.1$ 18.0$ Renewable Resources 17.2 13.1 4.1 7.9 5.2

Program Expenses 159.9 149.2 10.7 126.0 23.2

Management & General 2.9 2.7 0.2 2.6 0.1 Communcations & Outreach 2.6 2.4 0.2 1.7 0.7

Administrative Expenses 5.5 5.1 0.4 4.3 0.8

Total Expenses 165.4$ 154.2$ 11.1$ 130.3$ 0.8$

Actualexpensesincreasedinallcategoriesasoverallspendingrose7.2%from$154.3millionto$165.4million.However,thepercentagebreakdownamongfunctionsremainedrelativelyconsistent.Incentivesas apercent of total spending increased from55% to58%; externalprogramdelivery costsdeclinedfrom32%to30%.Thepercentageofspendinginallothercategorieswasdownslightlyfrom12.4%to11.9%ofthetotal.



Thestatementofcashflowsshowsvariouscashactivitiesbytype,reconcilingbeginningcashandcashequivalents to the ending cash and cash equivalents amount, which is shown in the Statements ofFinancial Position.EnergyTrust cash receipts comeprimarily frompublic purpose and supplementalfunding,derivedfromasmallpercentagechargeonutilitycustomerbills.Outflowsarepredominantlypaymentsforincentivesandprogramcontracts,aswellaspaymentsforpayroll,outsourcedservices,IT,andotheroperatingexpenses.Outflowsalsoincludeinvestmentpurchases.Overall,cashreceiptswerelessthancashpaymentsfortheyear,andcashandcashequivalentsdecreasedby$24.2millionin2015.Thedecreaseislargelyduetocashusedinoperatingactivitiesandrelateddrawdowninfundreserves.

Statement of Cash Flows(in millions of dollars)

2015 2014Change '14 to '15 2013

Change '13 to '14

Net Cash from operating activities (23.1)$ 16.1$ (39.2)$ 37.5$ (21.4)$ Net Cash used for capital assets (1.0) (1.4) 0.4 - - Net Cash from investing activities (0.1) (39.8) 39.7 (25.0) (14.8)

(Decrease) Increase in Cash (24.2) (25.1) 0.9 12.5 (37.6)

Cash Beginning of Year 51.4 76.5 (25.1) 64.0 12.5

Cash End of Year 27.2$ 51.4$ (24.2)$ 76.5$ (25.1)$

KeyEconomicFactorsandBudgetInformationforNextYearTheeconomyinOregoncontinuestoimprove,unemploymentislow,andthepopulationisgrowing.Duetotheseandother factors,constructionofnewcommercialbuildingsandresidentialhomes increasedconsiderablyin2015.Weexpecttoseecontinuedexpansionin2016.

The2016budgetanticipatesrevenueof$154.7million,andexpendituresof$189million,continuingthemulti‐yearplanofspendingdownaccumulatednetassets,andendingtheyearwithprogramreservesclosertothetargeted2%to5%.RequestsforInformationThisfinancialreportisdesignedtoprovideageneraloverviewofEnergyTrustofOregon,Inc’sfinancesforallthosewithaninterestinthenon‐profitorganization’sfinancialresults.Questionsconcerninganyoftheinformationprovidedinthisreportshouldbedirectedtothefollowing:

EnergyTrustofOregon421SWOak,Suite300Portland,Oregon97204www.energytrust.org

Attention:PatiPresnail,InterimCFO

FINANCIALSTATEMENTS

Seeaccompanyingnotes 9

ENERGYTRUSTOFOREGON,INC.STATEMENTSOFFINANCIALPOSITION

2015 2014

Cashandcashequivalents 27,186,506$ 51,411,365$Investments 63,884,186 64,490,244Otherreceivables 66,702 35,292Notesreceivable,netofallowance 85,609 86,789Accruedinterestreceivable 307,913 288,238Advancespaidtocontractor 2,049,018 1,482,149Prepaidexpenses 479,349 405,430Propertyandequipment,net 2,008,447 1,846,427Otherassets 857,321 765,516

Totalassets 96,925,051$ 120,811,450$

LIABILITIESAccountspayableandaccruedexpenses 26,913,992$ 31,929,270$Accruedpayrollandrelatedexpenses 1,463,292 1,305,368Deferredrentliability 314,472 349,692

Totalliabilities 28,691,756 33,584,330

COMMITMENTSANDCONTINGENCIES

NETASSETSUnrestricted 68,233,295 87,227,120

Totalnetassets 68,233,295 87,227,120

Totalliabilitiesandnetassets 96,925,051$ 120,811,450$

December31,

ASSETS

LIABILITIESANDNETASSETS


ENERGYTRUSTOFOREGON,INC.STATEMENTSOFACTIVITIES

2015 2014

FundingPublicpurposefunding 82,786,607$ 88,889,205$Incrementalfunding 63,057,250 74,514,179Contributionrevenue 1,550 13,400

Totalfunding 145,845,407 163,416,784

InvestmentreturnsInterestanddividendsoninvestments,netofamortization 534,173 269,922Interestonnotesreceivable 1,000 514Unrealizedgain(loss)oninvestments 16,358 (90,740)

Totalinvestmentreturns 551,531 179,696

Totalrevenues 146,396,938 163,596,480

ExpensesProgramexpenses

Energyefficiency 142,662,351 136,063,489Renewableresources 17,266,025 13,094,590

Totalprogramexpenses 159,928,376 149,158,079

AdministrativeexpensesManagementandgeneral 2,861,485 2,684,052Communicationandoutreach‐general 2,600,902 2,457,800

Totaladministrativeexpenses 5,462,387 5,141,852

Totalexpenses 165,390,763 154,299,931

(DECREASE)INCREASEINNETASSETS (18,993,825) 9,296,549

NETASSETS,beginningofyear 87,227,120 77,930,571

NETASSETS,endofyear 68,233,295$ 87,227,120$

YearsEndedDecember31,


ENERGYTRUSTOFOREGON,INC.STATEMENTOFFUNCTIONALEXPENSES

FORTHEYEARENDEDDECEMBER31,2015

Total Communication TotalEnergy Renewable Program Management andOutreach‐ Administrative TotalEfficiency Resources Expenses andGeneral General Expenses Expenses

EXPENSESIncentives 81,385,440$ 14,404,032$ 95,789,472$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 95,789,472$Programmanagement 49,436,515 434,437 49,870,952 ‐ ‐ ‐ 49,870,952Payrollandrelatedexpenses 2,999,116 916,972 3,916,088 2,041,291 1,209,638 3,250,929 7,167,017Outsourcedservices 3,867,883 981,317 4,849,200 211,437 931,073 1,142,510 5,991,710Planningandevaluation 2,003,932 66,610 2,070,542 1,480 ‐ 1,480 2,072,022Customerservicemanagement 576,955 37,575 614,530 ‐ ‐ ‐ 614,530TradeAlliesNetwork 301,668 20,531 322,199 ‐ ‐ ‐ 322,199Supplies 8,856 3,216 12,072 8,292 4,012 12,304 24,376Postageandshipping 2,400 2,707 5,107 3,179 1,004 4,183 9,290Telephone 2,683 888 3,571 1,607 1,242 2,849 6,420Printingandpublications 43,292 1,612 44,904 5,767 4,713 10,480 55,384Occupancyexpenses 185,894 61,533 247,427 111,372 77,787 189,159 436,586Insurance 29,912 9,901 39,813 17,921 12,516 30,437 70,250Equipment 6,903 58,153 65,056 4,136 2,889 7,025 72,081Travel 27,398 15,298 42,696 26,852 53,374 80,226 122,922Meetings,trainings,andconferences 26,194 15,414 41,608 42,722 13,595 56,317 97,925Bankfees ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,887 ‐ 1,887 1,887Depreciation 50,253 16,634 66,887 30,107 21,029 51,136 118,023Dues,licenses,andfees 67,257 9,430 76,687 (4,156) 21,896 17,740 94,427Miscellaneous 50,992 176 51,168 157 101 258 51,426ITservices 1,588,808 209,589 1,798,397 357,434 246,033 603,467 2,401,864

Totalexpenses 142,662,351$ 17,266,025$ 159,928,376$ 2,861,485$ 2,600,902$ 5,462,387$ 165,390,763$

.


ENERGYTRUSTOFOREGON,INC.STATEMENTOFFUNCTIONALEXPENSESFORTHEYEARENDEDDECEMBER31,2014

Total Communication TotalEnergy Renewable Program Management andOutreach‐ Administrative TotalEfficiency Resources Expenses andGeneral General Expenses Expenses

EXPENSESIncentives 74,218,412$ 10,958,831$ 85,177,243$ ‐$ ‐$ ‐$ 85,177,243$Programmanagement 49,774,172 215,839 49,990,011 ‐ ‐ ‐ 49,990,011Payrollandrelatedexpenses 3,036,838 944,823 3,981,661 1,905,242 968,157 2,873,399 6,855,060Outsourcedservices 3,812,372 431,269 4,243,641 227,953 1,133,504 1,361,457 5,605,098Planningandevaluation 2,320,876 80,005 2,400,881 1,682 ‐ 1,682 2,402,563Customerservicemanagement 601,931 28,631 630,562 ‐ ‐ ‐ 630,562TradeAlliesNetwork 351,892 23,961 375,853 ‐ ‐ ‐ 375,853Supplies 10,313 3,109 13,422 8,610 3,780 12,390 25,812Postageandshipping 4,143 1,323 5,466 1,764 1,017 2,781 8,247Telephone 2,608 894 3,502 1,702 1,166 2,868 6,370Printingandpublications 97,937 4,891 102,828 1,213 8,470 9,683 112,511Occupancyexpenses 190,356 65,237 255,593 111,043 64,660 175,703 431,296Insurance 30,121 10,323 40,444 17,571 10,232 27,803 68,247Equipment 15,139 74,863 90,002 7,396 4,307 11,703 101,705Travel 40,271 21,281 61,552 27,402 34,232 61,634 123,186Meetings,trainings,andconferences 55,859 20,586 76,445 46,100 11,612 57,712 134,157Bankfees ‐ ‐ ‐ 2,000 ‐ 2,000 2,000Depreciation 47,719 16,354 64,073 27,837 16,209 44,046 108,119Dues,licenses,andfees 63,824 17,023 80,847 8,969 6,145 15,114 95,961Miscellaneous 16,659 ‐ 16,659 ‐ ‐ ‐ 16,659ITservices 1,372,047 175,347 1,547,394 287,568 194,309 481,877 2,029,271

Totalexpenses 136,063,489$ 13,094,590$ 149,158,079$ 2,684,052$ 2,457,800$ 5,141,852$ 154,299,931$


ENERGYTRUSTOFOREGON,INC.

STATEMENTSOFCASHFLOWS

2015 2014

CASHFLOWSFROMOPERATINGACTIVITIESCashreceivedinpublicpurposefunding 82,786,607$ 88,889,205$Cashreceivedinincrementalfunding 63,057,250 74,514,179Interestreceived 1,252,221 437,292Cashreceivedfromothersources 1,550 13,400Cashpaidtocontractors,suppliers,andemployees (170,205,614) (147,742,125)

Netcashfromoperatingactivities (23,107,986) 16,111,951

CASHFLOWSFROMINVESTINGACTIVITIESAcquisitionofpropertyandequipment (1,002,566) (1,401,746)Purchasesofinvestments (48,834,342) (71,109,817)Salesandmaturitiesofinvestments 48,720,035 31,348,351Issuanceofnotesreceivable ‐ (100,000)Decreaseinrestrictedcashandcashequivalents ‐ 77,988

Netcashfrominvestingactivities (1,116,873) (41,185,224)

DECREASEINCASHANDCASHEQUIVALENTS (24,224,859) (25,073,273)

CASHANDCASHEQUIVALENTS,beginningofyear 51,411,365 76,484,638

CASHANDCASHEQUIVALENTS,endofyear 27,186,506$ 51,411,365$

RECONCILIATIONOF(DECREASE)INCREASEINNETASSETSTONETCASHFROMOPERATINGACTIVITIES

(Decrease)increaseinnetassets (18,993,825)$ 9,296,549$Adjustmentstoreconcilechangeinnetassetstonetcash

fromoperatingactivities:Depreciation 840,546 370,787Changeinnotesreceivableallowance 1,180 13,211Unrealized(gain)lossoninvestments (16,358) 90,740Amortizationofbondpremium 736,723 450,845Netchangesin:

Otherreceivables (31,410) (31,265)Accruedinterestreceivable (19,675) (283,989)Advancespaidtocontractor (566,869) 533,271Prepaidexpenses (73,919) 120,657Otherassets (91,805) (151,414)Accountspayableandaccruedexpenses (5,015,278) 5,595,932Accruedpayrollandrelatedexpenses 157,924 121,179Deferredrentliability (35,220) (14,552)

Netcashfromoperatingactivities (23,107,986)$ 16,111,951$

YearsEndedDecember31,

ENERGYTRUSTOFOREGON,INC.NOTESTOFINANCIALSTATEMENTS

14

Note1–OrganizationEnergyTrustofOregon,Inc.(EnergyTrust),anonprofit501(c)(3)organization,begancollectingpublicpurpose revenues inMarch2002.By the termsof its grant agreementwith theOregonPublicUtilityCommission(OPUC), it ischargedwith investing incost‐effectiveenergyconservation, fundingabove‐market costs of small scale renewable energy resources and encouraging energy efficiency markettransformationeffortsinOregon.AllEnergyTrustfundsoriginallycamefroma1999energyrestructuringlaw,whichrequiredOregon’stwo largest investor‐owned utilities to collect a three percent public purpose charge from theircustomers.Aportionof that charge is transferred toEnergyTrust, and the remainder isdedicated toenergy conservation efforts in low‐income housing and K‐12 schools, aswell as low‐income housingimprovements.Thesunsetdateforcollectionofthepublicpurposechargeis2026.ThelawauthorizedtheOPUCtodirectamajorityofthesepublicpurposefundstoanon‐governmentalentityforinvestment.EnergyTrustwascreatedforthissolepurpose.InNovember2001,EnergyTrustenteredintoagrantagreementwiththeOPUCtoguideEnergyTrust’selectricenergywork.Thegrantagreementwasdevelopedwithextensiveinputfromkeystakeholdersandinterestedparties,andithasbeen amended several times since 2001. The agreement is reviewed annually by the OPUC and isautomatically extended annually for an additional three years unless Energy Trust or the OPUC givenoticeotherwise.In 2007, the Oregon State Legislature passed Senate Bill 838 (OSB 838) and it was signed by thegovernor,which allowed electric utilities to request an increase in rates to pursue additional energyconservation opportunities. In 2008, PacifiCorp and Portland General Electric elected to send fundsrelated toOSB838 toEnergyTrust to pursue energy conservation opportunities for retail electricitypurchasers of less than one averagemegawatt. This precludes Energy Trust from providing serviceswith this funding to some larger commercial and industrial customers. These funds are reportedseparately in the statementofactivitiesas “incremental funding.”The fundsreceived fromPacifiCorpandPortlandGeneralElectricmaybeusedforconservationeffortsinadditiontoactivityfundedbythepublicpurposefunds.Inadditiontoitsworkunderthe1999energyrestructuringlaw,EnergyTrustadministersnaturalgasconservationprogramsforresidentialandcommercialcustomersofNWNatural.Underthetermsofthe2003agreementwiththeOPUC,NWNaturalcollectsandtransfers toEnergyTrustasurchargeof thetotal monthly amount billed to non‐industrial customers. Energy Trust uses these funds for energyefficiencyeffortstobenefitNWNatural’sOregonresidentialandcommercialcustomers.In2009,EnergyTrustbeganadministeringenergyefficiencyprogramsforqualifiedindustrialcustomersofNWNatural.


15

Note1–Organization(continued)In 2006, Energy Trust began administering natural gas conservation programs for residential andcommercialcustomersofCascadeNaturalGasCorporation(Cascade)underpublicpurposeagreements.Each agreement provides for a different methodology for determining the amount of funds to beprovidedtoEnergyTrust.In2009,EnergyTrustenteredintoaWashingtonCustomer’sPublicPurposeFundsTransferAgreementwithNWNatural.Underthetermsoftheagreement,NWNaturalagreestotransferfunds(WashingtonFunds) and customer information to Energy Trust to design and administer cost‐effective energyefficiency programs for existing homes and businesses to NW Natural customers in Washington. In2010,theagreementwasamendedtoincludesimilarprogramsforbuildersconstructingnewhomesinNWNatural’sWashingtonserviceterritory.TheagreementexpiresonFebruary28,2017.Note2–SummaryofSignificantAccountingPoliciesBasisofaccounting–Theaccompanyingfinancialstatementshavebeenpreparedontheaccrualbasisof accounting in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States ofAmerica.Basisofpresentation–EnergyTrustisrequiredtoreportinformationregardingitsfinancialpositionandactivitiesaccordingtothreeclassesofnetassetsundergenerallyacceptedaccountingprinciples:

Unrestricted–Netassetsthatarenotsubjecttodonorstipulations. Temporarilyrestricted–Netassetssubjecttodonorimposedstipulationsthatmayorwillbe

met, eitherby actionsofEnergyTrust and/or thepassageof time.Whena restriction ismet,temporarilyrestrictednetassetsarereclassifiedtounrestrictednetassetsandreportedinthestatement of activities as net assets released from restrictions. There were no temporarilyrestrictednetassetsatDecember31,2015or2014.

Permanently restricted – Net assets subject to donor imposed stipulations which must bemaintainedpermanentlybyEnergyTrust.Generally,thedonorsoftheseassetspermittheuseofall or part of the income earnedon any related investments for general or specific purposes.TherewerenopermanentlyrestrictednetassetsatDecember31,2015or2014.

Concentrationsofcreditrisk–EnergyTrust’scashandcashequivalentsmaysubjectEnergyTrusttoconcentrationsofcreditrisk,as the fairvalueofsecurities isdependentontheabilityof the issuertohonor its contractual commitments. Energy Trust’s non‐interest bearing cash balances may exceedfederallyinsuredlimits.EnergyTrusthasnotexperiencedanylossesinsuchaccountstodate.


16

Note2–SummaryofSignificantAccountingPolicies(continued)Cashandcashequivalents–Forpurposesoffinancialstatementclassification,EnergyTrustconsidersallunrestricted,highly‐liquidinvestmentswithaninitialmaturityofthreemonthsorlesstobecashandcashequivalents.Investments–Holdingsconsistoffixedincomeinvestments,certificatesofdeposit,commercialpaper,andU.S. government issues.The fixed income funds and certificatesof deposit have initialmaturitiesgenerally ranging from four to twelve months. Certificates are generally non‐negotiable and non‐transferable, and may incur substantial penalties for withdrawal prior to maturity. Investments aremeasuredatfairvalueinthestatementsoffinancialposition.Investmentincomeorloss(includinggainsandlossesoninvestments,interest,anddividends)isincludedinthestatementofactivitiesasincreasesordecreasesinunrestrictednetassetsunlesstheincomeorlossisrestrictedbydonororlaw.Propertyandequipment–Propertyandequipmentarestatedatcost lessaccumulateddepreciationand are depreciated using the straight‐linemethodover their estimated useful lives,which generallyrange from three to five years. It is Energy Trust’s policy to capitalize property and equipment over$5,000.Deferred rent liability – Energy Trust leases office space under a non‐cancellable lease. The leasecontainsaprovisionforincreasesinrentalratesaswellasabatedrent.Rentexpenseisrecognizedonthestraight‐linebasiswiththedifferencebetweentheexpenseandrentpaymentsbeingrecognizedasdeferredrent.Deferredrentwas$314,472and$349,692for theyearsendedDecember31,2015and2014,respectively.Revenue recognition – All funding is considered available for unrestricted use unless specificallyrestricted by the donor. Public purpose and incremental funding are recognized when funds arereceivedfromthefundingsource.Contributionsreceivedarerecordedasunrestricted, temporarilyrestricted,orpermanentlyrestrictedsupport, depending on the existence or nature of any donor restrictions. Contributions, includingunconditionalpromisestogive,arerecognizedasrevenueintheperiodpledged.Contributionsofassetsotherthancasharerecordedattheirestimatedfairvalueonthedateoftheircontribution.Expense allocation – The costs of providing various programs and supporting services have beensummarizedona functionalbasis in the statementsof functional expenses.Accordingly, certain costshavebeenallocatedamongtheprogramsandsupportingservicesbenefited.


17

Note2–SummaryofSignificantAccountingPolicies(continued)Advertising–EnergyTrustexpensesadvertisingcostsasincurred.Advertisingcostsincludeactivitiesto create or stimulate a desire to use Energy Trust’s services that are provided without charge.Advertisingexpenseamountedto$1,680,666and$1,328,145 for theyearsendedDecember31,2015and2014,respectively.Incometaxes–EnergyTrustisexemptfromfederalandstateincometaxesunderSection501(c)(3)ofthe Internal Revenue Code. No provision for income taxes is made in the accompanying financialstatements,asEnergyTrusthasnoactivitiessubjecttounrelatedbusinessincometax.EnergyTrustisnotaprivatefoundation.EnergyTrustrecognizesthetaxbenefitfromuncertaintaxpositionsonlyifitismorelikelythannotthatthetaxpositionswillbesustainedonexaminationbythetaxauthorities,basedonthetechnicalmeritsof theposition.The taxbenefit ismeasuredbasedon the largestbenefit thathasa greater than50%likelihood of being realized upon ultimate settlement. EnergyTrust recognizes interest and penaltiesrelatedtoincometaxmatters,ifany,inadministrativeexpense.EnergyTrusthadnounrecognizedtaxbenefitsatDecember31,2015or2014.Nointerestandpenaltieswere accrued for the years ended December 31, 2015 or 2014. Energy Trust files an exemptorganizationreturnintheU.S.federaljurisdiction.Renewableenergycertificates – In theprocessof funding above‐market costs of renewable energyresources,EnergyTrustnegotiatesthecontractualownershipsofRenewableEnergyCertificates(REC)with funding recipients. A single REC represents one megawatt‐hour of generation of qualifyingelectricity fromeligible resources including, amongothers, solar,wind, andbiomass. In2011,EnergyTrustamendedpolicy4.15.000‐P toremoveprovisionsallowing thesaleofRECs.AsofDecember31,2015 and 2014, the fair value of RECs has not been recorded as it is not consideredmaterial to thefinancialstatements.Useofestimates – Thepreparation of financial statements in conformitywith accountingprinciplesgenerally accepted in the United States of America requires that management make estimates andassumptionsthataffectthereportedamountsofassetsandliabilitiesanddisclosureofcontingentassetsand liabilities at the date of the financial statements, and the reported amounts of revenues andexpensesduringthereportingperiod.Actualresultscoulddifferfromthoseestimates.Fairvalueoffinancialinstruments–AtDecember31,2015and2014,thecarryingvaluesofcashandcashequivalents,receivables,accountspayableandaccruedexpenses,andaccruedpayrollandrelatedexpensesapproximate fairvaluedue to the short‐termnatureof these instruments.EnergyTrusthasdetermined these financial instruments to be Level 1 measurements in the fair value hierarchy. SeeNote6.


18

Note2–SummaryofSignificantAccountingPolicies(continued)Subsequentevents – Subsequent events areeventsor transactions thatoccurafter the statementoffinancial position date but before the financial statements are issued. Energy Trust recognizes in thefinancial statements the effects of all subsequent events that provide additional evidence aboutconditionsthatexistedatthedateofthestatementoffinancialposition,includingtheestimatesinherentin the process of preparing the financial statements. Energy Trust’s financial statements do notrecognizesubsequenteventsthatprovideevidenceaboutconditionsthatdidnotexistatthedateofthestatementof financialpositionbut aroseafter the statementof financialpositiondate andbefore thefinancialstatementsareavailabletobeissued.EnergyTrusthasevaluatedsubsequenteventsthroughMarch23,2016,whichisthedatethefinancialstatementswereissued.Note3–InvestmentsInvestmentsarestatedatfairvalueasdeterminedbyquotedmarketpricesandconsistofthefollowingatDecember31:

2015 2014

Fixedincomeinvestments 34,498,318$ 28,644,013$Certificatesofdepositgreaterthan90days 22,355,428 26,729,911Commercialpaper ‐ 4,988,800U.S.governmentissues 7,030,440 4,127,520

63,884,186$ 64,490,244$


19

Note4–PropertyandEquipmentPropertyandequipmentconsistofthefollowingatDecember31:

2015 2014

Computerequipmentandsoftware 3,509,829$ 1,653,762$Officeequipmentandfurniture 701,604 679,343Leaseholdimprovements 318,964 318,964

4,530,397 2,652,069Lessaccumulateddepreciation 2,672,098 1,831,551

1,858,299 820,518Workinprocess 150,148 1,025,909

2,008,447$ 1,846,427$

AtDecember31,2015and2014,workinprocessconsistedofvarioussoftwareprojects.Note5–LinesofCreditEnergyTrustmaintainedanunsecured lineofcredit in theamountof$4,000,000. Interestonthe linewasbasedontheprimerateless0.5%.ThelinematuredonDecember5,2014andwasnotrenewed.Note6–FairValueMeasurementsAccounting literaturedefines fairvalueas thepricethatwouldbereceived tosellanasset,orpaidtotransfer a liability, in an orderly transaction betweenmarket participants at themeasurement date.Energy Trust determines fair value based on quoted prices when available or through the use ofalternativeapproaches,suchasmatrixormodelpricing,whenmarketquotesarenotreadilyaccessibleor available. The valuation techniques used are based on observable and unobservable inputs.Observable inputs reflectmarketdataobtained from independentsources,whileunobservable inputsreflectEnergyTrust’smarketassumptions.


20

Note6–FairValueMeasurements(continued)Thesetwotypesofinputscreatethefollowingfairvaluehierarchy:

Level1–Quotedpricesinactivemarketsforidenticalassetsorliabilities.Level2 – Quoted prices for similar instruments in activemarkets; quoted prices for identical orsimilarinstrumentsinmarketsthatarenotactive.Level 3 – Unobservable inputs that are supported by little or no market activity and that aresignificant to the fair value of the asset or liability. Unobservable inputs are used tomeasure fairvaluetotheextentthatobservableinputsarenotavailable.EnergyTrust’sowndatausedtodevelopunobservableinputsisadjustedformarketconsiderationwhenreasonablyavailable.

EnergyTrustusedthefollowingmethodsandsignificantassumptionstoestimatefairvalueforitsassetsmeasuredandcarriedatfairvalueinthefinancialstatements:Investments – Investments are comprised of fixed income funds, certificates of deposit, commercialpaper, and U.S. government issues. Investments fair values are based on quoted market prices. If aquoted market price is not available, fair value is estimated using quoted market prices for similarsecurities.Deferredcompensationassets–DeferredcompensationassetsarecomprisedofU.S.mutualfundsandaguaranteedinvestmentcontract.ForU.S.mutualfunds,thefairvalueisobtainedfromanindependentpricingservice.Thefairvaluemeasurementsconsiderobservabledatathatmayincludedealerquotes,cashflows,ortheU.S.Treasuryyieldcurve.Theguaranteedinvestmentcontractisvaluedatfairvaluebydiscountingtherelatedcash flowsbasedoncurrentyieldsofsimilar instrumentswithcomparableduration.Fairvalueapproximatescontractvalue.Deferredcompensationassetsarerecorded inotherassetswithinthestatementoffinancialposition.Therewere no changes in the valuationmethodologies or assumptions used by EnergyTrust for theyearsendedDecember31,2015or2014.It is Energy Trust’s policy to recognize transfers of investments between levels in the fair valuehierarchyonDecember31stofeachyear.


21

Note6–FairValueMeasurements(continued)The following table presents the fair valuemeasurements of assets recognized in the accompanyingstatementsoffinancialpositionmeasuredatfairvalueonarecurringbasis,andindicatesthefairvaluehierarchyofthevaluationtechniquesutilizedbyEnergyTrusttodeterminesuchfairvalue:

FairValueatDecember31,

2015

QuotedPricesinActiveMarketsforIdenticalAssets

(Level1)

SignificantOtherObservableInputs

(Level2)

SignificantUnobservableInputs(Level3)

Deferredcompensationassets:U.S.mutualfunds 496,137$ 496,137$ ‐$ ‐$Guaranteedinvestmentcontract 228,844 ‐ 228,844 ‐

Totaldeferredcompensationassets 724,981 496,137 228,844 ‐

Investments:FixedincomeinvestmentsU.S.corporatebonds 25,513,017 25,513,017 ‐ ‐Canadiancorporatebonds 4,007,020 4,007,020 ‐ ‐Otherforeigncorporatebonds 4,018,540 4,018,540 ‐ ‐Municipalbonds 959,741 959,741 ‐ ‐

Certificatesofdeposit 22,355,428 ‐ 22,355,428 ‐U.S.governmentissues 7,030,440 7,030,440 ‐ ‐

Totalinvestments 63,884,186 41,528,758 22,355,428 ‐

Totalassetsmeasuredatfairvalue 64,609,167$ 42,024,895$ 22,584,272$ ‐$

FairValueMeasurementsatReportDateUsing:


22

Note6–FairValueMeasurements(continued)

FairValueatDecember31,

2014

QuotedPricesinActiveMarketsforIdenticalAssets

(Level1)

SignificantOtherObservableInputs

(Level2)

SignificantUnobservableInputs(Level3)

Deferredcompensationassets:U.S.mutualfunds 488,273$ 488,273$ ‐$ ‐$Guaranteedinvestmentcontract 141,903 ‐ 141,903 ‐

Totaldeferredcompensationassets 630,176 488,273 141,903 ‐

Investments:FixedincomeinvestmentsU.S.corporatebonds 14,712,212 14,712,212 ‐ ‐Canadiancorporatebonds 5,043,180 5,043,180 ‐ ‐Otherforeigncorporatebonds 8,108,040 8,108,040 ‐ ‐Municipalbonds 780,581 780,581 ‐ ‐

Certificatesofdeposit 26,729,911 ‐ 26,729,911 ‐Commercialpaper 4,988,800 ‐ 4,988,800 ‐U.S.governmentissues 4,127,520 4,127,520 ‐ ‐

Totalinvestments 64,490,244 32,771,533 31,718,711 ‐

Totalassetsmeasuredatfairvalue 65,120,420$ 33,259,806$ 31,860,614$ ‐$

FairValueMeasurementsatReportDateUsing:

Assets are to be classified in the table above by recurring or non‐recurring measurement status.Recurringassetsareinitiallymeasuredatfairvalueandarerequiredtoberemeasuredatfairvalueinthefinancialstatementsateachreportingdate.Therewerenoassetsmeasuredonanon‐recurringbasisatDecember31,2015or2014.AsofDecember31,2015and2014,EnergyTrustdoesnothaveany liabilities thatarerequiredtobemeasuredinaccordancewithfairvaluestandards.


23

Note7–NotesReceivableDuring2014,EnergyTrustenteredintoanagreementwithCraft3toloanupto$300,000insupportofthe SavingsWithin Reach Loan Program. At December 31, 2015 and 2014, Energy Trust had loaned$100,000,whichaccruesinterestat1%,andispayablequarterly.Thenotereceivableisdueandpayableten years from the date of the final disbursement, but shall not extend beyond June 30, 2025. AtDecember31,2015and2014,totalaccruedinterestreceivableassociatedwiththenotereceivablewas$250,respectively.AtDecember31,2014,EnergyTrustwascommittedtoloananadditional$200,000in$100,000incrementswhichcouldberequestedoncethepreviousadvancewas75%depleted,whichhad to occur prior to June 30, 2015. No additional amounts were requested during the year endedDecember31,2015.Allowances for doubtful accounts are established based on prior collection experience and currenteconomic factors which, in management’s judgment, could influence the ability of loan recipients torepaytheamountsoutstandingperthetermsoftheagreement.Balancesarewrittenoffonlywhentheyaredeemed tobeuncollectible.AtDecember31,2015and2014, theallowance fordoubtfulaccountswas$14,391and$13,211,respectively.


24

Note8–PublicPurposeFundingandIncrementalFundingPublic purpose funding and incremental funding received are as follows for the years endedDecember31:

2015 2014

Publicpurposefunding

PortlandGeneralElectricEnergyefficiency 28,723,137$ 28,741,721$Renewableresources 8,312,211 8,431,294

37,035,348 37,173,015

PacifiCorpEnergyefficiency 21,164,176 21,298,942Renewableresources 5,925,092 5,954,514

27,089,268 27,253,456

NorthwestNatural‐OregonEnergyefficiency 15,931,563 20,953,179

NorthwestNatural‐WashingtonEnergyefficiency 1,435,515 1,054,355

CascadeEnergyefficiency 1,294,913 2,455,200

Totalpublicpurposefunding 82,786,607$ 88,889,205$

Incrementalfunding

PortlandGeneralElectric 42,053,468$ 48,928,367$PacifiCorp 21,003,782 25,585,812

63,057,250$ 74,514,179$


25

Note9–OperatingLeaseCommitmentsEnergy Trust leases its administrative offices under an operating lease agreement which expires inJune2019. Energy Trust also leases various office equipment under operating lease agreements. AtDecember31,2015,theaggregateannualcommitmentsunderthetermsoftheseleasesarepayableasfollowsfortheyearsendingDecember31:

672,526$692,849715,616430,229

2,511,220$

2016201720182019

Total rent expense under operating leases was $619,517 and $619,156 for the years endedDecember31,2015and2014,respectively.Note10–RetirementPlansRetirementplan–EnergyTrustprovidesallemployeeswithaqualifiedprofitsharingretirementplanas prescribed under Section 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code. Generally, employees who havecompletedatleastthreeconsecutivemonthsofworkmayelecttomakevoluntarycontributionstotheplan on a pre‐tax basis, up to the limits allowed by law. Employees select from various investmentoptions.Onadiscretionarybasis,asdeterminedannuallybytheBoardofDirectors,EnergyTrustmaymakecontributionstotheplan.ForeachoftheyearsendedDecember31,2015and2014,EnergyTrustcontributedtotheplananamountequalto6%ofthecompensationearnedbyeacheligibleemployeeduringtheperiod.Employeesare immediatelyvestedinallcontributionstotheplan.RetirementplanexpenserecordedbyEnergyTrustwas$456,234and$424,084fortheyearsendedDecember31,2015and2014,respectively.Deferredcompensationplan–EnergyTrustsponsorsanon‐qualifieddeferredcompensationplanforselected employees. Investments are owned by Energy Trust and managed individually by eachparticipant. At the time an employer contribution is made, the Board will, in its sole discretion,determine whether the employer contribution will be initially fully vested or will become vested inaccordancewith vesting terms designated by the Board of Directors. Until paid to participants, planassetsaresubjecttotheclaimsofEnergyTrust’screditors.EnergyTrustdidnotmakediscretionarycontributionstotheplanduringtheyearsendedDecember31,2015and2014.EnergyTrustrecordedanassetandaliabilityintheamountof$724,981and$727,781and$630,176and$632,976asofDecember31,2015and2014,respectively.The deferred compensation asset and liability are recorded in other assets and accrued payroll andrelatedexpenses,respectively,inthestatementoffinancialposition.


26

Note11–ContractualCommitmentsEnergy Trust enters into contract commitments for various goods and services. As of December 31,2015, Energy Trust expects to pay approximately $54,000,000 in future periods under thesecommitments. Expenditures for these commitments are recorded in the period in which they areincurred.EnergyTrustenteredinto incentivefundingagreementsforenergyefficiencyandrenewableresourceprojectsnotcompletedasofDecember31,2015totalingnomorethan$80,000,000.Theseamountswillbepaidintheperiodinwhichtheyarecompleted.Energy Trust also has projects and incentive payment requests in progress that did not meet itsrecognition criteria at bothDecember 31, 2015 and 2014. These amounts are unquantifiable and, assuch,notdisclosedinthenotestothefinancialstatements.Note12–RelatedPartyTransactionsEnergyTrust,alongwithanumberofothernorthwestregionalutilities,providesfundingtoNorthwestEnergyEfficiencyAlliance(NEEA).EnergyTrustbenefits fromthearrangementbyachieving lowcost,long lasting electric energy savings through NEEA’s regional market transformation activities. Since2010, Energy Trust’s executive director has served on NEEA’s board of directors. Total payments toNEEAwere$7,039,000and$7,366,000fortheyearsendedDecember31,2015and2014,respectively.

Board Decision Audited Financial Statements April 6, 2016

RESOLUTION ____

ACCEPTANCE OF AUDITED FINANCIAL REPORT

BE IT RESOLVED: That Energy Trust of Oregon, Inc., Board of Directors accepts the auditor’s report on the financial statements, including an unmodified opinion, submitted by Moss Adams LLP for the calendar year ended December 31, 2015.

Moved by: Seconded by:

Vote: In favor: Abstained:

Opposed:

of 5

Waive Program Incentive Cap and Authorize Incentives for Red Rock Biofuels LLC Efficiency Project April 6, 2016

Summary Waive the Production Efficiency Program incentive cap and authorize incentives of up to $2 million for an energy efficiency project associated with a biomass gasification plant in Lakeview, Oregon, estimated to save at least 48,000,000 kWh (5.5 average MW) per year.

Background Red Rock Biofuels LLC (Red Rock) proposes to generate electricity from waste process

heat produced by a planned biomass gasification plant in Lakeview, Oregon. o The generating project will be a component of the Red Rock Biofuels refinery. The

refinery is expected to begin final design and construction in late second quarter of 2016 and complete performance testing in 18-22 months. The refinery will be fueled mostly by gas and in small part by biomass.

o The refinery is expected to convert 400 tons of biomass to approximately 1,069 barrels of liquid jet fuel per day. The jet fuel is to be low-carbon and is expected to appeal to airlines seeking to meet sustainability and clean energy goals.

The proposed energy efficiency project would use waste heat from the gasification process

to generate electricity via a steam generator and condensing turbine, offsetting otherwise purchased power at the refinery site. o The steam generator would recover most of the waste heat in the form of useful steam

and send it to a condensing turbine to produce power. The condensing turbine requires parasitic loads for air-cooled condensers, a water pump and smaller motors.

o The steam generator, condensing turbine and parasitic loads are expected to operate whenever the plant is in operation, 8,160 hours/year which translates to 93% availability. The condensing turbine is rated at 8.5 MW but normal power production is estimated at 6.4 MW based on design parameters.

o Generated power will be used onsite to offset a portion of the facility’s electrical usage. The waste heat recovery will also provide 100% of the ancillary heat needs of the plant.

o A graphic of the proposed waste heat to power project and how it fits into the overall fuel production process is in Attachment 1.

Discussion The project followed the rigorous technical process used by the Production Efficiency

program for custom projects of this size and complexity: o Energy350, an Allied Technical Assistance Contractor (ATAC) with expertise in waste

heat recovery, industrial process efficiency and power generation, worked with Red Rock to define the project, develop the baseline and quantify savings potential and preliminary cost estimates in a Technical Analysis Study.

o The technical analysis lays out a draft scope for the detailed custom monitoring and verification plan that will be used to determine actual savings.

o Energy Trust Technical Managers and Program Delivery Contractor (PDC) engineers from RHT Energy reviewed the Energy350 study and found it reasonable.

We consider the project to be an efficiency project based on established policy for combined

heat and power projects. This project, without any increased consumption of natural gas, will generate electricity from waste heat and will use the generated electricity on-site, thereby

Waive program incentives for Red Rock Biofuels LLC—R772 April 6, 2016

page 2 of 5

reducing a facility’s consumption of grid energy. Similarly, solar hot-water projects are considered efficiency projects because they reduce energy consumption at a site.

By capturing otherwise wasted heat to generate power, our study estimates that the Red Rock Project would save upwards of 48,000,000 kWh per year compared to the standard design and construction, significantly increasing the efficiency of the overall system. o Generation from the project would be used on-site.

At over 48,000,000 kWh in savings, staff proposes Energy Trust incentives of $.04/first-year kWh, capped at 25% of eligible project costs, with a maximum incentive of $2 million.

The proposed incentive would exceed the program incentive cap of $500,000 per project.

The board’s policy on waiving program incentive caps allows such incentives if: (1) self-direction is suspended for at least three years; (2) there is available incentive budget; and (3) the project is expected to save energy at a cost per energy unit saved that is less than the current incentive levels for the program. o The proposed incentive funding would be contingent on agreement to suspend self-

direction at the site for at least three years; o Incentives would be paid in three annual payments tied to system commercial operation

and savings performance. The incentives will be budgeted for in the year they are expected to be paid, 2018-2021.

o The project will be much more cost-effective than other sources of savings. Currently, custom capital projects average $.13/first-year kWh, or about 1 cent levelized cost. The levelized cost for savings from the Red Rock project would be less than ½ cent.

As proposed by staff, actual incentive payments would be based upon verification of

commercial operation and costs, consistent with post-installation measurement, verification and evaluation plans. Changes in the as-built state or in operating performance that reduces savings or costs would reduce the incentive in accordance with established Custom Track procedures.

Incentives would be conditioned on Red Rock securing sufficient debt and equity investment

by November 30, 2016 to mitigate risk associated with the start-up phase of Red Rock’s continued investment solicitations.

Staff discussed this project with the Policy Committee in November 2015. The Committee asked for additional information about Red Rock: o Red Rock was established in 2011 to develop refineries to convert waste woody

biomass to renewable drop-in jet, diesel and naptha fuels. o Red Rock’s single member/owner is Joule Unlimited Technologies, Inc. (Joule), a

Delaware corporation. o Flagship Ventures, Inc. (Flagship), a venture capital firm, is Joule’s major investor, and

several Flagship principals sit on Joule’s board of directors. Flagship manages more than $1.4 billion in investments, focusing on therapeutics, health technologies and sustainability. Joule and Red Rock are part of Flagship’s sustainability portfolio. Even before Joule’s acquisition of Red Rock, Flagship provided significant investment and help to Red Rock in developing Red Rock’s renewable, low-carbon fuel processing expertise.

o Based on information provided to staff, here is the status of key milestones and activities: Project siting has been secured through a purchase option agreement; All major pre-construction permitting is either in final phase or completed; Major construction and technology contracts have been executed


page 3 of 5

Offtake contracts have been executed with two major delivery companies Forest Feedstock Availability Assessment is completed, finding feasibility of forward

contracting for 75% of feedstock, 25% for purchase on the open market; A draft agreement for 35,500 bone dry tons of woody biomass per year is being

negotiated, meeting about 25% of the refinery’s need; negotiations are underway with other forest residual feedstock suppliers for the other 50% to be forward contracted;

An Independent Engineer’s Report was completed on February 25, 2016. The report reviews the organization, management, financial and environmental aspects of Red Rock’s planned refinery. It provides observations and conclusions that support the current design, project plan, projected costs, operations and maintenance (O&M), contracts, third party agreements, environmental requirements, site conditions and the overall financial model of the proposed biorefinery as realistic and achievable.

Business Oregon completed an economic and employment impact report in 2015 and is in the process of updating it; and,

Red Rock, Joule and Flagship are securing additional funding for the project, including working with Business Oregon on industrial development bonds. Red Rock’s CFO anticipates full funding and “financial close” for construction in the next couple of months.

o Staff has worked with these parties over the last several months and they have been responsive to all questions and requests for information.

Recommendation Waive the Production Efficiency Program incentive cap and authorize the executive director or her designee to sign a contract committing up to $2 million in incentives to the Red Rock efficiency project on terms and conditions consistent with the resolution below.


page 4 of 5

RESOLUTION 772

WAIVING PROGRAM INCENTIVE CAP AND APPROVING INCENTIVES FOR THE RED ROCK BIOMASS GASIFICATION EFFICIENCY PROJECT

WHEREAS: 1. The Energy Trust Production Efficiency program has worked with Red Rock Biofuels, LLC

(Red Rock) to identify a waste heat to energy system for a new biomass gasification facility located in Lakeview, Oregon (the Project).

2. Energy efficiency aspects of the Project were reviewed through standard Energy Trust processes for complex custom-track industrial projects, including a technical energy analysis study commissioned by Energy Trust and carried out by a nationally-recognized expert.

3. The project’s energy savings will cost less than half the cost of savings from the average custom project. The incentive for the Project is projected and would be budgeted at $.04/first-year kWh, a levelized cost of < ½ cent / kWh; while Production Efficiency program custom capital projects average $.13/first-year kWh, or about 1 cent levelized.

4. Energy Trust funding would be contingent on Red Rock’s agreement to suspend self-direction at this site for at least three years.

5. Energy from the Project will be used on-site. 6. Energy Trust funding would be conditioned on committed full debt and equity

investment for the project in place not later than November 30, 2016 and would be payable in increments based on performance.

It is therefore RESOLVED that the board of directors of Energy Trust of Oregon: 1. Waives the Production Efficiency Program’s incentive cap for this project; and

2. Authorizes the executive director to negotiate and sign an incentive agreement with

Red Rock Biofuels LLC for up to $2 million in total incentives payable on the following terms and conditions:

Agreement to suspend self-direction at the site for at least three years; Incentives to be paid in three annual payments tied to commercial operation and

savings performance; Post-installation measurement, verification and evaluation plans will be required; Red Rock to secure sufficient debt and equity investment by November 30, 2016

to mitigate risk associated with the start-up phase of continued investment solicitations.

Moved by: Seconded by: Vote: In favor:

Abstained:

Opposed:


page 5 of 5

ATTACHMENT 1 (EFFICIENCY PROJECT IN RED)

Authorize Incentives for Rogue Valley International - Medford Airport Solar Project April 6, 2016

Summary Authorize an incentive of $0.65/WDC, up to $1,250,000, for a 1.9-MWDC solar system at the Rogue Valley International - Medford Airport.

Background In April 2015, Energy Trust issued a solicitation for custom solar projects to be connected to

Pacific Power. We received 16 applications, 15 of which were qualifying facility (QF) projects. The board approved an $850,000 incentive for one of these projects in November 2015. We also received a proposal for the current project, the only net-metered proposal, which is to say, the project would serve on-site load and reduce demand for grid energy.

The proposal involves a collaboration between Jackson County, which owns the Rogue Valley International-Medford Airport, Lockheed Martin (Lockheed) and RHT Energy (RHT). RHT has been instrumental in previous energy efficiency and solar projects at the airport, and helped broker an agreement for the project between the county and Lockheed Martin. Lockheed would develop the system and plans to sell it to a third-party owner after installation.

The system will be a fixed-tilt 1,926 kWDC solar array consisting of 5,928 SolarWorld 325 W modules (or an approved equivalent), and 26 Sungrow inverters with a combined alternating current (AC) max power rating of 1,716 kWAC. A fixed-tilt system is a good choice given the layout constraints of the site, and it will minimize maintenance.

The project has achieved the following milestones:

o Lockheed has secured a letter of intent from Jackson County, including proposed terms for a power purchase agreement (PPA). The county intends to sign the PPA once funding is secured and a third party owner is selected.

o The developer submitted its interconnection application and has received positive feedback from Pacific Power that its choice of system location will minimize interconnection costs.

o The project requires approval from the Federal Aviation Administration, and Lockheed has submitted the application. The glare analysis showed no risk for the control tower or the runway, and the project is located outside of the runway protection zone.

Lockheed is negotiating with a short list of three potential third party owners.

Lockheed proposes to start construction in July or August 2016, after completing permitting, procurement and contractor selection. They plan to finish physical construction in October or November, interconnect, commission and begin commercial operation in late 2016 or early 2017.

Discussion

The proposed system has capital costs of $4,712,063 or $2.45/WDC. These costs are well below the average cost of $3.28/W for Pacific Power 2015 commercial projects, and are similar to the most competitive costs in our standard program.

Other projects in the RFP ranged from $1.75 to $2.10/W. These lower costs appear to reflect their larger size (3–10 MWAC range), economies of scale, and lower transaction costs for non-public entities.

Above-market cost:

Authorize Rogue Valley-Medford Airport Solar Project—R773 April 6, 2016

page 2 of 3

o We modeled above-market cost from the perspective of the system owner, over a 25-year term, at an 8% discount rate.

o We used Lockheed’s generation estimate, 2,863 MWh/yr and 0.5% degradation rate over the life of the system. Under a 25-year power purchase agreement (PPA), the project would sell power to the county for onsite load. Project revenue is based on the airport’s anticipated retail electric savings as a proxy for energy sales. The letter of intent states that the PPA rate will be at or below the airport’s retail rate for electricity.

o We expect Lockheed or a tax equity partner to take full advantage of the project tax benefits, including the 30% investment tax credit (ITC) and accelerated depreciation. In December, Congress extended the ITC for five years and re-established a first-year 50% bonus depreciation schedule for solar projects. These changes reduce the risk for the project if it misses the previous year-end deadline and improves the present value of the depreciation deduction.

o On February 26, 2016, the project received notification that it has been selected for a $165,000 Renewable Energy Development Grant, subject to technical review.

o Consistent with other projects in the RFP, we modeled a 15-year loan at 5% with 1.35 debt-service coverage (at least $1.35 of revenue for each $1.00 of interest and principal payments in all years).

o The total modeled above-market cost is $1,326,040. Without an Energy Trust incentive, the internal rate of return would be 1.8%; with a $1.25 million incentive, the internal rate of return is 6.7%.

We propose an incentive of $0.65/WDC up to $1,250,000, payable in two payments: $800,000 on commercial operation and $450,000 after a performance period. The present value of this payment structure is $1.13 Million, covering 85% of the above-market cost.

The project would allow the airport to claim to be one of the world’s first net-zero airports. Current load is about 2,863 MWh/yr; the project’s estimated generation is 2,876 MWh/yr.

Above-market cost summary

Revenues

Energy Sales $2,356,996

State RED Grant $ 165,000

Consolidated Tax Benefits $2,074,853

Total NPV Revenues $4,596,849

Expenses

Capitalized Construction Cost $3,722,530

Principal Payments $ 526,800

Interest Payments $ 289,208

O&M and other expenses $ 818,766

Taxes $ 56,970

Total NPV Expenses $5,414,274

Above-Market Cost (Total Revenue–Total Expense) ($ 817,424)

Above-Market Cost Increased for Tax Impacts ($1,326,040)

Authorize Rogue Valley-Medford Airport Solar Project—R773 April 6, 2016

page 3 of 3

Proposed Incentive $1,250,000

Present Value of Proposed Incentive $1,126,543

Recommendation Approve an incentive of $0.65/WDC up to $1.25 million.

RESOLUTION 773

APPROVE INCENTIVES FOR THE ROGUE VALLEY - MEDFORD AIRPORT SOLAR PROJECT

WHEREAS:

1. In April 2015, Energy Trust solicited solar projects to be connected to Pacific Power.

2. The current proposal involves a collaboration between Jackson County, which owns the Rogue Valley International-Medford Airport, and Lockheed Martin, facilitated by RHT Energy.

3. The proposed system will be a fixed-tilt 1,926 kWDC solar array consisting of 5,928 SolarWorld 325 W modules (or an approved equivalent), and 26 Sungrow inverters with a combined AC max power rating of 1,716 kWAC.

4. The project would allow the airport to claim to be one of the world’s first net-zero airports: current load is about 2,863 MWh/yr. The project would generate an estimated 2,876 MWh/yr.

5. The proposed system has capital costs of $4,712,063 or $2.45/WDC. These costs are well below the average cost of $3.28/W for Pacific Power 2015 commercial projects, and are similar to the most competitive costs in our standard program.

6. The project’s total modeled above-market cost is $1,326,040. At $0.65/WDC, the project incentive would be up to $1.25 million.

7. Lockheed Martin and the county would transfer to Energy Trust at least 90% of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) for the project’s 25-year life.

It is RESOLVED that the board of directors of Energy Trust of Oregon:

1. Authorizes an incentive of $0.65/WDC, up to $1,250,000, for the Rogue Valley International-Medford Airport Solar Project, payable on the following terms:

a. The incentive will be paid in two payments: $800,000 on commercial operation and $450,000 after a performance period; and,

b. Lockheed and the county will transfer to Energy Trust at least 90% of RECs for the project’s 25-year life.

Moved by: Seconded by: Vote: In favor:

Abstained:

Opposed:

Final Report

LED Streetlights Market Assessment Study October 16, 2015

Final Report

LED Streetlights Market Assessment Study

October 16, 2015

Funded By:

Prepared By:

Research Into Action, Inc.

www.researchintoaction.com

PO Box 12312 Portland, OR 97212

3934 NE Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., Suite 300 Portland, OR 97212

Phone: 503.287.9136 Fax: 503.281.7375

Contact: Jane S. Peters, President [email protected]


Acknowledgement

We would like to thank Energy Trust of Oregon for conceiving of this project and giving Research Into Action the support needed to conduct it. We also wish to acknowledge the many staff of Oregon municipalities and other stakeholders who agreed to participate in the interview and provided their responses to our questions; we appreciate their willingness to participate.


Executive Summary

This report presents findings from a market assessment of Energy Trust of Oregon’s (Energy Trust) LED streetlight incentive program (“the program”). Research Into Action, Inc. conducted this research between May and October 2015.

The goal of this study was to understand the current practices and plans, as well as barriers, to upgrading streetlights to light-emitting diodes (LED) and to explore opportunities for program improvement. The focus of the research is Oregon municipalities in Energy Trust’s service territory. This study relied on reviews of data and program documents, including Utility Customer Information (UCI) and primary data Research Into Action collected through interviews with program staff; a sample of municipalities, utility contacts, contacts of manufacturers and distributors; and other stakeholders.

In Energy Trust’s service territory, two investor owned utilities (IOU) power almost all the municipal streetlights – 62% of the streetlight inventory powered by Portland General Electric (PGE) and 38% of the inventory powered by Pacific Power. The two IOUs own about half of the streetlight inventory, and municipalities own the other half. Each IOU sets fixed monthly rate per light based on the ownership, technology and wattage or lumen. Energy Trust provides municipalities – regardless of the ownership – with $40-$100 incentive per fixture to replace high intensity discharge (mostly commonly high-pressure sodium or HPS) cobra head with equivalent wattage-to-lumen LED light as a prescriptive offering, as well as a custom lighting project offering.

Below, we present a summary of key findings, and our conclusions and recommendations.

Key Findings

Knowledge and Awareness

A majority of the municipality respondents were very familiar with the extended lifecycle (74%) and energy cost savings (65%) benefits of LED streetlights, but more than one-quarter of respondents said they wanted to know more or did not know of these benefits. Knowledge and awareness levels drop substantially for other benefits, such as reduced carbon emissions, superior lighting quality, reduced light pollution, and greater perceived public safety.

About three-quarters (74%) of the surveyed municipalities, or 67% among the program non-participants, reported awareness of the program. Those unaware of the program are mostly in the Pacific Power service territory.

Streetlight Inventory, Current Practices and Plans

The penetration of LED streetlights in Energy Trust’s service territory’s entire inventory is 37%. The rate is particularly low among utility-owned streetlights (8%) and in Pacific

Power territory (12%). The rate is significantly higher in PGE territory (52%) especially among its municipally-owned streetlights (80%).

Of the surveyed municipalities that have not fully completed streetlight upgrades to LED (78%), the majority have no future upgrade plans. These municipalities are mostly in Pacific Power territory and they have a large utility-owned streetlight inventory.

For utility-owned streetlights, PGE pays the full upgrade costs while municipalities pay the full cost in Pacific Power’s service territory. Both IOUs replace failed lights on a light-for-light basis, and do not have future upgrade plans.

Streetlight manufacturer and distributor contacts reported cobra head fixture orders have been almost exclusively LED in the last two years, and the remaining demand of HPS products is primarily for replacement parts. LED costs have come down considerably over this period, and one contact said LEDs are now cheaper than HPS for existing fixtures.

Though most municipalities’ new LED fixtures are equipped to add advanced control features – off-peak hours dimming or notification of failed lights – later, none of the municipalities reported current use nor having plans to add such features.

Barriers

By far, the municipality respondents most frequently reported a lack of up-front capital as a significant barrier to upgrading their streetlights to LED (82%). More than half of respondents rated several other items as somewhat or a significant barrier, including uncertainty about future LED cost reduction (68%), a lack of time to implement upgrades (65%), LED tariffs providing little or no cost savings (59%), and a lack of resources to evaluate economics of new systems (52%).

Other influential contacts reported they are skeptical of LED performance. Among their concerns are light quality, lifecycle, and maintenance costs and lack of use cases and field-testing.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Conclusion 1: Although LED streetlight penetration rate in Energy Trust’s service territory has reached about one-third of the entire streetlight inventory, it has yet to reach self-sustaining critical mass.

Our data suggests 37% of the entire streetlight inventory in Energy Trust’s service territory will use LED technology by 2016, but the majority of the interviewed municipalities and IOUs reported having no future upgrade plans for the remaining inventory beyond 2017. Gaps in LED adoption also exist in certain IOU service areas and by ownership patterns – significantly low penetration rates in Pacific Power’s service territory and for utility-owned streetlights across both IOUs. Although the streetlight market on the supply-side is fully accepting of LED technologies and makes a variety of products available, replacement lamps of the conventional HPS

technology will continue to be available for some time in the future as the market remains strong. For these reasons, we conclude that the LED streetlight market in Energy Trust’s service territory has not yet reached the point at which the technology will naturally and self-sustainably continue to grow without a strategic market push like Energy Trust’s incentive program.

Recommendations:

Place stronger program emphasis on upgrading utility-owned streetlights and streetlights in Pacific Power service territory. This strategy should include: increasing outreach efforts to municipalities with Pacific Power-owned inventory; providing detailed information on LED streetlight benefits as well as program opportunities for both utility-owned and municipality-owned streetlights; and if needed, establishing multiple incentive tiers that encourage upgrading streetlights for specific ownership types and IOU areas, for instance setting higher incentives for utility-owned streetlight upgrades.

Continue to closely monitor the region-wide progress. Using accurate and up-to-date UCI data, Energy Trust should continue to monitor the territory-wide LED penetration rate. Particular attentions should be paid to penetration rates by streetlight ownership, IOU, and light type (“functional” cobra head vs. decorative).

Conclusion 2: LED streetlights’ up-front capital costs and doubts about the technology –specifically light quality, lifecycle, and maintenance costs – are the major remaining barriers for wider adoptions.

The contacts of municipalities and IOUs almost unanimously suggested that up-front capital costs of LED streetlight fixtures is a significant hurdle to move toward LED conversions. A few influential players in the Oregon LED streetlight market also believe that LED technology is in its early adoption stage, which has kept them from moving forward with this new technology. These contacts’ concerns were particularly about LEDs’ light quality, lifecycle, and maintenance costs, as they think the promoted performance and benefits have not been adequately proven in the field.

Recommendations:

Improve program collateral by building stronger use cases. Energy Trust should work with manufacturers and municipalities that have successful LED streetlight upgrade experiences to develop more evidence of use cases: documenting specific applications; technology performances, and cost benefits from rate savings and maintenance.

Coordinate municipality-wide demands and help bring the LED fixture prices down region-wide. Energy Trust should consider coordinating the region-wide demands of LED streetlight fixtures and negotiate a buy-down price with manufacturers so municipalities could access LED streetlight fixtures at lower prices. Energy Trust should also investigate the existing purchase agreement the City of Portland made, which is reported to extend their negotiated price to other Oregon municipalities.

MEMO

Date: January 11, 2016 To: Board of Directors

From: Spencer Moersfelder, Business Sector Senior Program Manager Dan Rubado, Evaluation Project Manager

Subject: Staff Response to the LED Streetlights Market Assessment Study

This market assessment of LED streetlight upgrades in Energy Trust‘s electric service territory establishes the current state of the market and assesses the remaining opportunities and barriers, based on interviews with a number of stakeholders and utility customers. The findings of this report show that there is still a substantial amount of opportunity and energy savings remaining in the Oregon market for streetlights to be upgraded to LEDs. Although, the market is nearing saturation among municipally owned streetlights in PGE territory, utility owned streetlights are lagging behind. In addition, Pacific Power territory is a lagging market for upgrading streetlights to LEDs. The current utility rate structures appear to be impeding the market, as they do not provide significant cost savings to customers for LED upgrades.

There is still a role for the Existing Buildings program to play in supporting and transforming the market for LED streetlights. Municipal respondents reported that cost was one of the biggest barriers to adoption and many past participants stated that Energy Trust incentives were influential in their upgrade decisions. As such, the program will continue to provide incentives until the major market barriers are overcome and the market has been transformed. In particular, the program will target the lagging markets identified in this report to ensure that they are on the path to market transformation as well. There is a need for Energy Trust to continue monitoring the adoption of LED streetlights to determine when the market has been transformed and when it no longer needs to support this technology with incentives. Even once the market has been successfully transformed and LEDs become the predominant streetlight technology across the state, there will still be an opportunity for the Existing Buildings program to support advanced streetlight controls in the market.

Finance Committee Meeting Notes February 11, 2016

Attendance Board members present by phone: Dan Enloe, Anne Root, Susan Brodahl Staff present: Margie Harris, Courtney Wilton (part), Pati Presnail

Recap of preliminary, unaudited financials for year ending 12/31/2015 1. Overall revenue was extremely close to budget and significantly less than last year as planned.

a. Revenue ended under budget by 1.2%. Variances are likely due to weather. b. We also ended 10.5% under prior year (down $17.2m) actuals due to planned and implemented

utility rate adjustments. c. Investment revenue is still way over-performing budget–approximately double prior year number

and budget - though small dollars in scheme of things. Allison still wants a bonus.

2. Incentives were way above last year - and also over budget in total - possibly for the first time in organization history. a. As in 12.4% over last year ($10.6m / total of $95.8m) to date and 1.4% above overall budget. b. Solar, new buildings, and new homes and products totals all exceeded annual budgets

significantly. Other renewable, new buildings and production efficiency totals lagged 2014 spending; all other sector spending was higher than prior year. We definitely budgeted tighter / budget variances are much smaller. See below graphic for budget to actual and actual to actual variances.

3. All other operating costs were essentially flat - up .5m, or under 1%. a. Delivery costs actually shrank a tiny bit from the prior year and were under overall budget due to

lower year end incentive awards. That was a surprise, though a good one. b. All other operating costs including staffing were also relatively flat with depreciation comprising

largest increase. This trend likely will not repeat given the low current staff vacancies and benefit / wage growth.

4. Reserves are down as planned: a. Down $19.0m for the year from $87.2 to $68.2. We budgeted / forecasted ending reserves of

$65.6m, or $2.6m lower - but in the scheme of things very close. b. PAC efficiency reserves actually ended the year $1.2m less than budgeted likely necessitating

more revenue in 2016 than what was forecast via rate adjustment sheets. c. Note also Cascade ending reserve is quite a bit less than budgeted. We should make sure their

annual forecast still shows them ending up in black.

Update on lease extension status The lease will go out to our attorney for review. A resolution will be prepared for the board of directors meeting on February 24th. Dan suggested we include information about market conditions, and that we expect this decision will save money over the long term.

Update on CFO recruitment / next steps / interim plan Courtney recused himself from this conversation. Margie summarized where she is in the recruitment process. Committee members had just recently completed interviews and provided feedback to Margie on the candidates. Next steps are to obtain references. Courtney will return to help with Margie’s review and to help the new CFO acclimate. In the interim, Pati is acting CFO. Margie also mentioned the executive assistant recruitment is on a fast track.

Dan suggested a special “meet the CFO” gathering prior to the next formal committee meeting. Staff will organize, once the start date is known. The next meeting will be May 12, 2016 at 2:00pm

Finance Committee Special Meeting Meeting Notes March 16, 2016, 2pm, Energy Trust offices

Attendees: Dan Enloe, chair (in person) Susan Brodahl (by phone) Margie Harris, Executive Director (by phone) Debbie Menashe, staff Pati Presnail, staff Not in attendance: Anne Root The purpose of this special meeting was to obtain final approval to execute the office space lease extension agreement. Pursuant to board resolution 768, the Executive Director is authorized to negotiate and execute this agreement, subject to the following criteria:

1. Cost per square foot does not exceed $35.00 per year for the lease extension period 2. The lease term extension begins July 1, 209 and ends not earlier than December 31,

2025 3. In addition the negotiations seeks to

a. Maximize reimbursement for minor tenant improvements b. Obtain some amount of rent abatement c. Maximize flexibility related to both current and future space requirements d. Enhance productivity and efficiency of staff functions and foster

4. Obtain approval form the Oregon Public Utilities Commission

Criteria described in R768 Demonstration Committee remarks / questions

Cost per square foot does not exceed $35.00 per year for the lease extension period

The final 6 month period of the lease extension rate is $34.70 – below $35.00; this is before the value of abatements and improvement costs are factored in, which are valued at $650,000

Dan recommends we also calculate the net rent, taking abatements into account. Pati will calculate and advise the committee.

The lease term extension begins July 1, 2019 and ends not earlier than December 31, 2025

See page one of the agreement. The lease provides for an extension beyond this period, which staff would bring back to the board near the end of the extension period

Susan had a question about the meaning of the base period reset from 2012 to 2019 which Debbie explained relates to the extension only, not the original lease.

Maximize reimbursement for minor tenant improvements

The lease provides up to $265,000 for improvements, of which up to $125,000 of unused improvement costs can be applied against rent [work letter agreement 1.12]

Obtain some amount of rent abatement

The lease provides for 75 days rent abatement immediately following the effective date of

There is an open question of exactly when the 75 days of free rent is available – we

Finance Committee Special Meeting March 16, 2016

page 2 of 2

the extension [first amendment to lease 1], plus 3 months’ abatement when the lease extension period begins 7/1/19 [first amendment to lease 3]

know it is soon – but is it March or April that it begins?

Maximize flexibility related to both current and future space requirements

The extension provides this flexibility through the improvement allowance

Enhance productivity and efficiency of staff functions and foster

Improvements, yet to be defined, will be in light of these needs

Staff demonstrated the criteria are met, and the finance committee gave their approval to go forward. Next Steps The lease extension is to be signed on behalf of Energy Trust and delivered to the tenant representative Chris Elsenbach shortly after the meeting ended. The Landlord will sign, which will establish the effective date, and this will help inform the open question about the first tranche of abatements. We expect a fully executed copy to be returned sometime during the upcoming week.

Notes on January 2016 Financial Statements February 26, 2016

Revenue January Revenue came in slightly lower than anticipated. (February revenue has decreased the gap.)

Reserves At this time of year, it is common for Reserves to increase since revenues exceed spending. We expect them to decrease later in the year.

Notes on January Financial Statements February 24, 2016

Page 2 of 4

Incentive Expenses Total expenses for January were $1.7 million below budget, mostly due to lower incentive spending vs. the budget by $1 million. It is too early in the year to read anything into incentive spending. Programs made a huge push to get in December 2015 activity, so January tends to be lighter.


Page 3 of 4


Page 4 of 4

Investment Status The graphs below show the type of investments we hold and the locations where our funds are held at the end of January. Our overall balance was $91 million last month vs. $83 million this month due to paying out incentives earned in December and remitted in January.

Energy Trust of Oregon BALANCE SHEETJanuary 31, 2016

(Unaudited)January December January Change from Change from

2016 2015 2015 one month ago one year agoCurrent Assets Cash & Cash Equivalents 22,775,874 27,186,505 37,774,180 (4,410,631) (14,998,306) Investments 60,134,166 63,884,187 66,965,336 (3,750,020) (6,831,169) Receivables 360,217 374,615 313,463 (14,398) 46,754 Prepaid Expenses 432,074 479,349 390,448 (47,275) 41,626 Advances to Vendors 1,422,883 2,049,018 938,812 (626,135) 484,071 Total Current Assets 85,125,214 93,973,675 106,382,239 (8,848,460) (21,257,024)

Fixed Assets Computer Hardware and Software 3,509,829 3,509,829 1,931,988 0 1,577,841 Software Development in Progress 150,314 150,148 879,950 166 (729,637) Leasehold Improvements 318,964 318,964 318,964 0 0 Office Equipment and Furniture 701,604 701,604 679,343 0 22,260 Total Fixed Assets 4,680,711 4,680,545 3,810,246 166 870,465 Less Depreciation (2,748,277) (2,672,098) (1,871,793) (76,179) (876,484) Net Fixed Assets 1,932,434 2,008,447 1,938,453 (76,013) (6,019)

Other Assets Deposits 132,340 132,340 135,340 0 (3,000) Deferred Compensation Asset 735,641 724,981 638,911 10,660 96,730 Note Receivable, net of allowance 85,609 85,609 100,000 0 (14,391) Total Other Assets 953,590 942,930 874,251 10,660 79,339

0 Total Assets 88,011,238 96,925,052 109,194,943 (8,913,814) (21,183,704)

Current Liabilities Accounts Payable and Accruals 9,500,742 26,911,612 11,658,902 (17,410,870) (2,158,160) Salaries, Taxes, & Benefits Payable 778,192 733,902 680,908 44,291 97,284 Total Current Liabilities 10,278,934 27,645,513 12,339,810 (17,366,579) (2,060,876)

Long Term Liabilities Deferred Rent 309,815 314,472 346,913 (4,657) (37,098) Deferred Compensation Payable 738,441 727,781 641,711 10,660 96,730 Other Long-Term Liabilities 3,990 3,990 18,395 0 (14,406) Total Long-Term Liabilities 1,052,245 1,046,243 1,007,019 6,002 45,226 Total Liabilities 11,331,180 28,691,756 13,346,830 (17,360,576) (2,015,650)

Net Assets Unrestricted Net Assets 76,680,059 68,233,294 95,848,113 8,446,765 (19,168,054) Total Net Assets 76,680,059 68,233,294 95,848,113 8,446,765 (19,168,054) Total Liabilities and Net Assets 88,011,238 96,925,052 109,194,943 (8,913,814) (21,183,704)

Page 1 of 12

January Year to Date

Operating Activities:

Revenue less Expenses 8,446,762 8,446,760$

Non-cash items:Depreciation 76,179 76,179 Change in Reserve on Long Term Note - - Loss on disposal of assets

Receivables - - Interest Receivable 14,398 14,398 Advances to Vendors 626,135 626,135 Prepaid expenses and other costs 47,275 47,275 Accounts payable (17,410,869) (17,410,869) Payroll and related accruals 54,950 54,950 Deferred rent and other (15,317) (15,317)

Cash rec'd from / (used in) Operating Activities (8,160,487) (8,160,487)$

Investing Activities:

Investment Activity (1) 3,750,021 3,750,021 (Acquisition)/Disposal of Capital Assets (166) (166) Cash rec'd from / (used in) Investing Activities 3,749,855 3,749,855$

Cash at beginning of Period 27,186,505 27,186,505

Increase/(Decrease) in Cash (4,410,631) (4,410,631)

Cash at end of period 22,775,874$ 22,775,874$

(1) As investments mature, they are rolled into the Repo account.

Investments that are made during the month reduce available cash.

Energy Trust of OregonCash Flow Statement-Indirect Method

Monthly 2016

Page 2 of 12

Energy Trust of OregonCash Flow ProjectionJanuary 2016 - December 2017

Actual

January February March April May June July August September October November December

Cash In:

Public purpose and Incr funding 14,818,951 16,100,000 13,300,000 14,100,000 11,500,000 10,800,000 11,700,000 12,600,000 11,800,000 12,000,000 11,600,000 14,100,000

Trsfr from maturing investments 3,750,021 - - - - - - - - 2,000,000

Investment Income 110,687 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000

Total cash in 18,679,659 16,125,000 13,325,000 14,125,000 11,525,000 10,825,000 11,725,000 12,625,000 11,825,000 12,025,000 11,625,000 16,125,000

Cash Out: (23,090,291) (9,900,000) (12,700,000) (12,800,000) (13,100,000) (15,700,000) (13,000,000) (12,300,000) (15,300,000) (14,800,000) (16,100,000) (20,800,000)

Net cash flow for the month (4,410,631) 6,225,000 625,000 1,325,000 (1,575,000) (4,875,000) (1,275,000) 325,000 (3,475,000) (2,775,000) (4,475,000) (4,675,000)

Beginning Balance: Cash & MM 27,186,505 22,775,874 29,000,874 29,625,874 30,950,874 29,375,874 24,500,874 23,225,874 23,550,874 20,075,874 17,300,874 12,825,874

Ending cash & MM 22,775,874 29,000,874 29,625,874 30,950,874 29,375,874 24,500,874 23,225,874 23,550,874 20,075,874 17,300,874 12,825,874 8,150,874

Future Commitments

Renewable Incentives 15,000,000 16,800,000 14,900,000 14,300,000 14,000,000 14,100,000 14,100,000 14,100,000 14,100,000 14,100,000 14,100,000 14,100,000

Efficiency Incentives 67,200,000 65,600,000 58,400,000 55,400,000 54,800,000 52,400,000 51,800,000 51,800,000 51,800,000 51,800,000 51,800,000 51,800,000

Emergency Contingency Pool 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000

Total Commitments 87,200,000 87,400,000 78,300,000 74,700,000 73,800,000 71,500,000 70,900,000 70,900,000 70,900,000 70,900,000 70,900,000 70,900,000

(1) Included in "Ending cash & MM" above

Dedicated funds adjustment: reduction in available cash for commitments to Renewable program projects with board approval, or when board approval not required, with signed agreementsCommitted funds adjustment: reduction in available cash for commitments to Efficiency program projects with signed agreements

Cash reserve: reduction in available cash to cover cashflow variability and winter revenue riskEscrow: dedicated funds set aside in separate bank accounts

2016 Adjusted Budget

Page 3 of 12

Energy Trust of OregonCash Flow ProjectionJanuary 2016 - December 2017

Cash In:

Public purpose and Incr funding

Trsfr from maturing investments

Investment Income

Total cash in

Cash Out:

Net cash flow for the month

Beginning Balance: Cash & MM

Ending cash & MM

Future Commitments

Renewable Incentives

Efficiency Incentives

Emergency Contingency Pool

Total Commitments

(1) Included in "Ending cash & MM" above

Dedicated funds adjustment:Committed funds adjustment:

Cash reserve:Escrow:

2017 Projected Amounts

January February March April May June July August September October November December

19,000,000 18,100,000 14,900,000 15,700,000 12,900,000 12,300,000 13,300,000 14,000,000 13,200,000 13,500,000 13,300,000 16,100,000

12,500,000

25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000

31,525,000 18,125,000 14,925,000 15,725,000 12,925,000 12,325,000 13,325,000 14,025,000 13,225,000 13,525,000 13,325,000 16,125,000

(31,300,000) (9,900,000) (11,400,000) (11,200,000) (13,300,000) (14,700,000) (12,200,000) (12,800,000) (14,200,000) (13,100,000) (15,700,000) (18,500,000)

225,000 8,225,000 3,525,000 4,525,000 (375,000) (2,375,000) 1,125,000 1,225,000 (975,000) 425,000 (2,375,000) (2,375,000)

8,151,000 8,376,000 16,601,000 20,126,000 24,651,000 24,276,000 21,901,000 23,026,000 24,251,000 23,276,000 23,701,000 21,326,000

8,376,000 16,601,000 20,126,000 24,651,000 24,276,000 21,901,000 23,026,000 24,251,000 23,276,000 23,701,000 21,326,000 18,951,000

14,100,000 14,100,000 14,100,000 14,100,000 14,100,000 14,100,000 14,100,000 14,100,000 14,100,000 14,100,000 14,100,000 14,100,000

51,800,000 51,800,000 51,800,000 51,800,000 51,800,000 51,800,000 51,800,000 51,800,000 51,800,000 51,800,000 51,800,000 51,800,000

5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000

70,900,000 70,900,000 70,900,000 70,900,000 70,900,000 70,900,000 70,900,000 70,900,000 70,900,000 70,900,000 70,900,000 70,900,000

reduction in available cash for commitments to Renewable program projects with board approval, or when board approval not required, with signed agreementsreduction in available cash for commitments to Efficiency program projects with signed agreementsreduction in available cash to cover cashflow variability and winter revenue riskdedicated funds set aside in separate bank accounts

Page 4 of 12

Energy Trust of Oregon Income Statement - Actual and Budget Comparison

For the Month Ending January 31, 2016 (Unaudited)

Actual Budget Budget Variance Actual Budget Budget VarianceVariance % Variance %

REVENUES

Public Purpose Funds-PGE 3,617,668 3,489,375 128,293 4% 3,617,668 3,489,375 128,293 4%

Public Purpose Funds-PacifiCorp 2,716,640 2,563,283 153,357 6% 2,716,640 2,563,283 153,357 6%

Public Purpose Funds-NW Natural 1,867,547 2,840,036 (972,489) -34% 1,867,547 2,840,036 (972,489) -34%

Public Purpose Funds-Cascade 312,622 352,231 (39,610) -11% 312,622 352,231 (39,610) -11%

Total Public Purpose Funds 8,514,476 9,244,926 (730,450) -8% 8,514,476 9,244,926 (730,450) -8%

Incremental Funds - PGE 4,161,870 4,397,828 (235,958) -5% 4,161,870 4,397,828 (235,958) -5%

Incremental Funds - PacifiCorp 2,142,605 2,859,129 (716,524) -25% 2,142,605 2,859,129 (716,524) -25%

Revenue from Investments 96,289 25,000 71,289 285% 96,289 25,000 71,289 285%

TOTAL REVENUE 14,915,241 16,526,883 (1,611,642) -10% 14,915,241 16,526,883 (1,611,642) -10%

EXPENSES

Program Subcontracts 4,019,361 4,234,386 215,025 5% 4,019,361 4,234,386 215,025 5%

Incentives 944,755 1,904,396 959,641 50% 944,755 1,904,396 959,641 50%

Salaries and Related Expenses 957,279 1,070,076 112,797 11% 957,279 1,070,076 112,797 11%

Professional Services 341,843 729,463 387,620 53% 341,843 729,463 387,620 53%

Supplies 3,542 3,871 329 9% 3,542 3,871 329 9%

Telephone 928 6,267 5,339 85% 928 6,267 5,339 85%

Postage and Shipping Expenses 1,046 1,375 329 24% 1,046 1,375 329 24%

Occupancy Expenses 52,908 64,278 11,370 18% 52,908 64,278 11,370 18%

Noncapitalized Equip. & Depr. 93,696 111,304 17,609 16% 93,696 111,304 17,609 16%

Call Center 15,281 15,617 335 2% 15,281 15,617 335 2%

Printing and Publications 271 8,208 7,937 97% 271 8,208 7,937 97%

Travel 7,469 13,900 6,431 46% 7,469 13,900 6,431 46%

Conference, Training & Mtng Exp 15,258 20,857 5,599 27% 15,258 20,857 5,599 27%

Interest Expense and Bank Fees 96 208 112 96 208 112 54%

Insurance 8,483 9,167 684 7% 8,483 9,167 684 7%

Miscellaneous Expenses 180 229 49 180 229 49

Dues, Licenses and Fees 6,081 8,356 2,275 27% 6,081 8,356 2,275 27%

TOTAL EXPENSES 6,468,478 8,201,958 1,733,480 21% 6,468,478 8,201,958 1,733,480 21%

TOTAL REVENUE LESS EXPENSES 8,446,763 8,324,925 121,838 -1% 8,446,763 8,324,925 121,838 -1%

January YTD

Page 5 of 12

Energy Trust of Oregon Income Statement - Actual and Prior Year Comparison


Actual Actual Prior Year Variance Actual Actual Prior Year VariancePrior Year Variance % Prior Year Variance %

REVENUES

Public Purpose Funds-PGE 3,617,668 3,481,280 136,387 4% 3,617,668 3,481,280 136,387 4%

Public Purpose Funds-PacifiCorp 2,716,640 2,578,146 138,494 5% 2,716,640 2,578,146 138,494 5%

Public Purpose Funds-NW Natural 1,867,547 2,584,831 (717,285) -28% 1,867,547 2,584,831 (717,285) -28%

Public Purpose Funds-Cascade 312,622 268,957 43,665 16% 312,622 268,957 43,665 16%

Total Public Purpose Funds 8,514,476 8,913,214 (398,738) -4% 8,514,476 8,913,214 (398,738) -4%

Incremental Funds - PGE 4,161,870 4,436,629 (274,759) -6% 4,161,870 4,436,629 (274,759) -6%

Incremental Funds - PacifiCorp 2,142,605 2,391,069 (248,464) -10% 2,142,605 2,391,069 (248,464) -10%

Revenue from Investments 96,289 106,362 (10,072) -9% 96,289 106,362 (10,072) -9%

TOTAL REVENUE 14,915,241 15,847,273 (932,033) -6% 14,915,241 15,847,273 (932,033) -6%

EXPENSES

Program Subcontracts 4,019,361 4,242,115 222,754 5% 4,019,361 4,242,115 222,754 5%

Incentives 944,755 1,496,240 551,485 37% 944,755 1,496,240 551,485 37%

Salaries and Related Expenses 957,279 912,728 (44,552) -5% 957,279 912,728 (44,552) -5%

Professional Services 341,843 364,870 23,027 6% 341,843 364,870 23,027 6%

Supplies 3,542 2,245 (1,297) -58% 3,542 2,245 (1,297) -58%

Telephone 928 4,207 3,279 78% 928 4,207 3,279 78%

Postage and Shipping Expenses 1,046 1,922 875 46% 1,046 1,922 875 46%

Occupancy Expenses 52,908 55,278 2,370 4% 52,908 55,278 2,370 4%

Noncapitalized Equip. & Depr. 93,696 62,941 (30,755) -49% 93,696 62,941 (30,755) -49%

Call Center 15,281 13,785 (1,497) -11% 15,281 13,785 (1,497) -11%

Printing and Publications 271 25,160 24,889 99% 271 25,160 24,889 99%

Travel 7,469 5,504 (1,965) -36% 7,469 5,504 (1,965) -36%

Conference, Training & Mtng Exp 15,258 12,638 (2,620) -21% 15,258 12,638 (2,620) -21%

Interest Expense and Bank Fees 96 64 (32) 96 64 (32) -50%

Insurance 8,483 8,630 147 2% 8,483 8,630 147 2%

Miscellaneous Expenses 180 (180) 180 (180)

Dues, Licenses and Fees 6,081 17,955 11,874 66% 6,081 17,955 11,874 66%

TOTAL EXPENSES 6,468,478 7,226,282 757,804 10% 6,468,478 7,226,282 757,804 10%

TOTAL REVENUE LESS EXPENSES 8,446,763 8,620,992 (174,229) -2% 8,446,763 8,620,992 (174,229) -2%

January YTD

Page 6 of 12

Energy Trust of Oregon Statement of Functional Expenses


Energy Renewable Total Program Management Communications & Total Admin % Efficiency Energy Expenses & General Customer Service Expenses Total Budget Variance Var

Program Expenses

Incentives/ Program Management & Delivery 4,620,527 343,589 4,964,116 4,964,116 6,138,782 1,174,666$ 19%Payroll and Related Expenses 263,328 81,639 344,967 174,283 101,755 276,038 621,005 718,316 97,311 14%Outsourced Services 195,845 98,484 294,329 4,542 33,305 37,847 332,176 695,338 363,162 52%Planning and Evaluation 163,609 5,438 169,048 121 121 169,168 205,256 36,088 18%Customer Service Management 52,684 3,115 55,799 55,799 41,800 (13,999) -33%Trade Allies Network 38,207 2,600 40,808 40,808 29,791 (11,017) -37%Total Program Expenses 5,334,201 534,866 5,869,067 178,946 135,059 314,006 6,183,072 7,829,283 1,646,211 21%

Program Support Costs

Supplies 474 156 630 1,881 494 2,375 3,005 2,831 (174) -6%Postage and Shipping Expenses 28 9 37 967 10 977 1,015 882 (133) -15%Telephone 204 67 271 114 75 189 460 1,437 977 68%Printing and Publications 271 271 271 7,898 7,627 97%Occupancy Expenses 15,621 5,145 20,766 8,703 5,747 14,450 35,216 43,878 8,662 20%Insurance 2,504 825 3,329 1,395 921 2,317 5,646 6,257 611 10%Equipment 100 33 133 56 37 92 225 11,727 11,502 98%Travel 1,355 786 2,141 436 3,414 3,850 5,991 12,100 6,109 50%Meetings, Trainings & Conferences 1,765 630 2,395 1,085 2,988 4,073 6,468 16,657 10,189 61%Interest Expense and Bank Fees 96 96 96 208 112 54%Depreciation & Amortization 4,312 1,420 5,732 2,402 1,586 3,989 9,721 9,939 218 2%Dues, Licenses and Fees 3,204 520 3,724 253 1,804 2,057 5,781 8,023 2,242 Miscellaneous Expenses 53 18 71 30 20 49 120 156 36 IT Services 139,833 18,446 158,279 31,458 21,654 53,112 211,390 250,682 39,292 16%Total Program Support Costs 169,724 28,055 197,779 48,876 38,750 87,627 285,406 372,675 87,269 23%

TOTAL EXPENSES 5,503,925 562,921 6,066,846 227,823 173,808 401,631 6,468,478 8,201,958 1,733,480 21%

OPUC Measure vs. 8% 4.0%

Page 7 of 12

ENERGY TRUST OF OREGONYear to Date by Program/Service Territory

For the Month Ending January 31, 2016Unaudited

PGE PacifiCorp Total NWN Industrial NW Natural Cascade Oregon Total NWN WA ETO Total

REVENUES Public Purpose Funding $2,802,356 $2,110,772 $4,913,128 $0 $1,867,547 $312,622 $7,093,297 $0 $7,093,297 Incremental Funding 4,161,870 2,142,605 6,304,475 6,304,475 6,304,475 Contributions Revenue from Investments TOTAL PROGRAM REVENUE 70,776,605 42,167,958 112,944,564 3,078,432 12,853,131 1,294,913 130,171,039 1,435,515 131,606,554

EXPENSES Program Management (Note 3) 201,198 112,296 313,494 9,243 53,053 6,357 382,147 9,422 391,569 Program Delivery 1,917,865 1,180,338 3,098,204 26,503 410,323 52,211 3,587,240 27,645 3,614,885 Incentives 423,332 101,625 524,957 0 106,858 2,865 634,680 10,912 645,592 Program Eval & Planning Svcs. 158,508 87,089 245,596 2,723 32,013 3,398 283,731 3,503 287,234 Program Marketing/Outreach 130,218 88,005 218,224 525 45,159 3,728 267,636 2,632 270,268 Program Quality Assurance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Outsourced Services 18,049 8,994 27,044 75 6,071 570 33,762 0 33,762 Trade Allies & Cust. Svc. Mgmt. 41,293 25,919 67,212 199 18,911 966 87,288 3,604 90,892 IT Services 69,423 40,982 110,402 647 23,963 1,609 136,620 3,213 139,833 Other Program Expenses - all 16,094 8,787 24,881 308 3,773 387 29,349 543 29,892 TOTAL PROGRAM EXPENSES 2,975,980 1,654,035 4,630,014 40,223 700,124 72,091 5,442,453 61,474 5,503,925

ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS Management & General (Notes 1&2) 111,754 62,112 173,865 1,510 26,291 2,707 204,375 2,309 206,684 Communications & Customer Svc (Notes 1&2) 85,259 47,385 132,645 1,153 20,057 2,065 155,920 1,761 157,681 Total Administrative Costs 197,013 109,497 306,510 2,663 46,348 4,772 360,295 4,070 364,365

TOTAL PROG & ADMIN EXPENSES 3,172,993 1,763,532 4,936,524 42,886 746,472 76,863 5,802,748 65,544 5,868,292

TOTAL REVENUE LESS EXPENSES 3,791,233 2,489,845 6,281,079 (42,886) 1,121,075 235,759 7,595,024 (65,544) 7,529,480

NET ASSETS - RESERVES Cumulative Carryover at 12/31/15 23,006,282 7,481,735 30,488,016 1,032,752 6,430,002 229,935 38,180,710 257,872 38,438,582 Change in net assets this year 3,791,233 2,489,845 6,281,079 (42,886) 1,121,075 235,759 7,595,024 (65,544) 7,529,480 Ending Net Assets - Reserves 26,797,515 9,971,580 36,769,095 989,866 7,551,077 465,694 45,775,734 192,328 45,968,062

Ending Reserve by Category Program Reserves (Efficiency and Renewables) 26,797,515 9,971,580 36,769,095 989,866 7,551,077 465,694 45,775,734 192,328 45,968,062 Operational Contingency Pool Emergency Contingency Pool TOTAL NET ASSETS CUMULATIVE 26,797,515 9,971,580 36,769,095 989,866 7,551,077 465,694 45,775,734 192,328 45,968,062

Note 1) Management & General and Communications & Customer Service Expenses (Admin) have been allocated based on total expenses. Note 2) Admin costs are allocated for mgmt reporting only. GAAP for Not for Profits does not allow allocation of admin costs to program expenses. Note 3) Program Management costs include both outsourced and internal staff.

ENERGY EFFICIENCY

Page 8 of 12

ENERGY TRUST OF OREGONYear to Date by Program/Service Territory

For the Month Ending January 31, 2016Unaudited

REVENUESPublic Purpose FundingIncremental FundingContributionsRevenue from InvestmentsTOTAL PROGRAM REVENUE

EXPENSES Program Management (Note 3) Program Delivery Incentives Program Eval & Planning Svcs. Program Marketing/Outreach Program Quality Assurance Outsourced Services Trade Allies & Cust. Svc. Mgmt. IT Services Other Program Expenses - allTOTAL PROGRAM EXPENSES

ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS Management & General (Notes 1&2) Communications & Customer Svc (Notes 1&2)Total Administrative Costs

TOTAL PROG & ADMIN EXPENSES

TOTAL REVENUE LESS EXPENSES

NET ASSETS - RESERVESCumulative Carryover at 12/31/15Change in net assets this yearEnding Net Assets - Reserves

Ending Reserve by CategoryProgram Reserves (Efficiency and Renewables)Operational Contingency PoolEmergency Contingency PoolTOTAL NET ASSETS CUMULATIVE

TOTALPGE PacifiCorp Total Other All Programs Approved budget Change % Change

$815,311 $605,868 $1,421,179 0 $8,514,476 $9,244,925 ($730,449) -8% 6,304,475 7,256,957 (952,482) -13%

0 0 96,289 96,289 25,000 71,289 285%

8,312,211 5,925,092 14,237,304 96,289 14,915,241 16,526,883 (1,611,642) -10%

27,355 54,284 81,639 473,208 587,320 114,112 19%30,264 14,163 44,427 3,659,312 3,743,065 83,753 2%

167,157 132,006 299,163 944,755 1,904,396 959,641 50%5,453 6,627 12,080 299,314 383,486 84,172 22%

18,360 13,078 31,437 301,705 495,206 193,501 39%0 0 0 0 0 -

12,844 47,560 60,405 94,167 190,157 95,990 50%3,234 2,482 5,716 96,608 70,756 (25,852) -37%6,174 12,273 18,447 158,280 192,306 34,026 18%3,814 5,795 9,609 39,501 69,535 30,034 43%

274,655 288,268 562,921 - 6,066,846 7,636,227 1,569,381 21%

10,314 10,826 21,139 227,823 291,884 64,061 22%7,869 8,258 16,127 173,808 273,847 100,039 37%

18,183 19,084 37,266 401,631 565,731 164,100 29%

292,838 307,352 600,189 6,468,478 8,201,958 1,733,480 21%

522,473 298,516 820,990 96,289 8,446,763 8,324,925 121,838 -1%

10,144,624 10,910,203 21,054,827 8,739,885 68,233,294 67,256,160 977,134 1%522,473 298,516 820,990 96,289 8,446,763 8,324,925 121,838 -1%

10,667,097 11,208,719 21,875,817 8,836,174 76,680,059 75,581,085 1,098,974 1%

10,667,097 11,208,719 21,875,817 67,843,883 3,836,174 3,836,174 5,000,000 5,000,000

10,667,097 11,208,719 21,875,817 8,836,174 76,680,059 75,581,085 1,098,974 1%

RENEWABLE ENERGY

Page 9 of 12

Energy Trust of Oregon Program Expense by Service TerritoryFor the Month Ending January 31, 2016

(Unaudited)

PGE Pacific Power Subtotal Elec. NWN Industrial NW Natural Gas Cascade Subtotal Gas Oregon Total NWN WA ETO Total YTD Budget Variance % VarEnergy Efficiency

Commercial Existing Buildings 993,175 465,384 1,458,560 12,244 137,934 25,017 175,195 1,633,755 19,342 1,653,097 2,243,395 590,298 26%New Buildings 393,845 196,846 590,691 403 48,864 9,118 58,386 649,077 649,077 1,137,491 488,414 43%NEEA 107,669 74,821 182,490 23,643 2,531 26,174 208,664 2,662 211,326 177,483 (33,843) -19% Total Commercial 1,494,690 737,051 2,231,740 12,647 210,441 36,667 259,755 2,491,496 22,004 2,513,500 3,558,369 1,044,869 29%

Industrial Production Efficiency 714,690 423,266 1,137,956 30,239 22,953 9,913 63,106 1,201,062 1,201,062 1,190,374 (10,688) -1%NEEA 18,314 12,727 31,041 31,041 31,041 42,444 11,403 27% Total Industrial 733,004 435,993 1,168,997 30,239 22,953 9,913 63,106 1,232,103 0 1,232,103 1,232,818 715 0%

Residential Existing Homes 369,752 324,114 693,866 0 231,265 1,522 232,786 926,652 20,555 947,207 980,443 33,236 3%New Homes/Products 359,499 116,240 475,739 0 223,926 22,565 246,492 722,231 16,464 738,695 1,109,605 370,910 33%NEEA 216,048 150,136 366,183 57,885 6,197 64,082 430,265 6,518 436,783 387,582 (49,201) -13% Total Residential 945,298 590,490 1,535,789 0 513,076 30,284 543,360 2,079,148 43,537 2,122,685 2,477,630 354,945 14%

Energy Efficiency Costs 3,172,993 1,763,532 4,936,524 42,886 746,472 76,863 866,221 5,802,748 65,544 5,868,292 7,268,817 1,400,529 19%

Renewables

Solar Electric (Photovoltaic) 290,570 206,969 497,539 497,539 497,539 717,049 219,510 31%Other Renewable 2,265 100,384 102,649 102,649 102,649 216,094 113,445 52% Renewables Costs 292,838 307,352 600,189 0 0 0 0 600,189 0 600,189 933,143 332,955 36%

Cost Grand Total 3,465,827 2,070,887 5,536,714 42,888 746,472 76,863 866,221 6,402,935 65,544 6,468,478 8,201,960 1,733,480 21%

Page 10 of 12

Energy Trust of Oregon Administrative Expenses

For the 1st Quarter and Month Ending January 31, 2016 (Unaudited)

Administrative Expenses 1st Month of Quarter

ACTUAL BUDGET REMAINING ACTUAL BUDGET VARIANCE ACTUAL BUDGET REMAINING ACTUAL BUDGET VARIANCEEXPENSES

Outsourced Services $4,542 $125,375 $120,833 $4,542 $30,000 $25,458 $33,305 $307,750 $274,445 $33,305 $102,583 $69,279Legal Services 2,500 2,500 833 833 Salaries and Related Expenses 174,283 574,160 399,877 174,283 191,387 17,103 101,755 387,338 285,583 101,755 129,113 27,358Supplies 1,617 1,338 (279) 1,617 446 (1,171) 320 250 (70) 320 83 (237)Postage and Shipping Expenses 951 (951) 951 (951) Printing and Publications 1,125 1,125 375 375 550 550 183 183Travel 436 11,987 11,551 436 3,996 3,559 3,414 11,250 7,836 3,414 3,750 336Conference, Training & Mtngs 1,085 33,110 32,025 1,085 11,037 9,952 2,988 4,000 1,012 2,988 1,333 (1,654)Interest Expense and Bank Fees 96 625 529 96 208 112 Dues, Licenses and Fees 253 3,355 3,102 253 1,785 1,532 1,804 4,000 2,196 1,804 1,333 (471)Shared Allocation (Note 1) 12,980 51,167 38,188 12,980 17,056 4,076 8,571 35,123 26,552 8,571 11,708 3,137IT Service Allocation (Note 2) 31,458 104,556 73,098 31,458 34,615 3,157 21,654 71,770 50,117 21,654 23,761 2,107Planning & Eval 121 455 334 121 146 26

TOTAL EXPENSES 227,823 909,753 681,931 227,823 291,884 64,061 173,808 822,031 648,222 173,808 273,847 100,038

Note 1) Represents allocation of Shared (General Office Management) Costs Note 2) Represents allocation of Shared IT Costs

MANAGEMENT & GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS & CUSTOMER SERVICEYTD YTDQUARTER QUARTER

Page 11 of 12

$-

$2

Jan

(in

mill

ion

s)

IncentivesBudget vs. Actual

2016

Budget Incentives Current Year

Actual

Last Year Month

$-

$2

$4

$6

$8

$10

$12

$14

$16

$18

Jan

(in

mill

ion

s)

Cumulative Revenue & ExpensesBudget vs Actual

2016

Revenue Budget Revenue Actual Expenses Budget Expenses Actual

$- $2 $4 $6 $8

$10 $12 $14 $16 $18

Jan

(in

mill

ion

s)

Total Revenue & Expenses - Actual vs Budget 2016

Revenue Budget Revenue Actual Expenses Budget Expenses Actual

$-

$2

Jan

(in

mill

ion

s)

Cumulative IncentivesBudget vs. Actual

2016

Budget Incentives Current Year

Actual

Last Year Month

Page 12 of 12

Administration Total: 6,440,795 3,193,225 3,247,570

Administration

Communications Total: 3,386,407 1,219,670 2,166,737

Communications

Energy Efficiency

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance

Regional EE Initiative Agmt Portland 33,662,505 7,978,718 25,683,787 1/1/2015 7/1/2020

ICF Resources, LLC 2016 BE PMC Fairfax 10,380,579 790,234 9,590,345 1/1/2016 12/31/2016

CLEAResult Consulting Inc 2016 HES PMC Austin 6,627,975 486,073 6,141,902 1/1/2016 12/31/2016

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance

Regional Gas EE Initiative Portland 6,200,354 507,845 5,692,509 1/1/2015 7/1/2020

CLEAResult Consulting Inc 2016 NBE PMC Austin 5,868,253 433,795 5,434,458 1/1/2016 12/31/2016

Lockheed Martin Corporation 2016 MF PMC Grand Prairie 4,496,935 241,454 4,255,481 1/1/2016 12/31/2018

Ecova Inc 2016 Products PMC Spokane 3,756,714 238,746 3,517,968 1/1/2016 12/31/2016

Energy 350 Inc PDC - PE 2016 Portland 3,123,000 210,959 2,912,041 1/1/2016 12/31/2016

CLEAResult Consulting Inc 2016 NH PMC Austin 2,868,582 219,122 2,649,460 1/1/2016 12/31/2016

Intel Corporation EE Project Incentive Agmt Hillsboro 2,400,000 0 2,400,000 11/13/2015 12/31/2019

Portland General Electric PDC - PE 2016 Portland 2,153,000 181,424 1,971,576 1/1/2016 12/31/2016

Northwest Power & Conservation Council

RTF Funding Agreement 1,825,000 321,766 1,503,234 2/25/2015 12/31/2019

Cascade Energy, Inc. PDC - PE 2016 Small Industrial

Walla Walla 1,674,518 122,593 1,551,925 1/1/2016 12/31/2016

RHT Energy Inc. PDC - PE 2016 Medford 1,665,000 125,411 1,539,589 1/1/2016 12/31/2016

Evergreen Consulting Group, LLC

PE Lighting PDC 2016 Tigard 1,371,500 125,070 1,246,430 1/1/2016 12/31/2016

CLEAResult Consulting Inc PDC - SEM 2016 Austin 1,356,564 42,620 1,313,944 1/1/2016 12/31/2016

HST&V, LLC PDC - SEM 2016 Portland 1,185,354 88,831 1,096,523 1/1/2016 12/31/2016

EnergySavvy Inc. EnergySavvy Online Audit Tool

Seattle 587,500 564,514 22,986 1/1/2012 5/31/2016

Clean Energy Works, Inc. EE Incentive & Services Agmt

Portland 492,570 387,570 105,000 7/1/2014 12/31/2016

ADM Associates, Inc. EB 2013/2014 Impact Evaluation

Seattle 422,000 0 422,000 1/1/2016 12/31/2016

Cascade Energy, Inc. SEM Curriculum Walla Walla 404,080 404,080 0 5/1/2014 4/30/2016

The Cadmus Group Inc. PE Impact Eval 2012 Watertown 345,000 300,183 44,817 4/15/2014 6/30/2016

Energy Market Innovations, Inc.

Lighting Controls Savings Est

Seattle 317,000 314,962 2,038 10/1/2014 2/29/2016

Craft3 SWR Loan Origination/Loss Fund

Portland 305,000 14,519 290,481 6/1/2014 12/31/2016

EnerNoc, Inc. Commercial SEM curriculum Boston 300,915 277,657 23,258 6/27/2014 5/30/2016

Craft3 Loan Agreement Portland 300,000 100,000 200,000 6/1/2014 6/20/2025

CLEAResult Consulting Inc 2016 HES WA PMC Austin 289,600 13,802 275,798 1/1/2016 12/31/2016

Pivotal Energy Solutions LLC License Agreement Gilbert 270,500 56,111 214,389 3/1/2014 12/31/2017

EndStartRemainingActual TTDEST COSTCityDescriptionCONTRACTOR

R00407

For contracts with costs through: 2/1/2016

Energy Trust of OregonContract Status Summary Report

Report Date: 2/24/2016

Page 1 of 4

Enervee Corporation Online Marketplace Development

Venice 212,558 0 212,558 1/15/2016 8/30/2016

KEMA Incorporated Commercial SEM Impact Eval

Oakland 205,000 66,674 138,326 9/1/2015 6/30/2016

ICF Resources, LLC 2016 BE NWN WA PMC Fairfax 200,724 11,874 188,850 1/1/2016 12/31/2016

The Cadmus Group Inc. PE SEM Impact Evaluation Watertown 177,000 127,972 49,028 5/1/2015 6/30/2016

Balanced Energy Solutions LLC

New Homes QA Inspections Portland 154,000 35,955 118,045 4/27/2015 12/31/2016

ICF Resources, LLC 2016 BE DSM PMC Fairfax 122,019 5,678 116,341 1/1/2016 12/31/2016

Abt SRBI Inc. Fast Feedback Surveys New York 118,000 112,983 5,017 1/31/2014 2/29/2016

Hitachi Consulting Corporation SOW #18 PMC Transition Dallas 105,000 0 105,000 2/1/2016 7/31/2016

ICF Resources, LLC OSU CHP Performance Monitoring

Fairfax 100,000 66,118 33,883 7/1/2013 6/30/2016

1000 Broadway Building L.P. Pay-for-Performance Pilot Portland 88,125 0 88,125 10/17/2014 11/1/2018

Pivotal Energy Solutions LLC EPS New Home dbase construct

Gilbert 86,725 69,250 17,475 7/1/2014 6/30/2016

Alliance For Sustainable Energy, LLC

Technical Services Agreement

Lakewood 74,215 74,215 0 10/30/2015 3/30/2016

Evergreen Economics EB Process Evaluation Portland 73,000 7,528 65,473 11/16/2015 9/30/2016

Research Into Action, Inc. SWR OnBill Repmt Pilot Eval

Portland 73,000 67,206 5,794 11/1/2014 6/30/2016

SBW Consulting, Inc. Path to Net Zero Impact Eval

Bellevue 70,000 69,006 994 3/19/2015 3/31/2016

The Cadmus Group Inc. Solar PV Impact Evalution Watertown 53,135 13,142 39,994 10/26/2015 3/31/2016

Evergreen Economics New Homes Process Evaluation

Portland 50,000 46,868 3,132 6/1/2015 3/31/2016

PWP, Inc. EB SBES Process Evaluation

Gaithersburg 50,000 31,925 18,075 9/14/2015 5/31/2016

MetaResource Group Intel DX1 Mod 1&2 Megaproject

Portland 45,000 3,093 41,907 4/1/2015 5/1/2017

Research Into Action, Inc. MPower Pilot Evaluation Portland 38,100 29,627 8,474 2/1/2015 6/30/2016

KEMA Incorporated Billing Analysis Review Oakland 35,000 0 35,000 3/15/2015 12/31/2016

WegoWise Inc benchmarking license 2015 Boston 35,000 15,696 19,304 6/15/2014 12/31/2016

CLEAResult Consulting Inc Professional Services/Trans Austin 33,788 19,539 14,249 10/15/2014 10/15/2016

Apex Analytics LLC Gas Thermostat Boulder 30,000 29,280 720 10/20/2014 3/31/2016

Energy Center of Wisconsin Billing Analysis Review Madison 25,000 0 25,000 3/15/2015 12/31/2016

Evergreen Economics Air Sealing Pilot Evaluation Portland 25,000 1,155 23,845 10/15/2014 4/30/2016

Sustainable Northwest Klamath PAC Ag Program Aware

Portland 24,992 9,372 15,620 11/1/2015 8/10/2016

Ecotope, Inc. NB VRF Pilot Evaluation Seattle 20,000 0 20,000 1/1/2016 5/31/2017

MetaResource Group Pay-for-Performance Pilot Eval

Portland 20,000 14,713 5,287 7/1/2015 5/30/2016

MetaResource Group Paper Plant Impact Evaluation

Portland 20,000 940 19,060 10/30/2015 5/30/2016

Sheepscot Creative LLC SEM Videos Portland 20,000 0 20,000 2/12/2016 8/30/2016

Clark Public Utilities Living Wise Kits Coop Agmt Vancouver 15,000 0 15,000 11/1/2015 12/31/2016

Energy 350 Inc Professional Services Portland 14,920 14,920 0 12/10/2014 12/10/2016

Bridgetown Printing Company January 2016 Bill Insert Portland 14,677 9,677 5,000 1/1/2016 12/31/2016

PWP, Inc. NBE Satisfaction Survey 2015

Gaithersburg 14,000 6,285 7,715 12/1/2015 3/31/2016

R00407




Page 2 of 4

BASE zero LLC Quality Assurance Services Bend 11,625 0 11,625 3/1/2016 12/31/2016

American Council for and Energy Efficient Economy

Intelligent Eff. Baseline 10,000 0 10,000 1/1/2016 12/31/2016


Smart Buildings 10,000 0 10,000 1/1/2016 12/31/2016


Small Business EE 10,000 0 10,000 1/1/2016 12/31/2016

NEXANT, INC. PDC Transition - PE 2016 San Francisco 10,000 2,890 7,110 1/1/2016 2/10/2016

Northwest Food Processors Association

NW Industrial EE Summit 2016

Portland 10,000 10,000 0 1/1/2016 12/31/2016

Research Into Action, Inc. Professional Services Portland 9,590 9,570 20 9/1/2014 8/31/2016

City of Portland Bureau of Planning & Sustainability

Sponsorship - 2016 Portland 8,000 8,000 0 1/1/2016 12/31/2016

Northwest Environmental Business Council

Future Energy Conference 2016

Portland 7,450 3,950 3,500 1/1/2016 12/31/2016

LightTracker, Inc. CREED Data Boulder 7,300 7,300 0 8/5/2015 8/4/2016

Sustainable Northwest 2015 Sponsorship Portland 5,000 5,000 0 9/1/2015 9/1/2016

Energy Efficiency Total: 97,191,941 15,555,460 81,636,481

Joint Programs

Portland State University Technology Forecasting 153,808 116,759 37,049 11/7/2011 12/31/2016

E Source Companies LLC E Source Service Agreement

Boulder 93,750 74,900 18,850 2/1/2014 1/31/2017

The Cadmus Group Inc. Evaluation Consultant Watertown 63,305 45,519 17,786 6/20/2013 12/31/2016

CoStar Realty Information Inc Property Data Baltimore 33,620 29,561 4,059 6/1/2011 5/31/2016

Research Into Action, Inc. EH Attic Air Sealing Pilot Eva

Portland 30,000 30,000 0 10/8/2014 9/30/2016

Bruins Analysis and Consulting Fast Feedback Reporting Bremerton 7,000 0 7,000 11/15/2015 4/30/2016

Joint Programs Total: 381,483 296,739 84,744

Renewable Energy

Clean Water Services Project Funding Agreement 3,000,000 1,013,106 1,986,894 11/25/2014 11/25/2039

JC-Biomethane LLC Biogas Plant Project Funding

Eugene 2,000,000 1,325,000 675,000 10/18/2012 10/18/2032

Steel Bridge Solar, LLC Project Funding Agreement Seattle 2,000,000 0 2,000,000 3/27/2015 12/15/2040

Oregon Institute of Technology Geothermal Resource Funding

Klamath Falls 1,550,000 1,550,000 0 9/11/2012 9/11/2032

Farm Power Misty Meadows LLC

Misty Meadows Biogas Facility

Mount Vernon 1,000,000 750,000 250,000 10/25/2012 10/25/2027

Three Sisters Irrigation District TSID Hydro Sisters 1,000,000 800,000 200,000 4/25/2012 9/30/2032

Farmers Irrigation District FID - Plant 2 Hydro Hood River 900,000 450,000 450,000 4/1/2014 4/1/2034

Farmers Conservation Alliance Irrigation Collaboration Initi Hood River 525,000 403,914 121,086 1/2/2015 12/31/2016

Old Mill Solar, LLC Project Funding Agmt Bly, OR

Lake Oswego 490,000 0 490,000 5/29/2015 5/28/2030

City of Medford 750kW Combined Heat & Power

Medford 450,000 450,000 0 10/20/2011 10/20/2031

City of Pendleton Pendleton Microturbines Pendleton 450,000 150,000 300,000 4/20/2012 4/20/2032

RES - Ag FGO LLC Biogas Manure Digester Project

Washington 441,660 441,660 0 10/27/2010 10/27/2025

RES - Ag FGO LLC Biogas Manure Digester - FGO

Washington 441,660 217,830 223,830 10/27/2010 10/27/2025

SunE Solar XVI Lessor, LLC BVT Sexton Mtn PV Bethesda 355,412 355,412 0 5/15/2014 12/31/2034

R00407




Page 3 of 4

CIty of Gresham City of Gresham Cogen 2 330,000 165,000 165,000 4/9/2014 7/9/2034

Clean Power Research, LLC PowerClerk License Napa 231,253 228,583 2,670 7/1/2014 6/30/2016

K2A Properties, LLC Doerfler Wind Farm Project Aumsville 230,000 230,000 0 5/20/2010 5/20/2030

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation

Small Wind Project Funding Pendleton 170,992 170,992 0 7/25/2013 12/31/2028

Henley KBG, LLC Henley Proj Dev Assistance Reno 150,000 43,683 106,318 4/10/2014 12/31/2016

City of Astoria Bear Creek Funding Agreement

Astoria 143,000 143,000 0 3/24/2014 3/24/2034

Klamath Basin Geopower Inc Poe Valley Proj Dev Assistance

Reno 112,874 63,000 49,874 4/10/2014 12/31/2016

Gary Higbee DBA WindStream Solar

Solar Verifier Services Eugene 100,000 76,291 23,709 8/1/2014 7/31/2016

Sunflower Energy Solutions, Inc

Solar Verifier Services Terrebonne 100,000 0 100,000 1/12/2016 7/31/2016

Wallowa Resources Community Solutions, Inc.

Upfront Hydroelectric Project

100,000 32,188 67,813 10/1/2011 10/1/2016

Solar Oregon 2015 Outreach Agreement Portland 72,800 33,000 39,800 1/1/2015 12/31/2016

Mapdwell LLC Mapdwell Account Boston 64,595 64,595 0 3/17/2014 4/30/2016

SPS of Oregon Inc Project Funding Agreement Wallowa 60,000 0 60,000 10/15/2015 10/31/2036

State of Oregon Dept of Geology & Mineral Industries

Lidar Data Portland 40,000 16,000 24,000 11/7/2014 12/1/2016

Clean Energy States Alliance CESA Membership 39,500 39,500 0 7/1/2015 6/30/2016

Glenna R Wiseman Solar Marketing Curriculum Redlands 36,500 15,745 20,755 10/20/2015 7/31/2016

Kendrick Business Services LLC

Solar TA Business Consulting

Albany 30,000 15,200 14,800 10/8/2015 3/31/2016

University of Oregon UO SRML Contribution - 2015

Eugene 24,999 24,999 0 2/11/2015 3/8/2016

Wallowa Resources Community Solutions, Inc.

Renewables Field Outreach 24,999 0 24,999 2/1/2016 1/30/2018

Robert Migliori 42kW wind energy system Newberg 24,125 21,673 2,452 4/11/2007 1/31/2024

Oregon Clean Power Cooperative

Grant Agreement Corvallis 17,000 17,000 0 6/15/2015 6/30/2016

Oregon Solar Energy Industries Association

Solar Technical Training Class

Portland 13,500 0 13,500 12/10/2015 12/31/2016

Warren Griffin Griffin Wind Project Salem 13,150 9,255 3,895 10/1/2005 10/1/2020

Chaolysti Solar TA Summit Alameda 11,650 3,000 8,650 12/1/2015 5/30/2016

Oregon Solar Energy Industries Association

Sponsorship 2016 Portland 7,500 7,500 0 1/1/2016 12/31/2016

Bonneville Environmental Foundation

REC/WRC Purchase 2016 Portland 2,430 0 2,430 1/1/2016 12/31/2016

Renewable Energy Total: 16,754,599 9,327,124 7,427,475

Grand Total: 124,155,225 29,592,217 94,563,008

R00407




Page 4 of 4

Financial Glossary (for internal use) - updated April 16, 2014 Administrative Costs Costs that, by nonprofit accounting standards, have general objectives which enable an organization’s programs to function. The organization’s programs in turn provide direct services to the organization’s constituents and fulfill the mission of the organization. i.e. management and general and general communication and outreach expenses

I. Management and General Includes governance/board activities, interest/financing costs, accounting,

payroll, human resources, general legal support, and other general organizational management costs.

Receives an allocated share of indirect costs. II. General Communications and Outreach

Expenditures of a general nature, conveying the nonprofit mission of the organization and general public awareness.

Receives an allocated share of indirect costs.

Allocation A way of grouping costs together and applying them to a program as one pool based

upon an allocation base that most closely represents the activity driver of the costs in the pool.

Used as an alternative to charging programs on an invoice–by–invoice basis for accounting efficiency purposes.

An example would be accumulating all of the costs associated with customer management (call center operations, Energy Trust customer service personnel, complaint tracking, etc). The accumulated costs are then spread to the programs that benefited by using the ratio of calls into the call center by program (i.e. the allocation base).

Allocation Cost Pools

Employee benefits and taxes. Office operations. Includes rent, telephone, utilities, supplies, etc. Information Technology (IT) services. Planning and evaluation general costs. Customer service and trade ally support costs. General communications and outreach costs. Management and general costs. Shared costs for electric utilities. Shared costs for gas utilities. Shared costs for all utilities.

Auditor’s Opinion An accountant's or auditor's opinion is a report by an independent CPA presented to the

board of directors describing the scope of the examination of the organization's books, and certifying that the financial statements meet the AICPA (American Institute of Certified Public Accountants) requirements of GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles).

Financial Glossary updated 04/16/2014

Page 2 of 7

Depending on the audit findings, the opinion can be unqualified or qualified regarding specific items. Energy Trust strives for and has achieved in all its years an unqualified opinion.

An unqualified opinion indicates agreement by the auditors that the financial statements present an accurate assessment of the organization’s financial results.

The OPUC Grant Agreement requires an unqualified opinion regarding Energy Trust’s financial records.

Failure to follow generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) can result in a qualified opinion.

Board-approved Annual Budget

Funds approved by the board for expenditures during the budget year (subject to board approved program funding caps and associated policy) for the stated functions.

Funds approved for capital asset expenditures. Approval of the general allocation of funds including commitments and cash outlays. Approval of expenditures is based on assumed revenues from utilities as forecasted in

their annual projections of public purpose collections and/or contracted revenues.

Reserves In any one year, the amount by which revenues exceed expenses for that year in a

designated category that will be added to the cumulative balance and brought forward for expenditure to the next budget year.

In any one year, if expenditures exceed revenues, the negative difference is applied against the cumulative carryover balance.

Does not equal the cash on hand due to noncash expense items such as depreciation. Tracked by major utility funder and at high level program area--by EE vs RE, not tracked

by program.

Committed Funds Represents funds obligated to identified efficiency program participants in the form of

signed applications or agreements and tracked in the project forecasting system. If the project is not demonstrably proceeding within agreed upon time frame, committed

funds return to incentive pool. Reapplication would then be required. Funds are expensed when the project is completed. Funds may be held in the operating cash account, or in escrow accounts.

Contract obligations

A signed contract for goods or services that creates a legal obligation. Reported in the monthly Contract Status Summary Report.

Cost-Effectiveness Calculation

Programs and measures are evaluated for cost-effectiveness. The cost of program savings must be lower than the cost to produce the energy from

both a utility and societal perspective. Expressed as a ratio of energy savings cost divided by the presumed avoided utility and

societal cost of energy. Program cost-effectiveness evaluation is “fully allocated,” i.e. includes all of the program

costs plus a portion of Energy Trust administrative costs. Dedicated Funds

Represents funds obligated to identified renewable program participants in the form of signed applications or agreements and tracked in the project forecasting system.


Page 3 of 7

May include commitments, escrows, contracts, board designations, master agreements. Methodology utilized to develop renewable energy activity-based budgets amounts.

Direct Program Costs

Can be directly linked to and reflect a causal relationship to one individual program/project; or can easily be allocated to two or more programs based upon usage, cause, or benefit.

Direct Program Evaluation & Planning Services

Evaluation services for a specific program rather than for a group of programs. Costs incurred in evaluating programs and projects and included in determining total

program funding caps. Planning services for a specific program rather than for a group of programs. Costs incurred in planning programs and projects and are included in determining

program funding expenditures and caps. Evaluation and planning services attributable to a number of programs are recorded in a

cost pool and are subsequently allocated to individual programs.

Escrowed Program (Incentive) Funds Cash deposited into a separate bank account that will be paid out pursuant to a

contractual obligation requiring a certain event or result to occur. Funds can be returned to Energy Trust if such event or result does not occur. Therefore, the funds are still “owned” by Energy Trust and will remain on the balance sheet.

The funds are within the control of the bank in accordance with the terms of the escrow agreement.

When the event or result occurs, the funds are considered “earned” and are transferred out of the escrow account (“paid out”) and then are reflected as an expense on the income statement for the current period.

Expenditures/Expenses

Amounts for which there is an obligation for payment of goods and/or services that have been received or earned within the month or year.

FastTrack Projects Forecasting Module developed in FastTrack to provide information about the timing of future incentive payments, with the following definitions:

Estimated-Project data may be inaccurate or incomplete. Rough estimate of energy savings, incentives and completion date by project and by service territory.

Proposed-Project that has received a written incentive offer but no agreement or application has been signed. Energy savings, incentives and completion date to be documented by programs using this phase. For Renewable projects-project that has received Board approval.

Accepted-Used for renewable energy projects in 2nd round of application; projects that have reached a stage where approval process can begin.

Committed-Project that has a signed agreement or application reserving incentive dollars until project completion. Energy savings/generations, incentives and completion date by project and by service territory must be documented in project records and in FastTrack. If project not demonstrably proceeding within agreed upon time frame, committed funds return to incentive pool. Reapplication would then be required.

Dedicated-Renewable project that has been committed, has a signed agreement, and if required, has been approved by the board of directors.


Page 4 of 7

Incentives I. Residential Incentives

Incentives paid to a residential program participant (party responsible for payment for utility service in particular dwelling unit) exclusively for energy efficiency and renewable energy measures in the homes or apartments of such residential customers.

II. Business Incentives Incentives paid to a participant other than a residential program participant as

defined above following the installation of an energy efficiency or renewable energy measure.

Above market cost for a particular renewable energy project.

III. Service Incentives Incentives paid to an installation contractor which serves as a reduction in the

final cost to the participant for the installation of an energy efficiency or renewable energy measure.

Payment for services delivered to participants by contractors such as home reviews and technical analysis studies.

End-user training, enhancing participant technical knowledge or energy efficiency practices proficiency such as “how to” sessions on insulation, weatherization, or high efficiency lighting.

CFL online home review fulfillment and PMC direct installations. Technical trade ally training to enhance program knowledge. Incentives for equipment purchases by trade allies to garner improvements of

services and diagnostics delivered to end-users, such as duct sealing, HVAC diagnosis, air filtration, etc.

Indirect Costs

Shared costs that are “allocated” for accounting purposes rather than assigning individual charges to programs.

Allocated to all programs and administration functions based on a standard basis such as hours worked, square footage, customer phone calls, etc.

Examples include rent/facilities, supplies, computer equipment and support, and depreciation.

IT Support Services

Information technology costs incurred as a result of supporting all programs. Includes FastTrack energy savings and incentive tracking software, data tracking

support of PMCs and for the program evaluation functions. Includes technical architecture design and physical infrastructure. Receives an allocation of indirect shared costs. Total costs subsequently allocated to programs and administrative units.

Outsourced Services

Miscellaneous professional services contracted to third parties rather than performed by internal staff.

Can be incurred for program or administrative reasons and will be identified as such.


Page 5 of 7

Program Costs Expenditures made to fulfill the purposes or mission for which the organization exists

and are authorized through the program approval process. Includes program management, incentives, program staff salaries, planning, evaluation,

quality assurance, program-specific marketing and other costs incurred solely for program purposes.

Can be direct or indirect (i.e. allocated based on program usage.)

Program Delivery Expense This will include all PMC labor and direct costs associated with: incentive processing,

program coordination, program support, trade ally communications, and program delivery contractors.

Includes contract payments to NEEA for market transformation efforts. Includes performance compensation incentives paid to program management

contractors under contract agreement if certain incentive goals are met. Includes professional services for items such as solar inspections, anemometer

maintenance and general renewable energy consulting.

Program Legal Services External legal expenditures and internal legal services utilized in the development of a

program-specific contract. Program Management Expense

PMC billings associated with program contract oversight, program support, staff management, etc.

ETO program management staff salaries, taxes and benefits. Program Marketing/Outreach

PMC labor and direct costs associated with marketing/outreach/awareness efforts to communicate program opportunities and benefits to rate payers/program participants.

Awareness campaigns and outreach efforts designed to reach participants of individual programs.

Co-op advertising with trade allies and vendors to promote a particular program benefit to the public.

Program Quality Assurance

Independent in-house or outsourced services for the quality assurance efforts of a particular program (distinguished from program quality control).

Program Reserves

Negotiated with utilities annually, with a goal of providing a cushion of approximately 5% above funds needed to fulfill annual budgeted costs. Management may access up to 50% of annual program reserve without prior board approval (resolution 633, 2012).

Program Support Costs

Source of information is contained in statement of functional expense report. Portion of costs in OPUC performance measure for program administration and support

costs. Includes expenses incurred directly by the program. Includes allocation of shared and indirect costs incurred in the following

categories: supplies; postage and shipping; telephone; printing and publications; occupancy expenses; insurance; equipment; travel; business meetings; conferences and training; depreciation and amortization; dues, licenses,


Page 6 of 7

subscriptions and fees; miscellaneous expense; and an allocation of information technology department cost.

Project Specific Costs (for Renewable Energy)

Expenses directly related to identified projects or identified customers to assist them in constructing or operating renewable projects. Includes services to prospective as well as current customers.

Must involve direct contact with the project or customer, individually or in groups, and provide a service the customer would otherwise incur at their own expense.

Does not include general program costs to reach a broad (unidentified) audience such as websites, advertising, program development, or program management.

Project-Specific costs may be in the categories of; Incentives, Staff salaries, Program delivery, Legal services, Public relations, Creative services, Professional services, Travel, Business meetings, Telephone, or Escrow account bank fees.

Savings Types

Working Savings/Generation: the estimate of savings/generation that is used for data entry by program personnel as they approve individual projects. They are based on deemed savings/generation for prescriptive measures, and engineering calculations for custom measures. They do not incorporate any evaluation or transmission and distribution factors.

Reportable Savings/Generation: the estimate of savings/generation that will be used for public reporting of Energy Trust results. This includes transmission and distribution factors, evaluation factors, and any other corrections required to the original working values. These values are updated annually, and are subject to revision each year during the “true-up” as a result of new information or identified errors.

Contract Savings: the estimate of savings that will be used to compare against annual contract goals. These savings figures are generally the same as the reportable savings at the time that the contract year started. For purposes of adjusting working savings to arrive at this number, a single adjustment percentage (a SRAF, as defined below) is agreed to at the beginning of the contract year and is applied to all program measures. This is based on the sum of the adjustments between working and reportable numbers in the forecast developed for the program year.

Savings Realization Adjustment Factors (SRAF): are savings realization adjustment factors applied to electric and gas working savings measures in order to reflect more accurate savings information through the benefit of evaluation and other studies. These factors are determined by the Energy Trust and used for annual contract amendments. The factors are determined based on the best available information from: Program evaluations and/or other research that account for free riders, spill-over

effects and measure impacts to date; and Published transmission and distribution line loss information resulting from

electric measure savings. Total Program and Admin Expenses (line item on income statement)

Used only for cost effectiveness calculations, levelized cost calculations and in management reports used to track funds spent/remaining by service territory.

Includes all costs of the organization--direct, indirect, and an allocation of administration costs to programs.

Should not be used for external financial reporting (not GAAP).


Page 7 of 7

Total Program Expenses (line item on income statement) All indirect costs have been allocated to program costs with the exception of

administration (management and general costs and communications & outreach). Per the requirements of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) for

nonprofits, administrative costs should not be allocated to programs. There is no causal relationship—costs would not go away if the program did not exist.

Trade Ally Programs & Customer Service Management

Costs associated with Energy Trust sponsorship of training and development of a trade ally network for a variety of programs.

Trade Ally costs are tracked and allocated to programs based on the number of allies associated with that program.

Costs in support of assisting customers which benefit all Energy Trust programs such as call center operations, customer service manager, complaint handling, etc.

Customer service costs are tracked and allocated based on # of calls into the call center per month.

True Up

True-up is a once-a-year process where we take everything we’ve learned about how much energy programs actually save or generate, and update our reports of historic performance and our software tools for forecasting and analyzing future savings.

Information incorporated includes improved engineering models of savings (new data factor), anticipated results of future evaluations based on what prior evaluations of similar programs have shown (anticipated evaluation factor), and results from actual evaluations of the program and the year of activity in question (evaluation factor).

Results are incorporated in the Annual Report (for the year just past) and the True-up Report (for prior years).

Sometimes the best data on program savings or generation is not available for 2-3 years, especially for market transformation programs. So for some programs, the savings are updated through the annual true-up 2 or 3 times

Policy Committee Meeting March 10, 2016, 3:30–5:00 pm

Attending by teleconference Roger Hamilton, Ken Canon, Alan Meyer, John Reynolds Attending at Energy Trust offices Kim Crossman, Margie Harris, Betsy Kauffman, David McClelland, Debbie Menashe, Jay Ward, Peter West

Board Meeting Presentation Previews Solar Incentive Project Funding Recommendation Dave McClelland briefed the committee on a proposed solar project incentive agreement. The project developer is Lockheed Martin. The proposed project is a fixed tilt 1,926 kWDC solar array consisting of 5,928 SolarWorld 325 W modules (or an approved equivalent), and 26 Sungrow inverters with a combined AC max power rating of 1,716 kWAC. The installation is planned on land owned and adjacent to the Rogue Valley International-Medford Airport. Lockheed Martin and Jackson County, owner of the Medford airport, have a letter of intent for a power purchase agreement by which Lockheed Martin would sell power generated by the project to the airport. The project was proposed for Energy Trust funding through a competitive solicitation for custom solar projects to be connected to Pacific Power. The Medford Airport project was the only net-metered project proposed in response to the solicitation and would reduce the airport’s demand for grid energy. Energy Trust staff plans to present the project to the board and expects to recommend approval of an incentive of $.65/WDC up to a cap of $1.25 million. Staff previewed the presentation for the Policy Committee. Dave described the size, site, and financial analysis of the project. Committee members had questions for staff regarding the project, including questions regarding cost assumptions as a result of the project’s location on public property and the process of negotiating a transaction with a public entity. Staff responded to committee questions. The committee appreciated the presentation and recommends presenting the project to the full board at the next board meeting. Waste Heat-to-Power Project Proposal to Waive Program Incentive Cap Staff provided updated information on a proposed waste heat-to-power project in a planned biomass gasification plant in Lakeview, Oregon. The Production Efficiency program is working with Red Rock Biofuels LLC (“Red Rock”) on a proposed waste heat-to-power project to be installed in a planned biomass gasification plant in Lakeview, Oregon (the “Red Rock Project”). This project is expected to begin design and construction late in the second quarter of 2016, with an expected engineering, procurement, construction and performance testing completion schedule of 18-22 months. The Red Rock Project is expected to convert 400 tons per day of biomass to approximately 1,069 barrels per day of liquid jet fuel. With Energy Trust technical support and financial incentives, the Red Rock Project would be designed and constructed to include a steam generator (HRSG) and condensing turbine that will be powered from waste heat from the gasification process. By capturing otherwise wasted heat and using it to power a portion of their operations, Energy Trust staff estimates that the Red Rock Project would save upwards of 48,000,000 kWh per year as compared to the standard design and construction.

Staff is proposing an incentive of up to $2,000,000 for this project. An incentive of this size requires board approval in accordance with the board policy on the Waiving of Program Incentive Caps (sometimes referred to as the “Megaproject Policy”). Staff plans to present the project to the board for

Policy Committee Meeting Notes March 10, 2016

page 2 of 2

approval at its next meeting and previewed the presentation for the Policy Committee. Staff originally provided information about the project to the committee in November 2015. At that time, the committee asked for additional information regarding the project developer, its structure and financing. Staff provided additional information at this meeting.

Kim Crossman and Debbie Menashe worked closely with Red Rock representatives and undertook additional research to be able to provide additional information to the committee. Debbie and Kim reported to the committee on Red Rock’s corporate structure, financial backing and business plan and projections. Debbie and Kim also outlined a proposed incentive contract structure, which would comply with the Megaproject Policy requirements and to include incentive payments in installments, as well as measurement and verification and evaluation plans to minimize risk of project non- performance.

Committee members expressed appreciation for the additional information and support for presenting the project to the full board at the next board meeting.

Brief Updates CFO and Executive Assistant Searches Margie advised the committee of the status of search processes for two important position in the organization: Chief Financial Officer and Director of Finance and Executive Assistant. Margie was happy to announce that an offer has been extended and accepted by a new CFO, Mariet Steenkamp. Mariet’s first day at Energy Trust will be March 28, 2016, and board members will meet her at the next full board meeting. The search is ongoing for a new executive assistant, and Margie expressed appreciation for board members’ continued understanding, as the person in this position supports Margie and the board. Legislative Update The short 2016 Oregon legislative session ended, and Jay Ward delivered a brief end-of-session report, noting key bills that may affect Energy Trust. Jay will present more information at the next full board meeting, and board members will receive a written report on bills tracked by Energy Trust staff during the session.

Adjourn The meeting adjourned just before 5:00 pm. The next meeting of the Policy Committee is scheduled for May 12, 2016.

of 5

Renewable Energy Advisory Council Meeting Notes February 10, 2016

Attending from the council: Bruce Barney, Portland General Electric Jason Busch, Oregon Wave Energy Trust Kari Greer, Pacific Power Robert Grott, Northwest Environmental Business Council Kendra Hubbard, Oregon Solar Energy Industries Association Suzanne Leta-Liou, SunPower Elaine Prause, Oregon Public Utility Commission Dick Wanderscheid, Bonneville Environmental Foundation Peter Weisberg, The Climate Trust Attending from Energy Trust: Hannah Cruz Chris Dearth Sue Fletcher Matt Getchell

Jeni Hall Mia Hart Betsy Kauffman Dave McClelland Debbie Menashe Dave Moldal Jay Ward Peter West Lily Xu Others attending: Jeff Bissonnette, Oregon Solar Energy Industries Association Alan Meyer, Energy Trust board Robin Rabiroff, IBEW Local 48 Rhonda Rasmussen, Pacific Power Matt Shane, Oregonians for Renewable Energy Progress Sarah Smith, 3 Degrees

1. Welcome and introductions Betsy Kauffman convened the meeting at 9:30 a.m. The agenda, notes and presentation materials are available on Energy Trust’s website at: www.energytrust.org/About/public-meetings/REACouncil.aspx. 2. 2015 preliminary annual results Betsy provided an overview of 2015 preliminary annual results for renewable energy programs, and Peter West, energy programs director, provided an overview for energy efficiency programs. Results reflect the best available data at this time, and may shift after the release of the annual report to the Oregon Public Utility Commission in April. Betsy: In 2015, Energy Trust achieved total renewable energy generation of 3.9 average megawatts, achieving 112 percent of goal. There were 1,802 solar installations in 2015, 500 more than were completed in 2014. The Other Renewables program completed four projects: two biopower and two hydropower. Electric and gas savings achieved 102 percent and 116 percent of goals. We exceeded Energy Trust goals and Integrated Resources Plan, IRP, targets for Pacific Power, NW Natural and Cascade Natural Gas, and came close to meeting PGE Energy Trust goal and IRP target.

Robert Grott: Why was Energy Trust’s savings goal for PGE less than the IRP target? Peter: IRPs are set through a regulatory process. They often become outdated toward the end of the planning period. Further, annual circumstances can make hitting the targets variable for any one year of the 20-year plan. Energy Trust works with utilities to examine what we can

http://www.energytrust.org/About/public-meetings/REACouncil.aspx

http://www.energytrust.org/About/public-meetings/REACouncil.aspx

Renewable Energy Advisory Council Notes February 10, 2015

page 2 of 5

achieve each year. By the end of the 2015-2019 Strategic Plan, we need to achieve the cumulative targets for utility IRPs. Suzanne Leta-Liou: Does Energy Trust incent smart bulbs and smart thermostats? Peter: Energy Trust provides an incentive for the Nest Learning Thermostat for gas and electric customers. The Ecobee smart thermostat has potential, but our strategy was to test out what people are using the most. We’re also working with PGE on demand response. Bruce Barney: PGE partnered with Nest on a Nest Learning Thermostat pilot that’s seeing great success. Customers are seeing a payback period of one to two years. We expect to expand the pilot in the future. Kari Greer: Pacific Power is examining demand response options in Oregon. An irrigation load control program will be filed soon and will begin for the growing season. 3. Clean Power Plan update Debbie Menashe, general counsel, provided a high level summary of the Clean Power Plan and an update regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s approval of a stay on enforcement of the plan on February 9. The court approved the stay after 27 states and several industries filed a lawsuit with the Environmental Protection Agency due to concerns surrounding the economic impacts of phasing out coal power plants. The ruling is still in expedited process and the next hearing is in June. Kendra Hubbard: Are states putting their plans on hold? Debbie: Unclear at this time. Suzanne: The Clean Power Plan is one part of many parts of the Clean Air Act. Mercury rules are having a more near-term impact on coal plants. 4. Oregon legislative and docket update Jay Ward, senior community relations manager, provided an update on legislation considered in Oregon’s 2016 session that could impact the renewable energy market in Oregon and Energy Trust’s work. Energy Trust does not lobby or take a position on potential or proposed legislation, but staff track and monitor legislation that related to our work.

Jay gave an overview of several bills and amendments related to phasing out coal generation in Oregon and increasing the Regional Portfolio Standard, RPS, to 50 percent by 2040, community solar programs, an incentive program for large solar installations and greenhouse gas emissions goals and limits. One bill will likely not move forward in 2016 session, which would change the way Energy Trust provides incentives to large customers, over 1 MW, change the structure of the public purpose charge and move Energy Trust funding under the OPUC.

Betsy: Has there been a hearing for an amendment mandating 8 percent of generation come from renewable projects less than 20 MW? Jay: There hasn’t been a hearing. It’s not clear what the pathway is for that amendment. Jason Busch: A bill related to wave generation in Newport wasn’t properly introduced and did not receive a bill number. Suzanne: What is the position of investor owned utilities on the community solar bill (SB 1572)? Jay: They testified and suggested that there’s room for improvement.


page 3 of 5

Elaine Prause provided an overview of Oregon Public Utility Commission dockets.

An order date is expected March 14 for UM 1734 docket on qualified facility projects. UM 1716 has three parts related to solar. There will be a testimony on June 1 related to solar resource value, cost shifting is on hold and will continue in 2017, and we’re awaiting next steps on reliability and resource impacts. An analysis for UM 1758 studying solar incentive programs is due September 15. There will be a workshop about the value of energy storage related to UM 1751, which aims to produce guidelines for utilities on energy storage.

Michael O’Brien: At a workshop on UM 1690, the OPUC asked for an example of a voluntary renewable energy tariff for non-residential customers of PGE and Pacific Power. Suzanne: Is there a minimum program size or cap? Elaine: There is an aMW cap for each utility. Betsy: The resource value for solar in UM 1716 could have an impact on net metering. Energy Trust is tracking on this docket because it could change how we calculate above-market costs and our incentive structure. Suzanne: Has Energy Trust considered providing incentives for energy storage? Peter: This is early in the game to start talking about energy storage, and we would need to work closely with the utilities. How energy storage fits into utility IRPs presents a larger discussion, which we’re starting with demand response and the customer side of the meter. Suzanne: SunPower would be interested in that dialogue. Betsy: There’s a lot of interest surrounding energy storage, especially in regards to resiliency and disaster preparedness. Bruce: This is a fast-moving topic with a lot of change. Utilities are still researching how to use energy storage effectively.

5. Topics for 2016 Renewable Energy Advisory Council meetings Betsy summarized topics discussed during Renewable Energy Advisory Council meetings in 2015, and asked for input and ideas on 2016 meeting topics. Robert: Can you provide a high level overview of why the Renewable Energy Advisory Council was created? Betsy: Renewable Energy Advisory Council and Conservation Advisory Council were created as advisory councils to provide energy efficiency and renewable energy expertise for the board of directors. The purpose of the councils is to vet projects, provide input and expertise, and advise Energy Trust staff and board. Alan Meyer: Renewable Energy Advisory Council topics have been weighted more toward policy and could benefit from hearing the perspective of the people installing renewable energy systems. Bruce: Shaun Foster works with solar installers and could provide more of that perspective.


page 4 of 5

Kendra: I agree that there’s more opportunity for Renewable Energy Advisory Council to gain new perspectives on the people doing the day-to-day work with renewable energy projects. Michael: Renewable Energy Certificate, REC, discussions were great, especially having the opportunity to break out into small group discussions. REC policy is a meaty topic and has ramifications beyond Energy Trust. Suzanne: Renewable Energy Advisory Council members have diverse backgrounds in the renewable energy industry, and this forum is a great opportunity to get into meatier topics that have value for Energy Trust and council members, such as energy storage. Elaine: The REC discussions and brainstorming session and the presentation about challenges faced by small energy generators were great. Robert: Budget numbers and activity scorecards are not as valuable to Renewable Energy Advisory Council. Market updates and project proposals are good topics. Discussions about RECs were worthwhile. Bruce: Renewable Energy Advisory Council is a strategic resource in the renewable energy sector. Energy Trust’s budget centers on the operational side and not as much on the strategic side. Dick Wanderscheid: We don’t need to spend as much time on budget. I think you have that under control. It would be a more valuable use of time to use meetings for strategic discussions. For example, the discussion with Jed about how to move hydroelectric power forward. Renewable Energy Advisory Council members expressed appreciation of the budget 101 presentation at the October meeting. Betsy: What are some specific topics members would like to see? Kendra: Growth and change surrounding solar jobs and training and energy storage. Does Energy Trust share the five-year Strategic Plan at Renewable Energy Advisory Council? Betsy: Renewable Energy Advisory Council discussed the 2015-2019 Strategic Plan while it was in development, and we could consider an update before the next Strategic Plan. Matt Shane: Having the opportunity to talk about challenges other organizations face is valuable, such as obstacles associated with RECs. Suzanne: Have we discussed what Energy Trust could do if the budget was larger? Betsy: No, there have not been many conversations like that at Renewable Energy Advisory Council or among staff. Elaine: Strategic Plan discussions about where we’re going approached that topic, but we haven’t quantified how much money it would take to get there. Jason: Renewable Energy Advisory Council provides a good opportunity to flesh out policy topics. First, the group would benefit from having the foundational discussion of our options and limitations as an organization. Second, it could be valuable to take a project apart from beginning to end, including why it was identified as an opportunity, key decision points, benefits and outcomes. Third, identify policy decisions that could influence the renewable sector.


page 5 of 5

Suzanne: Given the intersection between energy efficiency and renewable energy in demand response, we could have a combined forum with Conservation Advisory Council and Renewable Energy Advisory Council on these types of topics. Elaine: Solar programs, trends and outlook for 2017 and 2018. Dick: I like a mixture of projects and policy. It would be nice to better understand the inner workings of utilities. Bonneville Environmental Foundation sees barriers all the time and Renewable Energy Advisory Council could provide better feedback on program design if we had a better understanding on the utility side. Alan: There was a very educational utility 101 presentation to the board a couple years ago. Michael: IRP teams could present to Renewable Energy Advisory Council and Conservation Advisory Council and allow participation for strategic comments. Both advisory councils could also have a combined discussion about the Seventh Power Council Plan. 6. Public comment There was no additional public comment. 7. Meeting adjournment The meeting adjourned at 11:40 a.m. The next Renewable Energy Advisory Council meeting is scheduled on March 16, 2016.

of 9

Conservation Advisory Council Meeting Notes

February 10, 2016

Attending from the council: Julia Harper, Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance Garrett Harris, Portland General Electric Scott Inman, Oregon Remodelers Association Andria Jacob, City of Portland Don Jones, Jr., Pacific Power Roger Kainu (for Warren Cook), Oregon Department of Energy Don MacOdrum, Home Performance Guild of Oregon Holly Meyer, NW Natural Tyler Pepple, Industrial Customers of Northwest Utilities Elaine Prause, Oregon Public Utility Commission Attending from Energy Trust: Mike Bailey Kim Crossman Phil Degens Sue Fletcher Jessica Iplikci Susan Jowaiszas

Oliver Kesting Steve Lacey Spencer Moersfelder Thad Roth Kate Scott Paul Sklar Julianne Thacher Katie Wallace Peter West Others attending: Jeremy Anderson, WISE Dave Backen, Evergreen Consulting Mark Duty, Rogers Machinery Carolynn Farrar, NW Natural Keith Kueny, Community Action Partnership of Oregon Brian Lynch, AESC Mary Mann, Goose Hollow Windows Alan Meyer, Energy Trust board John Molnar, Rogers Machinery Faye Rachford Bob Stull, CLEAResult Ed Wales Becky Walker, CLEAResult

1. Welcome and introductions Kim Crossman convened the meeting at 1:30 p.m. and reviewed the agenda. The agenda, notes and presentation materials are available on Energy Trust’s website at: www.energytrust.org/About/public-meetings/CACMeetings.aspx. 2. Old business The council approved the November meeting notes without comments or changes. Kim: Energy Trust is searching for the next Executive Director. Applications are due on February 22. Please share the opportunity with your contacts. 3. 2015 Preliminary Annual Results Peter West presented Energy Trust’s 2015 preliminary annual results. Official results will be available in the 2015 Annual Report to the OPUC available on April 15, 2016. Peter: 2015 results were robust across the board. We achieved 102 percent of our electric savings goal, 116 percent of our natural gas savings goal and 112 percent of our renewable

Conservation Advisory Council Notes February 10, 2016

page 2 of 9

energy generation goal. We achieved goals in three out of four utility territories. We came close in PGE territory at 96 percent of goal as several large industrial projects in PGE territory shifted completion from 2015 to 2016.

Our electric savings peaked in 2012, plateaued for a few years, and are now slightly lower, as planned. 2015 gas savings were the highest ever. The number of commercial and industrial Strategic Energy Management, SEM, participants has grown significantly. However, businesses participating in SEM were smaller on average in 2015 than in 2014, resulting in overall fewer savings. We realized mid-2015 that our gas incentives were not sufficient to motivate Existing Buildings customers to take action, which had a negative impact on both gas and dual-fuel projects, especially in PGE territory. We raised incentives and this resulted in more projects, but more for 2016 than 2015. We now have a strong pipeline of Existing Buildings dual-fuel projects in PGE for 2016. We achieved 78 percent of the goal for NW Natural territory in Washington. We believe this is because our commercial incentives were insufficient in this territory. Incentives in Washington work differently than in Oregon and are set by tariffs. This prevented us from increasing incentives in Washington. This has been corrected for 2016 For the renewable energy sector, savings were very strong for commercial and residential solar projects. In fact, 2015 was the largest year ever for solar installations with 1,800 projects compared to 1,300 projects in 2014. In recent years, solar equipment costs have dropped significantly. In addition, the Solar program received two national awards, including from the Harvard Kennedy School of Business for innovation and from the Interstate Renewable Energy Council for efforts to reduce the soft, or non-hardware, costs of solar installations. As expected, the Other Renewables program closed four projects in 2015, including two hydropower projects and two biopower projects. Efforts continue in 2016 to engage irrigation districts to install hydropower systems.

Don Jones, Jr: How are goals set for Other Renewables? Peter: Goals are based on a market characterization assessment and an assessment of known project proposals. Annual goals are based on the renewable energy sector’s five-year strategic plan. Note that energy-efficiency budgets are set based on opportunity, but renewable energy budgets are fixed.

A few noteworthy achievements in 2015 included tighter budgeting and forecasting that resulted in an intentional reduction of cash reserves. We saw the largest ever industrial gas project, which indicated an emerging opportunity for synergy with pollution control and water-saving efforts. Two years ago, LEDs were a relatively small part of the residential market. In 2015, LEDs were 55 percent of bulbs installed in the residential Products program. LEDs represented 67 percent of bulbs installed in the industrial sector. In 2016, we expect even more lighting to be LEDs.


page 3 of 9

NEEA achieved 152 percent of its goal, largely due to updates to codes and standards for chargers. We had 108,000 customer transactions, the most ever and 9 percent more than in 2014. This is especially noteworthy because we also launched a new IT system in 2015.

Elaine Prause: What accounted for the strong success in Cascade Natural Gas territory? Kim: All programs put extra effort into achievement in Cascade Natural Gas territory, and almost all of them succeeded. Alan Meyer: 108,000 seems like a lot of transactions. Is that possible? Peter: Yes, many of the transactions are electronic. Ed Wales: In light of rapid uptake in LED lighting and General Electric’s recent announcement to stop manufacturing CFLs in 2017, does Energy Trust expect a new LED baseline anytime soon? Peter: We are working now to understand this and the timing of it. The market is moving extremely quickly. One complicating factor is non-ENERGY STAR® certified “value” LEDs are entering the market. The baseline is expected to shift radically between 2017 and 2020. Mike: It’s clear this change will happen, but the timing is difficult to pin down. Kim: The question of when LED becomes baseline will also be sector specific. For example, while 67 percent of industrial lighting savings in 2015 were from LEDs, we have seen data showing less than 10 percent market penetration of LEDs in industrial high bay applications. Peter thanked the Conservation Advisory Council, utilities, regulators, Program Management Contractors, Program Delivery Contractors and staff for contributing to these outstanding results.

4. Multifamily windows incentive changes update Kate Scott, multifamily program manager, presented an update on changes to incentives for multifamily windows. In 2015, Energy Trust revisited all electric measures regarding cost-effectiveness. It was determined that windows for multifamily buildings of five dwelling units or more were no longer cost-effective. We decided to change duplex, triplex and fourplex incentives to align with single-family windows measures.

Since the Conservation Advisory Council meeting in November 2015, staff consulted several multifamily trade allies and attended January trade ally forums around the state to further engage stakeholders. At this point, the program is still gathering data. Potential exceptions will be discussed with the OPUC shortly. Next month, Kate will return to the Conservation Advisory Council to present final changes and share out assumptions and reasoning. Formal changes are expected to be effective on July 1, 2016.

Scott Inman: What changes are you considering? Kate: Our initial proposal was to discontinue windows incentives for all large multifamily (5 or more units) buildings. We’re now looking at ways to save some subsets of the measure. For example, single-pane aluminum windows with project costs under $20,000 come closest to cost-effectiveness and could perhaps be a scenario for examining whether they are close enough to merit an OPUC exception to cost-effectiveness.


page 4 of 9

Scott Inman: Non-energy benefits need to be considered in the equation. Multifamily owners and managers are motivated by non-energy benefits because the tenants, not the owners, reap the energy benefits. Kate: In our analysis, we are looking at non-energy benefits. Scott Inman: I’m concerned you’re not looking enough at the non-energy benefits. Peter: We will provide our current analysis. We need to work within standard framework and protocols to determine a solution. UM 551 lists eight exceptions, and we need to work within the boundaries of those exceptions. Alan: Is this a Total Resource Cost Test issue? Elaine: Yes. Alan: I share Scott’s feelings. We should be paying incentives on the increment of the energy savings, not the total cost of new windows. Energy savings don’t motivate people to put in new windows. There must be another motivation. Elaine: We’ve heard that Energy Trust is putting a case together. From UM 1622, we now have a process in place to review potential cost-effectiveness exceptions for minor measures. We need to determine if these fall into the category of minor measures and then address the case. This is the framework we have and we are working within it. Don Jones, Jr.: Non-energy benefits are difficult to quantify. It might be useful for trade allies active in the market to propose a way to quantify them. As a Regional Technical Forum member, we also struggle with non-energy benefits. Don MacOdrum: The measures that survived through UM 1622 had a minimum of 0.5 on the Total Resource Cost Test, TRC. I would expect a similar target will be determined for multifamily windows. Kim: Our intent today was to keep you informed about the process. We will have a more substantive conversation at our next meeting. Jeremy Anderson, WISE: In past Conservation Advisory Council presentations, the TRC numbers included zero non-energy benefits? Kate: Correct. Jeremy: Do quantifiable non-energy benefits get baked into TRC and there they do not require an exception? Kate: Correct. Mary Mann, Goose Hollow Windows: The Energy Trust website features a large multifamily project with insulation and windows, and bill savings are stated to be only $3 a month. That’s too low to be possible. I believe this information is wrong. Peter: We will take a look at the project and follow up with you. Holly Meyer: I want to make sure there is enough time for us to update marketing materials with mid-year changes. June could be an awkward time for this. Also, if you can quantify non-energy benefits, it’s reasonable to bake those benefits into the equation regardless of whether 0.5 is achieved without non-energy benefits. Peter: To clarify, all quantified non-energy benefits are included in the equation. 5. New Buildings market solutions update


page 5 of 9

Jessica Iplikci, New Buildings program manager, and Susan Jowaiszas, commercial and industrial senior marketing manager, presented an update on the small commercial market solutions offering. Jessica: Small commercial buildings represent a large share of new construction. There is a lot of new construction activity right now. When the economy began to recover, we saw a lot of small commercial building construction, and now we are seeing more large commercial new construction that undergo extensive design starting to be built and come online. Small commercial buildings are defined as 100,000 square feet or less. The majority of our small commercial buildings are between 5,000 and 20,000 square feet. These include major renovations and new construction projects. These buildings can be partially or entirely owner occupied, and our program interacts closely with these business owners.

In 2010, New Buildings kicked off a small commercial efficiency pilot and learned how small customers make energy decisions, including how to best reach them and what tools they need. Small commercial buildings are too small for energy modeling to be cost-effective, so these customers typically install prescriptive measures instead of custom measures. We want to move these customers from installing one or two prescriptive measures to installing many prescriptive measures. These customers also like to move quickly, and we need to move at their pace. To address these customers, we created the market solutions offering, featuring packages of prescriptive incentives for small business customer sites and customer-facing workbooks. Market solutions projects represent 13 percent of all small commercial projects, but 24 percent of electric savings and 30 percent of gas savings for all small commercial projects. [Post-meeting editorial correction from the incorrect 5 percent originally presented.] To date, 160 projects with more than 8 million square feet have enrolled in market solutions. To date, we have closed 117 market solutions projects. Of Good, Better and Best options, 64 percent of owners are pursuing Better or Best packages. Most of the projects are in the Portland Metro area, aligning with construction activity in the state. Market solutions projects have increased since 2013, growing from 17 in 2013 to 52 in 2015. The majority of gas savings are from restaurant projects.

Alan: Why are there so many projects in Portland? Jessica: In Portland, we have seen an extremely strong construction market with population growth. In particular, multifamily construction that also becomes an anchor for retail and other market segments that follow and build around population centers. Susan presented the recent “Hey Building” advertising campaign featuring completed new construction projects. Advertising will drive potential customers to a new microsite to learn more and take action. Jessica: Moving forward, we will update market solutions packages to accommodate changes in code and avoided costs, launch a new offering for large multifamily buildings, add new measures and revise the office and retail packages to include HVAC as an elective instead of a core requirement. Don Jones, Jr.: Is server room optimization part of any of the market solutions packages? Jessica: Yes, server rooms are part of our package for offices.


page 6 of 9

Susan: Workbooks are easy to use and have worked as a great outreach tool. Don Jones, Jr.: Who is the New Buildings delivery contractor? Jessica: CLEAResult. 6. Energy Trust pilots Mike Bailey, engineering manager, presented an overview of current Energy Trust pilot projects. Mike: Pilots help Energy Trust develop new measures and program approaches. They help us find the best way to deliver energy savings or generation and help us quantify costs, energy savings and energy generation. Pilots are experiments that help us decide what efforts are feasible, necessary and affordable. Energy Trust’s process for managing pilots requires formal approval by Energy Trust’s Management Team.

Between August 2014 and July 2015, Energy Trust conducted 21 pilots at varying stages, spanning all sectors. Five of those 21 pilots completed in that period. Pilots comprise approximately 2 percent of Energy Trust’s total funding. Cost-effective measures resulting from pilots include smart thermostats, heat pump water heaters with NEEA, SEM for commercial and small industrial customers and multifamily smart power strips. Some pilots are successful even when they do not result in a new measure because they help Energy Trust determine not to pursue a large-scale investment in a potential measure that does not work as expected.

Brent Barclay: How do you overlap with NEEA's work? Do you take these learnings to the Regional Technical Forum? Mike: Fred and I meet regularly with NEEA's emerging technology team to explore opportunities. NEEA has a slightly different scope for market transformation. For example, NEEA explores influencing codes and standards changes and we don’t. We communicate with NEEA to share information, such as what other organizations are exploring similar pilots. We also work with the Regional Technical Forum to gain technical feedback on pilot research plans, and to avoid duplicating efforts of other utilities. For example, Avista is exploring commercial power strips and Energy Trust is exploring residential power strips. Kim: Are we coordinating enough with Bonneville Power Administration? Brent: More coordination and sharing of results benefits all of us. Mike: We’re coordinating, but there is more we can do. Peter: Sometimes pilots look duplicative, but organizations will explore different applications of a certain approach or technology. 7. Planning for the 2016 Conservation Advisory Council Kim shared Conservation Advisory Council operations principles and possible agenda items for 2016, and requested feedback. Don MacOdrum: The operating principles look good. I’m wondering how the item about providing on-boarding for new council members has gone. Brent: We reviewed these relatively recently, so I think they’re okay. What do new Conservation Advisory Council members think? Julia Harper: I like the succinct presentations, but I would like more context and background to review prior to presentations.


page 7 of 9

Kim: That’s great feedback, we’ll think about it. I also encourage all of you to ask about context during presentations. Tyler: I appreciated the new member orientation. I’m learning more through attending meetings. Holly: I’m not new, but it would be helpful to start presentations with a big picture introduction. It would be good to start presentations by explaining why each topic is important right now. Council members approved the 2016 operating principles. Kim will distribute the final document at the next meeting. Alan: The Renewable Energy Advisory Council and Conservation Advisory Council are different, and it could be helpful for Kim and Betsy Kauffman to share best practices. Holly: Alan, thank you for attending advisory council meetings. I have appreciated your presence and thoughts. Don MacOdrum: Do we need to review the operating principles annually? I think we could review them less frequently and remove the year from the document. Kim: Adding the date was a request from Holly. Holly: It’s fine to remove the year from the document as long as we remember to review it regularly. Don Jones, Jr.: How is Conservation Advisory Council working for staff? Kim: I’m not sure we’ve had this internal conversation outside of the Sector Leads and Peter, but we should. I personally would like to see more staff engagement in Conservation Advisory Council meetings. That was one of the reasons we gathered this list of potential 2016 Conservation Advisory Council topics, as a way to get staff thinking creatively about what sorts of topics they’d like to bring to you. Peter: Staff appreciate the Conservation Advisory Council. I think there are opportunities for improvement. What are the best ways to provide information to and engage Conservation Advisory Council members? Don Jones, Jr.: Are Conservation Advisory Council meetings the best way to communicate potentially controversial information to the public? Is there a parallel way to be transparent and engage the community? Alan: You don’t want to bring fully baked topics to Conservation Advisory Council, but you don’t want to just start baking them in this meeting. What is the best moment to bring controversial topics to Conservation Advisory Council? Kim: In 2015, we effectively engaged the trade ally community through our trade ally forums, especially with residential changes. We can learn from those efforts on the commercial and multifamily side. Peter: Conservation Advisory Council is the best place to introduce these issues. It’s good to bring topics to Conservation Advisory Council early and then again later when ideas are more baked. Alan: I think we have useful, productive discussions. Kim: In my analysis, Conservation Advisory Council only spent about 10 percent of meetings discussing controversial topics.


page 8 of 9

Andria Jacob: I appreciate presentations from customers to understand how end users work with the programs. Holly: Are staff getting what you need out of the Conservation Advisory Council? Kim: Yes. We also struggle with determining what topics to bring to the council and when is the right timing. That’s one of the reasons I’m asking for your input. Holly: I recommend being clear about whether or not you’re looking for feedback on topics presented. If you’re not looking for feedback, is there really value in sharing the information with the council? Kim: It is very valuable for us to gauge your reaction and comfort level with information. Also, when a topic is labelled in the agenda as discussion, we are seeking your advice. Holly: I recommend starting presentations with strategic questions to guide our thinking and get feedback. Brent: I recommend coaching staff before they present. Coach them to ask specific questions and request specific feedback. Kim: What topics do you want to hear about in 2016? Do you want more information about the renewable energy sector? Andria: Yes. High-level information on renewable energy would be very helpful. For example, it was useful to learn that this was the highest ever year for solar system installations. Holly: What about bigger picture information, like regional policy or NEEA? Bigger picture policy context would be helpful. Andria: I would like information about the Environmental Protection Agency Clean Power Plan and how it intersects with Energy Trust. Don Jones, Jr.: Is policy already being addressed at the board level? What is our core mission as Conservation Advisory Council? We should focus on issues within that mission before we expand to topics like renewable energy. Don MacOdrum: I would like more information about the role Energy Trust plays in the broader energy sector and Energy Trust’s relationship to other players. That information is critical to empower us to provide valuable input. Kim: Legislative updates are featured at Renewable Energy Advisory Council. Should we include them here? Tyler: I think that could be a good idea when there is relevant legislation. Holly: This topic falls into the policy context topic. Peter: Currently, the Regional Portfolio Standard expansion bill could impact us. Also a healthy climate bill. Kim: In the last three years, the only controversial topics have been about measure changes, and in particular on residential measure changes. Overall, our conversations have been productive and useful. But if you have feedback on how to improve, please email it to me. Don MacOdrum: Will we have a follow-up presentation on multifamily windows incentive changes? Kim: Yes.


page 9 of 9

Don MacOdrum: For measure changes topics, the last slide of each presentation could include information about a future Conservation Advisory Council engagement plan. Julia: On the list of potential topics for 2016, what is the Avista and Energy Trust topic? Peter: There’s a rate case with Avista regarding decoupling. When similar conversations have happened with NW Natural and Cascade Natural Gas, they ended up participating with Energy Trust. We were asked if we could provide programs in Avista territory in 2016. Don Jones, Jr.: That would give you gas coverage in Southern Oregon, concurrent with our territory. Julia: Regarding the AirGenerate topic, NEEA saw a lot of equipment failures in fall 2015. As of the end of January 2016, we have burned through $160,000 of the available $200,000 for remediation. If the rate of failure increases, we will run out of funds before June. While a lot of these are in Energy Trust territory, failures appear to be proportional to installations. We will continue analysis. You may want to move this topic up earlier in the year. Kim: To reiterate what Peter said earlier, thank you for NEEA's savings contribution this year. Tyler: Do you ever present on the Integrated Resource Planning process? Kim: It’s on our list for 2016. Holly: A few years ago, we had a cost-effectiveness offsite workshop. That was beneficial and I would like to do that with other topics if needed. Kim: Please suggest topics for offsite workshops. What do you need to know more about to be a better advisor? Peter: It would be good for us to know what about the IRP you are most interested in.It is a large topic. Also, consider what you want to hear from each other, like a presentation from Andria about City of Portland benchmarking. Elaine: Another agenda item could be Energy Trust’s role in demand response and demand management. 8. Public comment Faye Rachford: I recently moved here with an energy-efficiency background. As a newcomer, I’m glad I came. It gave me a greater sense of Energy Trust’s purpose and makes it clear that other industry professionals are contributing input to the organization.

9. Meeting adjournment The next scheduled meeting of the Conservation Advisory Council will be on March 16, 2016, from 1:30 p.m. – 4:30 p.m.

Briefing Paper 2016 State Legislation April 6, 2016

Summary

This paper summarizes significant energy-related bills that passed and a few that failed in the 79th Oregon legislature.

Background The session began February 1, by which time approximately 260 bills were

introduced. The session concluded March 3.

As usual, we monitored bills that could impact Energy Trust, responded to requests for information during the session, coordinated our activities with the Oregon Public Utility Commission (OPUC) and took no positions on bills.

We think we benefited from the many informational briefings we provided over the last few years. We think legislators were much more familiar with Energy Trust than they have been, and our programs and customer successes were mentioned favorably more than once in committee and floor sessions.

The report at the end of this summary lists all the bills we tracked, with links in the “Bill Number” column.

Enacted Bills Oregon Clean Electricity and Coal Transition Plan, SB 1547:

o Calls for electric companies to eliminate coal-fired resources from Oregon electric supply by 2030, and requires the OPUC to adjust utility coal plant depreciation schedules (secs. 1 and 11).

o Increases renewable energy requirements: consumer-owned utilities 25% renewable by 2025; other electric utilities 27% renewable by 2025 and 50% by 2040 (sec.5).

o Requires utility implementation plans as part of integrated resource plans, and OPUC competitive bidding rules for renewable resources (sec. 6).

o Changes renewable energy certificates (REC) standards and banking (sec. 7).

o Adjusts requirements for small electric utilities (sec. 8).

o If a consumer-owned utility acquires electric company territory, subjects consumer-owned utility to renewable requirements (sec. 8).

o Adjusts electric service suppliers’ (ESS) use of unbundled RECs and requires agreement between ESS and utility on renewable energy delivery point (sec. 9).

o Allows electric company or OPUC to raise reliability concerns (secs. 12 and 13).

o By 2025, 8% of the aggregate electrical capacity of all Oregon electric companies with more than 25,000 consumers must be from renewable projects of 20 megawatts or less, or biomass facilities that also generate heat for a secondary purpose (sec. 14). Such biomass facilities qualify for RECs (secs. 15-16).

Briefing Paper on 2016 State Legislation April 6, 2016

page 2 of 4

o Addresses stranded costs from acquisition of utility territory (secs. 17-18).

o Requires electric companies to forecast state and federal production tax credits and include them in rates (sec. 18a-b).

o Before acquiring new energy resources, electric utilities must “plan for and pursue” (a) all available, cost-effective, reliable and feasible energy efficiency; and (b) cost-effective demand response resources (sec. 19).

o To accomplish many public purposes, OPUC shall direct electric companies to develop programs to accelerate transportation electrification, including prudent investment in customer rebates for vehicle charging and related infrastructure, for which utilities earn a return on investment (sec. 20).

o Requires OPUC to establish a community solar incentive program, which includes low-income consumers (sec. 22).

o Repeals the minimum solar energy capacity standard for electric companies and authorizes double credit toward renewable requirements for energy from 500 kW - 5 MW solar projects (secs. 23-24).

o OPUC must investigate impacts of renewable requirements on rates, greenhouse gases, reliability, allocation of risk between ratepayers and electric companies, cost recovery and resource procurement, and report in 2020 or 2021 (sec. 27).

Solar electric, HB 4037: Oregon Business Development Department to pay a half-cent per kWh of generation from solar projects 2-10 MW in size, up to 150 MW of capacity for the program. Program enrollment lasts only through 2016, incentive payments made over five years, no Energy Trust incentives unless under an agreement entered into before the law is effective (sec. 1(6)(b)).

Waste energy, SB 1507: Extends tax credit for certain waste energy projects to 2022 and reduces it from $5 to $3.50 per wet ton (sec. 12).

Bills that Failed Public purpose charge, SB 1509: OPUC must: (1) adopt “cost-effective energy

conservation measures and market transformation measures for electric companies to fund”; (2) require utilities to collect a range of funding for either the construction and operation of new renewable energy resources of 20 megawatts or less, or “non-fossil fuel based projects that provide ancillary services and assist in the integration of renewable energy resources into the operation of the overall grid of an electric utility,” or both; (3) require utilities to collect a range of funding for low-income weatherization and specific charges for low-income housing; and (4) apportion some energy conservation funds to school districts.

Biomass, SB 1520: would have added woody biomass to technologies for which state agencies must use 1.5% of the contract price for building.

Community solar, SB 1572 A: OPUC to require utilities to enter into 20-year power purchase agreements for electricity from community solar projects.

Greenhouse gases:

o SB 1574A and HB 4068: Repeal Oregon greenhouse gas goals and require Environmental Quality Commission (EQC) to adopt goals for 2025, 2035 and 2050.


page 3 of 4

o HB 4101: EQC to assess impacts of state policies and programs that reduce greenhouse gases.

Klamath dams, SB 1580: Would have required PacifiCorp to suspend collection of two surcharges for purpose of removing J.C. Boyle Dam, two Copco dams and Iron Gate Dam until federal law requiring dam removal is enacted.

Report Date: March 21, 2016

Bill Number Bill Title Sponsor

Status at close of session

HB 4036 B

Relating to utility regulation; declaring an emergency. Pre-session filed

In senate committee upon adjournment Majority of provisions added to SB 1547 before the passage of SB 1547

HB 4037 Enrolled

Relating to solar energy; declaring an emergency. Pre-session filed

Governor signed March 16, legislation took effect upon passage

HB 4051 INTRO

Relating to legislative review of the implementation of legislative policies; declaring an emergency.

Komp; Steiner Hayward; Buckley; Huffman; McLane; Rayfield; Whisnant; Boquist; Monroe; Roblan (Pre-session filed)

In joint committee upon adjournment

HB 4055 INTRO

Relating to transportation; prescribing an effective date; providing for revenue raising that requires approval by a three-fifths majority. Davis (Pre-session filed)

In house committee upon adjournment

HB 4068 INTRO

Relating to entities that contribute to greenhouse gas emissions; declaring an emergency.

Buckley; Holvey; Barnhart; Piluso; Taylor (Pre-session filed)


HB 4101 INTRO

Relating to greenhouse gas emissions; declaring an emergency.

Bentz; Nearman; Whisnant; Whitsett; Wilson (Pre-session filed)


SB 1507 Enrolled

Relating to tax credits; prescribing an effective date. Senate

Governor signed March 10; effective date is June 2, 2016


page 4 of 4

SB 1509 INTRO

Relating to moneys collected by electric companies; declaring an emergency. Pre-session filed

In senate committee upon adjournment

SB 1520 INTRO

Relating to forest resources; prescribing an effective date.

Knopp; Witt; Boquist; Ferrioli; Girod; Hansell; Olsen; Roblan; Thatcher; Thomsen; Whitsett; Doherty; Hack; Hoyle; Komp; Parrish; Whisnant (Pre-session filed)


SB 1547 Enrolled

Relating to public utilities.

Beyer; Bates, Burdick, Dembrow, Devlin, Gelser, Hass, Monnes Anderson, Monroe, Riley, Rosenbaum, Shields, Steiner Hayward, Vega Pederson, Williamson

Governor signed March 8, legislation took effect upon passage

SB 1572 A

Relating to utility regulation.

Beyer; Holvey (Pre-session filed)

In senate committee upon adjournment Near identical provisions added to SB 1547 before the passage of SB 1547

SB 1574 A

Relating to entities that contribute to greenhouse gas emissions; declaring an emergency.

Edwards; Beyer (Pre-session filed)

In joint committee upon adjournment

SB 1580 INTRO

Relating to the suspension of surcharges imposed for the purpose of removing dams; declaring an emergency.

Whitsett; Baertschiger Jr; Girod; Hansell; Olsen; Thomsen (Pre-session filed)


SJR 202 INTRO

Proposing amendment to Oregon Constitution relating to legislative review of administrative rules.

Girod; Baertschiger Jr; Boquist; Ferrioli; Hansell; Knopp; Kruse; Olsen; Thatcher; Thomsen; Whitsett (Pre-session filed)


of 18

Glossary of Terms Related to Energy Trust of Oregon’s Work Glossary provided to the Energy Trust Board of Directors for general use. Definitions and acronyms are compiled from a variety of resources. Energy Trust policies on topics related to any definitions listed below should be referenced for the most current and comprehensive information. Last updated July 2015. Above-Market Costs of New Renewable Energy Resources The portion of the net present value cost of producing power (including fixed and operating costs, delivery, overhead and profit) from a new renewable energy resource that exceeds the market value of an equivalent quantity and distribution (across peak and off-peak periods and seasonally) of power from a nondifferentiated source, with the same term of contract. Energy Trust board policy specifies the methodology for calculating above-market costs. Reference the Board Cost-Effectiveness Policy and General Methodology Aggregate Combining retail electricity consumers into a buying group for the purchase of electricity and related services. “Aggregator” is an entity that aggregates. Air Sealing (Infiltration Control)

Conservation measures, such as caulking, efficient windows and weatherstripping, which reduce the amount of cold air entering or warm air escaping a building.

Ampere (Amp) The unit of measure that tells how much electricity flows through a conductor. It is like using cubic feet per second to measure the flow of water. For example, a 1,200 watt, 120-volt hair dryer pulls 10 amperes of electric current (watts divided by volts).

Anaerobic Digestion A biochemical process by which organic matter is decomposed by bacteria in the absence of oxygen, producing methane and other byproducts. Average Megawatt (aMW) One megawatt of capacity produced continuously over a period of one year. 1 aMW equals 1 megawatt multiplied by the 8,760 hours in a year. 1 aMW equals 8,760 MWh or 8,760,000 kWh.

Avoided Cost (Regulatory) The amount of money that an electric utility would need to spend for the next increment of electric generation they would need to either produce or purchase if not for the reduction in demand due to energy-efficiency savings or the energy that a co-generator or small-power producer provides. Federal law establishes broad guidelines for determining how much a qualifying facility (QF) gets paid for power sold to the utility.

Base Load The minimum amount of electric power delivered or required over a given period of time at a steady rate.

of 18

Benefit/Cost Ratios By law, Oregon public purpose funds may be invested only in cost-effective energy-efficiency measures—that is, efficiency measures must cost less than acquiring the energy from conventional sources, unless exempted by the OPUC. Energy Trust calculates benefit/cost ratios (BCR) on a prospective and retrospective basis. Looking forward, all prescriptive measures and custom projects must have a total resource cost test BCR > 1.0 unless the OPUC has approved an exception. As required in the OPUC grant agreement, Energy Trust reports annually how cost-effective programs were by comparing total costs to benefits, which also need to exceed 1.0. Biomass Solid organic wastes from wood, forest or field residues which can be heated to produce energy to power an electric generator.

Biomass Gas A medium Btu gas containing methane and carbon dioxide, resulting from the action of microorganisms on organic materials such as a landfill.

Blower Door Home Performance test conducted by a contractor (or energy auditor) to evaluate a home’s air tightness. During this test a powerful fan mounts into the frame of an exterior door and pulls air out of the house to lower the inside air pressure. While the fan operates, the contractor can determine the house’s air infiltration rate and better identify specific leaks around the house.

British Thermal Unit (Btu) The standard measure of heat energy. The quantity of heat required to raise the temperature of 1 pound of liquid water by 1 degree Fahrenheit at the temperature at which water has its greatest density (approximately 39 degrees Fahrenheit).

Cogeneration (Combined Heat and Power, CHP) The sequential production of electricity and useful thermal energy, often by the recovery of reject heat from an electric generating plant for use in industrial processes, space or water heating applications. Conversely, may occur by using reject heat from industrial processes to power an electricity generator. Reference the Board Combined Heat and Power Policy

Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs (CFL) CFLs combine the efficiency of fluorescent lighting with the convenience of a standard incandescent bulb. There are many styles of compact fluorescent, including exit light fixtures and floodlights (lamps containing reflectors). CFLs are designed for residential uses; they are also used in table lamps, wall sconces, and hall and ceiling fixtures of hotels, motels, hospitals and other types of commercial buildings with residential-type applications.

Conservation While not specifically defined in the law or OPUC rules on direct access regulation, “conservation” is defined in the OPUC rule 860-027-0310(1)(a) as follows: Conservation means any reduction in electric power or natural gas consumption as the result of increases in efficiency of energy use, production or distribution. Conservation also includes cost-effective fuel switching.

of 18

Although fuel switching is part of the definition, this aspect of the rule has not been operationalized as of March 2013. Cost Effective Not specifically defined in SB 1149. The OPUC has a definition which refers to a definition from ORS 469.631 (4) stating that an energy resource, facility or conservation measure during its life cycle results in delivered power costs to the ultimate consumer no greater than the comparable incremental cost of the least-cost alternative new energy resource, facility or conservation measure. Cost comparison under this definition shall include but not be limited to: (a) cost escalations and future availability of fuels; (b) waste disposal and decommissioning cost; (c) transmission and distribution costs; (d) geographic, climatic and other differences in the state; and (e) environmental impact. ORS 757.612 (4) (SB 1149) exempts utilities from the requirements of ORS 469.631 to 469.645 when the public purpose charge is implemented. By law, Oregon public purpose funds may be invested only in cost-effective energy-efficiency measures—that is, efficiency measures must cost less than acquiring the energy from conventional sources, unless exempted by the OPUC. Reference the Board Cost-Effectiveness Policy and General Methodology Cumulative Savings Sum of the total annual energy savings over a certain time frame while accounting for measure savings “lives.” (For example, if a measure is installed for each of two years, the cumulative savings would be the sum of the measure installed in the first year, plus the incremental savings from the savings installed in the second year plus the savings in the second year from the measure installed in the first year.) Decoupling A rate provision which reduces or eliminates the degree to which utility profits are driven by the volume of electricity or gas sold. Decoupling is thought by its proponents to reduce utility disincentives to support efficiency. There are many specific variants employed in different states and with different utilities. Direct Access The ability of a retail electricity consumer to purchase electricity and certain ancillary services from an entity other than the distribution utility.

Economizer Air A ducting arrangement and automatic control system that allows a heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system to supply up to 100 percent outside air to satisfy cooling demands, even if additional mechanical cooling is required.

Energy Management System (EMS) A system designed to monitor and control building equipment. An EMS can often be used to monitor energy use in a facility, track the performance of various building systems and control the operations of equipment. ENERGY STAR® ENERGY STAR is a joint Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Energy program that encourages energy conservation by improving the energy efficiency of a wide range of consumer and commercial products, enhancing energy efficiency in buildings and promoting energy management planning for businesses and other organizations.

of 18

Energy Use Intensity (EUI) A metric that describes a building’s energy use relative to its size. It is the total annual energy consumption (kBtu) divided by the total floor space of the building. EUI varies significantly by building type and by the efficiency of the building. Enthalpy Enthalpy is the useful energy or total heat content of a fluid. Ideally, the total enthalpy of a substance is the amount of useful work that substance can do. Enthalpy is used in fluid dynamics and thermodynamics when calculating properties of fluids as they change temperature, pressure and phase (e.g. liquid to liquid-vapor mixture). In HVAC, refrigeration and power cycle processes, enthalpy is used extensively in calculating properties of the refrigerant or working fluid. Additionally, in HVAC applications, enthalpy is used in calculations relating to humidity. An enthalpy economizer is a piece of HVAC equipment that modulates the amount of outdoor air entering into a ventilation system based on outdoor temperature and humidity. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Founded in 1970, this independent agency was designed to “protect human health and safeguard the natural environment.” It regulates a variety of different types of emissions, including greenhouse gases emitted in energy use. It runs several national end-use programs, like ENERGY STAR, SmartWay, Smart Growth programs and green communities programs. Evaluation

After-the-fact analysis of the effectiveness and results of programs. Process and Market Evaluations study the markets to be addressed and the effectiveness of the program strategy, design and implementation. They are used primarily to improve programs. Impact evaluations use post-installation data to improve estimates of energy savings and renewable energy generated.

Feed-in Tariff A renewable energy policy that typically offers a guarantee of payments to project owners for the total amount of renewable electricity they produce, access to the grid and stable, long-term contracts. In Oregon, the pilot program was called the Volumetric Incentive Rate program and each investor-owned utility in the state ran separate programs. Solar systems receiving a feed-in tariff rate were not eligible for Energy Trust incentives or a state tax credit.

Footcandle A unit of illuminance on a surface that is one foot from a uniform point source of light of one candle and is equal to one lumen per square foot

Free Rider This evaluation term describes energy efficiency program participants who would have taken the recommended actions on their own, even if the program did not exist. Process evaluations include participant survey questions, which lead to the quantification of the level of free rider impacts on programs that is applied as a discounting factor to Energy Trust reported results. Geothermal Useful energy derived from the natural heat of the earth as manifested by hot rocks, hot water, hot brines or steam.

of 18

Green Tags (Renewable Energy Certificates or RECs) See the Renewable Energy Certificates entry. Gross Savings Savings that are unadjusted for evaluation factors of free riders, spillover and savings realization rates. Energy Trust reports all savings in net terms, not gross terms, unless otherwise stated in the publication. Heat Pump An HVAC system that works as a two-way air conditioner, moving heat outside in the summer and reusing heat from the cold outdoors with an electrical system in the winter. Most systems use forced warm-air delivery systems to move heated air throughout the house. Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) Mechanical systems that provide thermal comfort and air quality in an indoor space. They are often grouped together because they are generally interconnected. HVAC systems include central air conditioners, heat pumps, furnaces, boilers, rooftop units, chillers and packaged systems. Hydroelectric Power (Hydropower) The generation of electricity using falling water to turn turbo-electric generators. Incremental Annual Savings Energy savings in one year corresponding to the energy-efficiency measures implemented in that same year. Incremental Cost The difference in cost relative to a base case, including equipment and labor cost. Instant-savings Measure (ISM) Inexpensive energy-efficiency products installed at no charge, such as CFLs, low-flow showerheads and high-performance faucet aerators. Predominately used by the Existing Homes program and multifamily track to provide homeowners and renters with easy-to-install, energy-saving products. Integrated Resources Planning (Least-Cost Planning) A power-planning strategy that takes into account all available and reliable resources to meet current and future loads. This strategy is employed by each of the utilities served by Energy Trust, and for the region’s electric system by the Northwest Power and Conservation Council. The term “least-cost” refers to all costs, including capital, labor, fuel, maintenance, decommissioning, known environmental impacts and difficult to quantify ramifications of selecting one resource over another. Interconnection For all distributed generation—solar, wind, CHP, fuel cells, etc.—interconnection with the local electric grid provides back-up power and an opportunity to participate in net-metering and sell-back schemes when they are available. It’s important to most distributed generation projects to be interconnected with the grid, but adding small generators at spots along an electric grid can produce a number of safety concerns and other operational issues for a utility. Utilities, then, generally work with their state-level regulatory bodies to develop interconnection standards that clearly delineate the manner in which distributed generation systems may be interconnected.

of 18

Joule A unit of work or energy equal to the amount of work done when the point of application of force of 1 newton is displaced 1 meter in the direction of the force. It takes 1,055 joules to equal a Btu. It takes about 1 million joules to make a pot of coffee.

Kilowatt One thousand (1,000) watts. A unit of measure of the amount of electricity needed to operate given equipment. Large Customers (with reference to SB 838) Customers using more than 1 aMW of electricity a year are not required to pay electric conservation charges under SB 838. Additionally, Energy Trust may not provide them with services funded under SB 838 provisions. Least Cost The term “least-cost” refers to all costs, including capital, labor, fuel, maintenance, decommissioning, known environmental impacts and difficult to quantify ramifications of selecting one resource over another. Levelized Cost The level of payment necessary each year to recover the total investment and interest payments (at a specified interest rate) over the life of the measure. Local Energy Conservation Conservation measures, projects or programs that are installed or implemented within the service territory of an electric company. Low-income Weatherization Repairs, weatherization and installation of energy-efficient appliances and fixtures for low-income residences for the purpose of enhancing energy efficiency. In Oregon, SB 1149 directs a portion of public purpose funds to Oregon Housing and Community Services to serve low-income customers. Energy Trust coordinates with low-income agencies and refers eligible customers.

Lumen A measure of the amount of light available from a light source equivalent to the light emitted by one candle.

Lumens/Watt A measure of the efficacy of a light fixture; the number of lumens output per watt of power consumed.

Market Transformation Lasting structural or behavioral change in the marketplace and/or changes to energy codes and equipment standards that increases the adoption of energy-efficient technologies and practices. Market transformation is defined in the Oregon Administrative Rules. Megawatt The electrical unit of power that equals one million watts (1,000 kW).

of 18

Megawatt Hour One thousand kilowatt hours, or an amount of electrical energy that would power approximately one typical PGE or Pacific Power household for one month. (Based on an average of 11,300 kWh consumed per household per year.)

Methane A light hydrocarbon that is the main component of natural gas and marsh gas. It is the product of the anaerobic decomposition of organic matter, enteric fermentation in animals and a greenhouse gas.

Monitoring, Targeting and Reporting (MT&R) A systematic approach to measure and track energy consumption data by establishing a baseline in order to establish reduction targets, identify opportunities for energy savings and report results. Municipal Solid Waste Refuse offering the potential for energy recovery. Technically, residential, institutional and commercial discards. Does not include combustible wood by-products included in the term “mill residue.”

Net Metering An electricity policy for consumers who own (generally small) renewable energy facilities (such as wind, solar power or home fuel cells). "Net," in this context, is used in the sense of meaning "what remains after deductions.” In this case, the deduction of any energy outflows from metered energy inflows. Under net metering, a system owner receives retail credit for at least a portion of the electricity they generate.

Net-to-Gross Net-to-gross ratios are important in determining the actual energy savings attributable to a particular program, as distinct from energy efficiency occurring naturally (in the absence of a program). The net-to-gross ratio equals the net program load impact divided by the gross program load impact. This factor is applied to gross program savings to determine the program's net impact. Net Savings Savings that are adjusted for evaluation factors of free riders, spillover and savings realization rates. Energy Trust reports all savings in net terms, not gross terms, unless otherwise stated in the publication. Nondifferentiated Source (Undifferentiated Source) Power available from the wholesale market or delivered to retail customers. Non-energy Benefit (NEB) The additional benefits created by an energy-efficiency or renewable energy project beyond the energy savings or production of the project. Non-energy benefits often include water and sewer savings (e.g. clothes washers, dishwashers), improved comfort (e.g. air sealing, windows), sound deadening (e.g. insulation, windows), property value increase (e.g. windows, solar electric), improved health and productivity and enhanced brand.

of 18

Oregon Public Utility Commission (OPUC) Energy Trust operates under a grant agreement with the OPUC and reports quarterly and annually to the state agency. Reports include quarterly presentations to the commission and an annual update on progress to OPUC minimum annual performance measures. Path to Net Zero (PTNZ) The Path to Net Zero pilot was launched in 2009 by the New Buildings program to provide increased design, technical assistance, construction, and measurement and reporting incentives to commercial building projects that aimed to achieve exceptional energy performance. The offer demonstrates that a wide range of buildings can achieve aggressive energy goals using currently available construction methods and technology, as well as by testing innovative design strategies. Photovoltaic Direct conversion of sunlight to electric energy through the effects of solar radiation on semi-conductor materials. Photovoltaic systems are one type of solar system eligible for Energy Trust incentives. Program Management Contractor (PMC) Company Energy Trust contracts with to deliver and implement a program or major program track. PMCs keeps costs low for utility customers, draw from existing expertise and skills in the market, and allow Energy Trust to remain flexible and nimble as the market changes. PMC contracts are competitively selected, reviewed by a committee with internal staff and external representatives, and approved by the board. Program Delivery Contractor (PDC) Company Energy Trust contracts with to implement a specific program track. PDCs keeps costs low for utility customers, draw from existing expertise and skills in the market, and allow Energy Trust to remain flexible and nimble as the market changes. PDC contracts are competitively selected, reviewed by a committee with internal staff and external representatives, and approved by the board. Public Purpose Charge Established in SB 1149, the public purpose charge is a 3 percent charge from PGE and Pacific Power Oregon customers. Three fund administrators distribute the ratepayer dollars: Energy Trust of Oregon for energy efficiency, market transformation and renewable energy programs; the Oregon Department of Energy for energy efficiency in schools; and Oregon Housing and Community Services for low-income weatherization and housing assistance. Energy Trust is funded through the public purpose charge (SB 1149), supplemental funding (SB 838) and contracts with two gas utilities. Public Utility Commissions State agencies that regulate, among others, investor-owned utilities operating in the state with a protected monopoly to supply power in assigned service territories. Public Utility Regulatory Act of 1978 (PURPA) Federal legislation that requires utilities to purchase electricity from qualified independent power producers at a price that reflects what the utilities would have to pay for the construction of new generating resources. The Act was designed to encourage the development of small-scale cogeneration and renewable resources.

of 18

Qualifying Facility (QF) A power production facility that generates its own power using cogeneration, biomass waste, geothermal energy, or renewable resources, such as solar and wind. Under PURPA, a utility is required to purchase power from a QF at a price equal to that which the utility would otherwise pay to another source, or equivalent to the cost if it were to build its own power plant. Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs or Green Tags) A Renewable Energy Certificate is a tradable commodity that represents the contractual rights to claim the environmental attributes of a certain quantity of renewable electricity. The environmental attributes include the reductions in emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that result from the delivery of the renewably-generated electricity to the grid. Here’s how emission reductions occur: When a renewable energy system generate electricity, the grid operators allow that electricity to flow into the grid because it is less expensive to operate, once it has been built, than generators that burn fossil fuels. But the electricity grid cannot have more electricity flowing into it than is flowing out to electricity users, so the grid operators have to turn down other generators to compensate. They generally turn down those that burn fossil fuels. By forcing the fossil fuel generators to generate less electricity, the renewable energy system causes them to generate fewer emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases. These reductions in emissions are the primary component of RECs.

RECs were developed as a separate commodity by the energy industry to boost construction of new wind, solar, landfill gas and other renewable energy power plants. RECs allow owners of these power plants to receive the full value of the environmental benefits their plants generate. They also allow consumers to create the same environmental benefits as buying green electricity, or to neutralize the pollution from their consumption of fossil fuels.

RECs are bought and sold every day in the electricity market. They are measured in units, like electricity. Each kilowatt hour of electricity that a renewable energy system produces also creates a one-kilowatt hour REC. Reference the Board Renewable Energy Certificate Policy Renewable Energy Resources

a) Electricity-generation facilities fueled by wind, waste, solar or geothermal power or by low-emission nontoxic biomass based on solid organic fuels from wood, forest and field residues

b) Dedicated energy crops available on a renewable basis c) Landfill gas and digester gas d) Hydroelectric facilities located outside protected areas as defined by federal law in effect

on July 23, 1999 Renewable Portfolio Standard A legislative requirement, including in Oregon, for utilities to meet specified percentages of their electric load with renewable resources by specified dates, or a similar requirement. May be referred to as Renewable Energy Standard. Retrofit A retrofit involves the installation of new, usually more efficient equipment into an existing building or process prior to the existing equipment's failure or end of its economic life. In buildings, retrofits may involve either structural enhancements to increase strength, or replacing major equipment central to the building's functions, such as HVAC or water heating systems. In

of 18

industrial applications, retrofits involve the replacement of functioning equipment with new equipment. Roof-top Units (RTU) Packaged heating, ventilating and air conditioning unit that generally provides air conditioning and ventilating services for zones in low-rise buildings. Roof-top units often include a heating section, either resistance electric, heat pump or non-condensing gas (the latter are called “gas-paks”). Roof-top units are the most prevalent comfort conditioning systems for smaller commercial buildings. Generally small (<10 ton) commodity products, but very sophisticated high-efficiency versions are available, as are units larger than 50 tons. R-Value

A unit of thermal resistance used for comparing insulating values of different material. It is basically a measure of the effectiveness of insulation in stopping heat flow. The higher the R-Value number for a material the greater its insulating properties and the slower the heat flow through it. The specific value needed to insulate a home depends on climate, type of heating system and other factors.

SB 1149 Oregon legislation enacted in 1999 allowing for the creation of a third party, nonprofit organization to receive approximately 74 percent of a 3 percent utility surcharge (public purpose charge) and deliver energy-efficiency and renewable energy programs to the funding Oregon ratepayers of Portland General Electric and Pacific Power. Energy Trust was approved by the OPUC to deliver the services. The rest of the surcharge is distributed to school districts through the Oregon Department of Energy and to low-income customers through Oregon Housing and Community Services. SB 1149 is one stream of funding for Energy Trust, which is also funded through SB 838 to deliver achievable energy efficiency above the 3 percent and identified in utility integrated resource planning processes, and individual contracts with NW Natural and Cascade Natural Gas to deliver natural gas efficiency programs. SB 838 SB 838, enacted in 2007, augmented Energy Trust’s mission in many ways. It provided a vehicle for additional electric efficiency funding for customers under 1 aMW in load by allowing PGE and Pacific Power to fund cost-effective energy efficiency above the 3 percent, and restructured the renewable energy role to focus on renewable energy systems that are 20 MW or less in size. SB 838 is also the legislation creating the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard and extended Energy Trust’s sunset year from 2012 to 2026. SB 838 is often categorized as supplemental funding in Energy Trust budget documents. Sectors For energy planning purposes, the economy is divided into four sectors: residential, commercial, industrial and irrigation. At Energy Trust, programs are divided into four sectors: residential, commercial (including multifamily), industrial (including irrigation) and renewable energy. Self-Directing Consumers A retail electricity consumer that has used more than one aMW of electricity at any one site in the prior calendar year or an aluminum plant that averages more than 100 aMW of electricity use in the prior calendar year, that has received final certification from the Oregon Department of Energy for expenditures for new energy conservation or new renewable energy resources and that has notified the electric company that it will pay the public purpose charge, net of

of 18

credits, directly to the electric company in accordance with the terms of the electric company’s tariff regarding public purpose credits. Solar Power Using energy from the sun to make electricity through the use of photovoltaic cells.

Solar Thermal The process of concentrating sunlight on a relatively small area to create the high temperatures needed to vaporize water or other fluids to drive a turbine for generation of electric power.

Spillover

Additional measures that were implemented by the program participant for which the participant did not receive an incentive. They undertook the project on their own, influenced by prior program participation.

Strategic Energy Management (SEM) A program offering for both commercial and industrial customers: commercial Strategic Energy Management and industrial Strategic Energy Management. Through SEM, customers engage with Energy Trust for a year or more in a systematic and ongoing approach to lowering energy usage. Energy Trust helps customers track and monitor energy use and performance, identify and implement no-cost and low-cost operations and maintenance changes, develop an energy management plan and more. SEM creates culture change around energy, training employees at all levels that energy use can be tracked, reduced and managed.

Therm One hundred thousand (100,000) British thermal units (1 therm = 100,000 Btu).

Total Resource Cost Test The OPUC has used the total resource cost (TRC) test as the primary basis for determining conservation cost-effectiveness as determined in Order No. 94-590 (docket UM 551). SB 1149 allows the “self-directing consumers” to use a simple payback of one to 10 years as the cost-effectiveness criterion. This test is central to how Energy Trust delivers on its mission. This test is the main test that determines whether Energy Trust can offer an incentive for a project. It also reflects the region’s approach to long-term energy planning by prioritizing investment in low-cost energy resources. Reference the Board Cost-Effectiveness Policy and General Methodology Tidal Energy Energy captured from tidal movements of water. Trade Ally Contractor (Trade Ally) Energy Trust trade allies are valued ambassadors in the field. The network of independent contractors andother allied professionals helps homeowners, businesses, public and nonprofit entities, developers and others complete energy-efficiency and renewable energy projects across Oregon and in southwest Washington. Quite often, trade allies are the first, last and only Energy Trust representative a customer will see. Trade Ally Network Energy Trust statewide network of trained contractors and other allied businesses.

of 18

Utility Cost Test This test is used to indicate the incentive amount for a project. It helps Energy Trust determine whether providing an incentive is cost effective for the utility system. Reference the Board Cost-Effectiveness Policy and General Methodology

U-Value (U-Factor) A measure of how well heat is transferred by the entire window—the frame, sash and glass—either into or out of the building. U-Value is the opposite of R-Value. The lower the U-Value number, the better the window will keep heat inside a home on a cold day.

Wave Energy Energy captured by the cyclical movement of waves in the ocean or large bodies of water.

Watt A unit of measure of electric power at a point in time, as capacity or demand. One watt of power maintained over time is equal to one joule per second.

Wind Power Harnessing the energy stored in wind via turbines, which then convert the energy into electricity. Mechanical power of wind can also be used directly. Weatherization The activity of making a building (generally a residential structure) more energy efficient by reducing air infiltration, improving insulation and taking other actions to reduce the energy consumption required to heat or cool the building. In practice, “weatherization programs” may also include other measures to reduce energy used for water heating, lighting and other end uses.

of 18

Acronyms Related to Energy Trust of Oregon’s Work

AAMA American Architectural Manufacturers Association

Trade group for window, door manufacturers

A/C Air Conditioning

ACEEE American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy Environmental Advocacy, Researcher

AEE Association of Energy Engineers

AEO Annual Energy Outlook

AESP Association of Energy Services Professionals Energy services and energy efficiency trade organization

AFUE Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency The measure of seasonal or annual efficiency of a furnace or boiler

AIA American Institute of Architects Trade organization

AOC Association of Oregon Counties

aMW Average Megawatt

A way to equally distribute annual energy over all the hours in one year; there are 8,760 hours in a year

AOI Associated Oregon Industries

APEM Association of Professional Energy Managers

ARI Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute AC trade association

ASE Alliance to Save Energy Environmental advocacy organization

ASERTTI Association of State Energy Research and Technology Transfer Institutions, Inc.

ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers Technical (engineers) association

ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers Professional organization

BACT Best Achievable Control Technology

BCR Benefit/Cost ratio See definition in text

BEF Bonneville Environmental Foundation Nonprofit that funds renewable energy projects

BETC Business Energy Tax Credit Former Oregon tax credit

BOC Building Operator Certification Trains and certifies building operators

BOMA Building Owners and Managers Association

BPA Bonneville Power Administration Federal power authority

BPS Bureau of Planning and Sustainability City of Portland government agency

CAC Conservation Advisory Council Energy Trust advisory council to the board

CCS Communications and Customer Service A group within Energy Trust

CCCT Combined Cycle Combustion Turbine

CEE Consortium for Energy Efficiency National energy efficiency group

CEW Clean Energy Works

CFL Compact Fluorescent Light bulb

CHP Combined Heat and Power

CNG Cascade Natural Gas Investor-owned utility

ConAug Conservation Augmentation Program BPA program

of 18

CHT Coefficient of Heat Transmission (U-Value)

A value that describes the ability of a material to conduct heat. The number of Btu that flow through 1 square foot of material, in one hour. It is the reciprocal of the R-Value (U-Value = 1/R-Value.

COU Consumer-Owned Utility

COP Coefficient of Performance

The ratio of heat output to electrical energy input for a heat pump

CR CLEAResult

Program Management Contractor for Existing Homes, New Homes and New Buildings

CRM Customer Relationship Management system

Energy Trust’s system to capture information on program participants and non-participants that have communicated with us

CT Combustion Turbine

CUB Citizens’ Utility Board of Oregon Public interest group

Cx Commissioning

DG Distributed Generation

DSI Direct Service Industries Direct Access customers to BPA

DOE Department of Energy Federal agency

DSM Demand Side Management

EA Environmental Assessment

EA Earth Advantage

EASA Electrical Apparatus Service Association Trade association

ECM Electrically Commutation Motor

Also known as a variable-speed blower motor, can vary the blower speed in accordance with the needs of the system

EE Energy Efficiency

EER Energy Efficiency Ratio

The cooling capacity of the unit (in Btu/hour) divided by its electrical input (in watts) at standard peak rating conditions

EF Energy Factor

An efficiency ratio of the energy supplied in heated water divided by the energy input to the water heater

EIA Energy Information Administration

EMS Energy Management System See definition in text

EPA Environmental Protection Agency Federal agency

EPRI Electric Power Resource Institute Utility organization

EPSTM Energy Performance Score

Energy Trust rating that assesses a newly built or existing home’s energy use, carbon impact and estimated monthly utility costs

of 18

EQIP Environmental Quality Incentive Program

EREN Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Network DOE program

ESS Energy Services Supplier

EUI Energy Use Intensity See definition in text

EWEB Eugene Water & Electric Board Utility organization

FCEC Fair and Clean Energy Coalition Environmental advocacy organization

FEMP Federal Energy Management Program

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Federal regulator

GHG Greenhouse gas

GP Great Plains Energy Trust’s financial tracking system

HBA Home Builders Association

HER Home Energy Review Online review of a residential customer’s home

HSPF Heating Season Performance Factor

HVAC Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning

IBEW International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

ICNU Industrial Customers of Northwest Utilities Trade interest group

ICF ICF International Existing Buildings Program Management Contractor

IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers Professional association

IESNA Illuminating Engineering Society of America

IOU Investor-Owned Utility

IRP Integrated Resource Plan

ISIP Integrated Solution Implementation Project

ISM Instant-Savings Measure See definition in text

ITC Investment Tax Credit Federal

kW Kilowatt

kWh Kilowatt Hours 8,760,000 kWh = 1 aMW

LBL Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory

LED Lighting Emitting Diode Solid state lighting technology

LEED Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design Building rating system from the U.S. Green Building Council

LIHEAP Low Income Housing Energy Assistance Program

LIWA Low Income Weatherization Assistance

LM Lockheed Martin Existing Multifamily Program Management Contractor

LOC League of Oregon Cities Local government organization

MEEA Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance Midwest Market Transformation organization, Alliance counterpart

MT&R Monitoring, Targeting and Reporting See definition in text

MW Megawatt Unit of electric power equal to one thousand kilowatts

of 18

MWh Megawatt Hour

Unit of electric energy, which is equivalent to one megawatt of power used for one hour

NAHB National Association of Home Builders Trade association

NCBC National Conference on Building Commissioning

NEB Non-Energy Benefit See definition in text

NEEA Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance

NEEC Northwest Energy Efficiency Council Trade organization

NEEI Northwest Energy Education Institute Training organization

NEEP Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnership Northwest market transformation organization

NEMA National Electrical Manufacturer's Association Trade organization

NERC North American Electricity Reliability Council

NFRC National Fenestration Rating Council

NRC National Regulatory Council Federal regulator

NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service

NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council

NREL National Renewable Energy Lab

NRTA Northwest Regional Transmission Authority

NWEC Northwest Energy Coalition Environmental advocacy organization

NWBOA Northwest Building Operators Association Trade organization

NWFPA Northwest Food Processors Association Trade organization

NWN NW Natural Investor-owned utility

NWPPA Northwest Public Power Association Trade organization

NWPCC Northwest Power and Conservation Council Regional energy planning organization, "the council"

NYSERDA New York State Energy Research & Development Authority

New York energy efficiency and renewable energy organization funded by a systems benefit charge

OBA Oregon Business Association Business lobby group

OEFSC Oregon Energy Facility Siting Council Authority to site energy facilities in Oregon

ODOE Oregon Department of Energy

Oregon state energy agency and one of three public purpose charge administrators

OHCS Oregon Housing and Community Services One of three public purpose charge administrator

OPUC Oregon Public Utility Commission

OPUDA Oregon Public Utility District Association Utility trade organization

OPEC Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries

ORECA Oregon Rural Electric Cooperative Association Utility trade organization

OSEIA Solar Energy Industries Association of Oregon Volunteer nonprofit organization dedicated to education/promotion

P&E Planning and Evaluation A group within Energy Trust

PAC Pacific Power

of 18

PDC Program Delivery Contractor

Company contracted with Energy Trust to identify and deliver industrial and agricultural services, and commercial Strategic Energy Management services, to Energy Trust customers

PECI Portland Energy Conservation, Inc. Portland nonprofit; former Energy Trust PMC

PGE Portland General Electric Investor-owned utility

PG&E Pacific Gas & Electric California investor-owned utility

PMC Program Management Contractor Company contracted with Energy Trust to deliver a program

PNUCC Pacific Northwest Utilities Conference Committee

PPC Public Power Council National trade group

PPL Pacific Power Formerly Pacific Power and Light

PSE Puget Sound Energy Investor-owned utility

PT Project Tracking Energy Trust’s database that tracks details on customer projects

PTC Production Tax Credit

Federal incentive that provides financial support for the first 10 years of a renewable energy facility's operation

PTCS Performance Tested Comfort Systems Promotes the efficiency of air-systems in residential homes

PTNZ Path to Net Zero See definition in text

PUC Public Utility Commission

PUD Public Utility District

PURPA Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act See definition in text

QF Qualifying Facility

RAC Renewable Energy Advisory Council Energy Trust advisory council to the board

RE Renewable Energy

REIT Real Estate Investment Trust

RETC Residential Energy Tax Credit Oregon tax credit

RFI Request for Information

RFP Request for Proposal

RFQ Request for Qualification

RNW Renewable Northwest Renewable energy advocacy group

RSES Refrigeration Service Engineers Society Trade association

RTF Regional Technical Forum BPA funded research group

RTU Rooftop HVAC Unit Tune Up Rooftop HVAC unit tune up

SCCT Single Cycle Combustion Turbine

SCL Seattle City Light Public utility

SEED State Energy Efficient Design

Established in 1991, requires all state facilities to exceed the Oregon Energy Code by 20 percent or more

of 18

SEER Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio

A measure of cooling efficiency for air conditioners; the higher the SEER, the more energy efficient the unit

SIS Scientific Irrigation Scheduling Agricultural information program

SNOPUD Snohomish Public Utility District Washington State PUD

SEIA Solar Energy Industries Association Volunteer nonprofit organization dedicated to education/promotion

SWEEP Southwest Energy Efficiency Partnership Southwest market transformation group

T&D Transmission & Distribution

TRC Total Resource Cost See definition in text

U-Value

The reciprocal of R-Value; the lower the number, the greater the heat transfer resistance (insulating) characteristics of the material

USGBC U.S. Green Building Council Sustainability advocacy organization responsible for LEED

VFD Variable Frequency Drive An electronic control to adjust motion

WUTC Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission

Wx Weatherization

W Watt

energy trust board of directors meeting · 2020-04-16 · 421 sw oak street, suite 300 portland, or...

Documents