Residential Smart Thermostats Impact Analysis - Gas Preliminary

Residential Smart Thermostats Impact Analysis - Gas Preliminary Findings Prepared for the Illinois Stakeholder Advisory Group December 16, 2015 D I S P U T E S & I N V E S T I G AT I O N S E C O N O M I C S F I N A N C I A L A D V I S O RY M A N A G E M E N T C O N S U LT I N G 2015 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. Content of Report This presentation was prepared by Navigant Consulting, Inc. exclusively for the benefit and internal use of Nicor Gas, Peoples Gas and North Shore Gas and/or its affiliates or subsidiaries. No part of it may be circulated, quoted, or reproduced for distribution outside these organization(s) without prior written approval from Navigant Consulting, Inc. The work presented in this report represents our best efforts and judgments based on the information available at the time this report was prepared. Navigant Consulting, Inc. is not responsible for the readers use of, or reliance upon, the report, nor any decisions based on the report. NAVIGANT CONSULTING, INC. MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED. Readers of the report are advised that they assume all liabilities incurred by them, or third parties, as a result of their reliance on the report, or the data, information, findings and opinions contained in the report. December 16, 2015 2015 Navigant Consulting, Inc. All rights reserved. Navigant Consulting is not a certified public accounting firm and does not provide audit, attest, or public accounting services. See navigantconsulting.com/licensing for a complete listing of private investigator licenses. Investment banking, private placement, merger, acquisition and divestiture services offered through Navigant Capital Advisors, LLC., Member FINRA/SIPC. 2015 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. 2

Table of Contents 1 Evaluation Objectives 2 Evaluation Approach 3 Data Cleaning and Verification 4 Details of the Regression Models 5 Results 6 TRM Workpaper updates 7 Next Steps 2015 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. 3 Evaluation Objectives Navigant is conducting an impact evaluation of the smart thermostat program. This evaluation has three objectives: 1. Estimate average annual customer kWh savings 2. Estimate average peak demand (kW) savings, defined as average hourly savings (from 1PM-5PM CT on non-holiday weekdays in June, July and August) 3. Estimate average gas (therm) savings during the heating season (OctoberApril) Results for Objective #3 are included in this presentation. Using the results for Objective #3, Navigant made recommendations to update the IL TRM workpaper through the TAC process. Results for Objective #3 and the IL TRM workpaper recommendations are included in this presentation. 2015 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy.

4 Table of Contents 1 Evaluation Objectives 2 Evaluation Approach 3 Data Cleaning and Verification 4 Details of the Regression Models 5 Results 6 TRM Workpaper updates 7 Next Steps 2015 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. 5 Evaluation Approach The evaluation approach for therm savings involves forming a set of matched control customers and using this set with the set of participants in a post-enrollment regression analysis This approach is common in program evaluation and has become the preferred approach in the academic literature See, for instance, the econometrics texts by Imbens and Rubin (2015), and Angrist and Pischke (2009) The basic logic of matching as a design phase in regression analysis is to balance the participant and non participant samples by matching on the exogenous covariates known to have a high correlation with the outcome variable, to mimic the set of participants and non participants one would observe in an RCT

The primary variable used for matching is the customers energy use in a similar period in the past Regression analysis is used to control for remaining observable nonprogram differences between participants and their matches Navigant used two models to estimate heating season therm savings: Ex Post Ex Ante 2015 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. 6 Table of Contents 1 Evaluation Objectives 2 Evaluation Approach 3 Data Cleaning and Verification 4 Details of the Regression Models 5 Results 6 TRM Workpaper updates 7 Next Steps 2015 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. 7 Data Cleaning and Verification Navigant performed the necessary data cleaning steps to prepare for the matching process and regressions analyses After performing data cleaning steps and running the matching algorithm, Navigant matched 2,118 participants to 2,058 controls

Matching was performed on the 12 months just prior to enrollment Issues identified and addressed are summarized in the table below Issue Action Negative usage Removed single account Long/Short bills Restricted bills to less than 40 days and greater than 20 days No install date for participant Removed accounts Install date after October 2014 Removed accounts Participant account numbers in control data Removed participants from controls Missing data in matching algorithm Threshold for missing data is 4 months during the matching period Outliers Removed observations above/below 10 standard

deviations from the median usage for treatment and controls 2015 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. 8 Data Cleaning and Verification Each participant was matched to a non-participant based on average daily usage in the 12 months before a customer installed the Nest thermostat The standard claim for this design phase is that a sample where treatment and control customers are balanced with respect to important covariates is more robust to the model specification, and generates more precise estimates. An important covariate is one that is highly correlated with the dependent variable in a regression. From previous experience, we know that past energy use is highly correlated with current energy use. 2015 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. 9 Data Cleaning and Verification Matching results were generally excellent, exhibiting close usage between treatment and controls, and good geographic representation In the figure below, Month t is defined as the install date. Month t-1 is defined as one month prior to the install date (and so on until Month t-12,or 12 month before install date) For example, a particular participant may have an install date of May 2014. Average usage for this participant in Month t is May 2014 and average usage Treatment

for Monthand t-1 Control is AprilAverage 2014. The same months are used for Usage that participants matched control Therms 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 Average Participant Usage Average Control Usage Source: Navigant analysis. 2015 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. 10 Data Cleaning and Verification The figure below illustrates the distribution (and density) of treatments (red dots) and matched controls (grey shaded areas) by zip code Treatment and Control Map After Matching *Chicago

2015 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. 11 Table of Contents 1 Evaluation Objectives 2 Evaluation Approach 3 Data Cleaning and Verification 4 Details of the Regression Models 5 Results 6 TRM Workpaper updates 7 Next Steps 2015 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. 12 Details of the Regression Models To estimate therm savings, Navigant used all available participants (after data cleaning and processing) with smart thermostats installed before October 2014 The period of analysis included October 2014 April 2015 (the heating season) Two model types were estimated: Ex Post Ex Ante As previously noted, regression analysis was used to compare the therm use of participants to that of a matched control group

The models relied on temporal and spatial fixed effects as a means of accounting for time-correlated and spatially-correlated unobservable variables E.g. demographic characteristics of customers E.g. changes in therm use over time due to weather, seasonal changes in daylight, changes in economic activity The following slides describe the regression model 2015 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. 13 Regression Model >> Ex Post For a given month t and a given customer k, average daily energy use ADUkt is denoted by: Where =0+1+2h+3+4+5+6+ = Month/year-specific indicator variable (and thus is a monthly fixed effect); Zipk = Customers zip code; = The average daily therm use by household k in the month of the matching period corresponding to month t. For instance, if household k

enrolled in August 2014, the value of for October 2014 is October 2013. = An indicator variable for a Nest thermostat (the variable of interest) = An indicator for participation in an HER experiment = An indicator for active treatment in an HER experiment = An indicator variable for a multifamily residence =Model error term 2015 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. 14 Regression Model >> Ex Ante The ex ante model can be used to estimate savings for a typical weather year This model is an extension of the ex post model, with the inclusion of four additional terms: Average daily heating and cooling degree days, HDDkt and CDDkt ; Interactions between Treatmentk and HDDkt and CDDkt, i.e., the terms Treatmentk HDDkt and Treatmentk CDDkt

Continues to use fixed effects to account for unobservable variables The focus is on how the treatment effect the effect of the Nest thermostats on energy use varies with changes in the weather In this model, the effect of the Nest thermostat is given by, Treatmentk + Treatmentk HDDkt + Treatmentk CDDkt If the ex-ante model is reasonable, it should generate savings similar to the ex post model The ex post model is the preferred model because it makes no assumptions about the treatment (savings) function, and thus should serve as the baseline for comparison. 2015 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. 15 Table of Contents 1 Evaluation Objectives 2 Evaluation Approach 3 Data Cleaning and Verification 4 Details of the Regression Models 5 Results 6 TRM Workpaper updates 7 Next Steps 2015 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. 16

Results Ex Post Heating season average therm savings per customer per day are 6.0% (standard error (s.e. 0.6%), or 0.29 therms (s.e. 0.03 therm). Over the heating season, this provides an average savings of 61 therms per customer Percent savings are calculated by taking the estimated coefficient on the treatment variable (average savings per customer per day) and dividing by average heating season therm usage in the post period for the control customers These results are statistically significantly different than zero at the 90% confidence Typelevel of Statistic Value Standard errors (s.e.) are in parentheses* Number of Participants 2,899 Participants in Analysis 2,118 Sample Size, Matched Controls 2,058 Average savings per customer per day (therm) Percent Savings 6.0% (s.e. 0.6%)

*Standard errors are clustered at the customer level. Source: Navigant analysis. 2015 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. 0.29 (s.e. 0.03) 17 Results Ex Ante Under the ex ante model, heating season average therm savings per customer per day are 6.0% (standard error (s.e.) of 0.6%), or 0.29 therms (s.e. 0.03 therms) Over the heating season, this provides an average savings of 61 therms per customer Percent savings are calculated taking the estimated effect of the Nest thermostat (average savings per customer per day) and dividing by average heating season therm usage in the post period for the control customers The ex-ante model generates savings similar to the ex post model These results are statistically significantly different than zero at the 90% level Type of Statistic Value Standard errors (s.e.) are in parentheses* Number of Participants 2,899 Participants in Analysis

2,118 Sample Size, Matched Controls 2,058 Average savings per customer per day (therms) Percent Savings 6.0% (s.e. 0.6%) *Standard errors are clustered at the customer level Source: Navigant analysis. 2015 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. 0.29 (s.e. 0.03) 18 Ex Post and Ex Ante Comparison The graph below illustrates the estimated treatment effects and the calculated confidence bounds at 90% confidence for the ex post and ex ante models In repeated samples from the same population, we would expect that the estimated savings would fall between the upper and lower bounds 90% of the time Ex Post / Ex Ante Percent Savings and Confidence 8% 7% 6%

5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% Ex-Post Ex-Ante % Savings Source: Navigant analysis. 2015 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. 19 Results Expected Heating Season Savings Based on the Ex Ante Model Expected heating season savings are calculated as the average of the estimated savings predicted for each of the nine heating seasons over the years 2006-2014 Actual savings vary by heating season because HDD and CDD vary by year In the calculation, the HDD and CDD used for each customer is based on the weather station closest to the customer The time frame for the calculation is limited to the past nine years because for some weather stations in the study area the HDD and CDD data are very spotty before 2006 Navigant also estimated the average therm savings for the

2007/2008 heating season, which is the median heating season in the past nine years with respect to average daily temperature Results for this analysis are presented on the following slide 2015 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. 20 Results Expected Heating Season Savings Based on the Ex Ante Model Heating season expected savings over the last nine years are 59 therms (0.28 therms/day) The formula for this calculation is outlined in the next slide Estimated heating season savings for the median weather heating season are Ex-Ante Results: Last Nine Weather Years and 58 therms (0.27 therms/day) Therms Median Year 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 - Last Nine Weather Years

Median Weather Year Notes and Cautions: A significant assumption underlying this estimate of expected savings per year is that the participant behavior generating savings during the study period is stable and continues in the future. Caution is warranted; if the program is expanded, savings could be quite different than those estimated for the pilot due to a change in the enrolling population (such as more or fewer customers with programmable thermostats). 2015 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. 21 Results Expected Annual Savings Based on the Ex Ante Model Expected Annual Savings Calculation Indexing the customer by k and the bill end month by t, daily savings due to the treatment effect are estimated by: Savingskt = Treatmentk + Treatmentk HDDkt + Treatmentk CDDkt Where HDDkt and CDDkt are average daily values for month t. Adding a subscript y to index the calendar year, average heating season savings are given by the expression: Where it deserves emphasis that HDD and CDD are the average daily heating and cooling degree days, respectively, for calendar month t, and ;

T =7 (number of months in the heating season) 2015 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. 22 Table of Contents 1 Evaluation Objectives 2 Evaluation Approach 3 Data Cleaning and Verification 4 Details of the Regression Models 5 Results 6 TRM Workpaper updates 7 Next Steps 2015 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. 23 IL TRM Workpaper Heating Load Disaggregation (Preliminary Findings) As discussed, Navigant estimates heating season savings as 0.29 therms/day, or 6.0% of the total heating season gas consumption (4.83 therms/day) Navigant estimates gas heating loads to be 89% of the total gas energy consumption* in the evaluation dataset (i.e., during the heating season) Heating loads of 89% and savings of 6.0% of total consumption %load

correspond to 6.7% savings of heating (see equation and table more = below%for details) [% ] Parameter Value Source [ [ ] ] Heating season therm savings per customer per day 0.29 Navigants 2015 evaluation results Heating season total therm consumption per customer per day 4.83

Navigants 2015 evaluation results Savings [% of total consumption] 6.0% Navigants 2015 evaluation results Heating Load [% of total consumption] 89% Navigants estimate of non-treatment heating loads *Total gas [% heating consumption was 897 therms/year in the evaluationusing dataset. The IL TRM lists average Savings of Heating] 6.7% Calculation formula above gas heating consumption as 869 therms/year, ranging from 664 therms/year to 1,052 therms/year. 2015 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy.

24 IL TRM Workpaper Heating Load Disaggregation (Methods) Navigant estimates heating and cooling loads using the variable base degree day (VBDD) method. This method optimizes the following regression model for each site (k) individually at varying balance temperatures* (f) .h = , + , . , This approach is industry standard Navigant finds similar results when using the sum of squared error or r-squared as the optimization metric Navigant removes sites with obviously poor model fits or inadequate data Navigant finds similar results when rerunning the econometric model with only those sites that pass this data screening * Balance temperature is the outdoor temperature at which a home requires heating or cooling. It is also the temperature used to calculate heating (or cooling) degree days. 2015 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. 25 IL TRM Workpaper Heating Load Disaggregation (Methods Contd) Navigant then uses the results from the VBDD optimization to calculate each sites heating load (see equations below) , , , , [ % ]=

Where, k = site identifier f = optimal balance temperature for site k t = bill identifier HeatLoad = heating energy consumption over total energy consumption HeatSlope = slope between heating degree days and average daily energy consumption HDD = sum of heating degree days at each sites balance temperature during billing period t total consumption = sum of energy consumption for site k

2015 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. 26 IL TRM Workpaper Baseline Adjustment (Preliminary Findings) Navigant estimates the following % savings (as a % of heating load) for varying efficient equipment, baselines and program designs NonEfficient Programmable Equipmen Baseline t (Targeted DI Program Blended Baseline (DI Program Type) Type) Basic Smart Adv. Smart [ % ]= 6.2% 8.8% 4.0% 6.7% Blended Baseline (TOS, RF Program

Types) 1.2% 6.7% Programmabl e Baseline (NC Program Type) 0.0% 5.6% [ % . ] [ % . ] Where [ % . ] Savings = % savings for each baseline, efficient equipment and program design = baseline energy consumption as a % of energy consumption for a nonprogrammable thermostats = efficient energy consumption as a % of energy consumption for a nonprogrammable thermostats 2015 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. 27

IL TRM Workpaper Baseline Adjustment (Methods) Navigant calculated the savings for each scenario with the following inputs % Savings for advanced smart thermostats over a blended baseline and % programmable thermostats Equipment Baseline over a non-programmable baseline Source Savings Illinois Statewide Technical Reference Manual for Energy Efficiency, Version 4.0, Final February 24, 2015, Measure 5.3.11 6.2% Programmable Thermostats 6.7%Navigants 2015 evaluation results NonProgrammable Programmable Advanced Smart Blended Equipment Blend* Non-Programmable Programmable Baseline Blend Efficient Equipment Eff_ISR (Direct Install) * Referencing the 2015 Nest

whitepaper due to the 35% expectation that participants 65% are different than the general population. Eff_ISR (Other, or unknown) Programmable* 100% 56% Basic Smart** 100% 56% Effective In-Service Rate * Effective in service rate is taken from the programmable thermostat Adv. Smart 100% measure defined in the Illinois 100% Statewide Technical Reference Manual for Energy Efficiency, Version 4.0, Final February 24, 2015, Measure 5.3.11 Programmable Thermostats. ** Navigant assumes that basic smart thermostats will experience the same effective in service rate as programmable thermostats until better data is available. 2015 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. 28 IL TRM Workpaper Baseline Adjustment (Methods Contd)

Navigant provides an example of the baseline adjustment to better explain the process Efficient Equipmen t Basic Smart NonProgrammable Baseline (Targeted DI Program Type) 6.2% Adv. Smart [ % ]= Blended Baseline Blended Baseline (DI Program Type) (TOS, RF Program Types) 8.8% Programmabl e Baseline 4.0%

1.2% (NC Program Type) 0.0% 6.7% 6.7% 5.6% [ % . ] [ % . ] [ % . ] ( 1 6.2 % 56 % ) ( 1 35 %+ ( 1 6.2 % 56 % ) 65 % ) (1 6.74 %) 5.6 %= ( 1 6.2 %5 6 % ) 2015 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. 29 Thermostat Definitions Basic smart thermostat Two way communication capabilities Advanced smart thermostat Basic smart thermostat features, plus at least 4 of the enhanced energy savings features listed in the following table Feature Free cooling Optimal humidity/ humidity control/

AC overcool Fan dissipation Upstaging and downstaging Occupancy detection Heat pump lockout temperature control Behavioral features Description Thermostat recognizes the indoor/outdoor temperature difference and uses the outside air instead of the air conditioner to cool down the home when possible. Thermostat uses the air conditioner to lower indoor humidity in the absence of a dehumidifier. Residents are less likely to adjust thermostats to inefficient set points at appropriate humidity levels. Additionally, humidity control can prevent frost buildup on windows when it is cold outside with high humidity indoors. Thermostat turns off the air conditioner or heat pump, and uses the fan to pass air over the still cool or warm coil for additional space conditioning. Thermostat optimizes usage of multi-stage HVAC equipment. Thermostat recognizes if you are home or away through the use of occupancy sensors, geofencing, etc. and automatically adjusts the temperature set points to an away setback. Thermostat adjusts the lockout temperature on heat pumps to limit use of the auxiliary heat. Thermostat provides encouragement for efficient behavior. For example, Opowers customer coaching and Nests leaf or seasonal savings features would qualify as behavioral30features. 2015 Navigant Consulting, Inc.

Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. Table of Contents 1 Evaluation Objectives 2 Evaluation Approach 3 Data Cleaning and Verification 4 Details of the Regression Models 5 Results 6 TRM Workpaper updates 7 Next Steps 2015 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. 31 Next Steps Provide feedback and comments Add findings to discussion of Illinois TRM measure characterization Work through load disaggregation and baseline adjustment approaches using gas savings as the example Through the TAC process: o Discuss any potential changes o Discuss any adjustments to assumptions Incorporate any updates into the draft work paper Apply refined approach to electric savings once evaluation results are available Develop list of recommended research to improve TRM estimates

Baseline blend Effective in-service rate of programmable and basic smart thermostats Basic smart thermostat energy savings 2015 Navigant Consulting, Inc. Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. 32 Key CONTACTS Randy Randy Gunn Gunn Director-in-Charge Director-in-Charge 312.583.5714 312.583.5714 [email protected] [email protected] Kevin Kevin Grabner Grabner Evaluation Evaluation Director Director PGL/NSG PGL/NSG 608.497.2323 608.497.2323 [email protected] [email protected] Charley Charley Budd Budd Evaluation

Evaluation Director Director Nicor Nicor Gas Gas 312.583.4135 312.583.4135 [email protected] [email protected] Josh Josh Arnold Arnold Project Project Manger Manger 608.497.2328 608.497.2328 [email protected] [email protected] Bill Bill Provencher Provencher Technical Technical Advisor Advisor 608.497.2327 608.497.2327 bill.pr[email protected] [email protected] Amanda Amanda Ackerman Ackerman Lead Lead Analyst Analyst 416.777.2473

416.777.2473 [email protected] [email protected] Pace Pace Goodman Goodman Analyst Analyst 303.728.2511 303.728.2511 [email protected] [email protected] 2010 Navigant Consulting, Inc. 2015 Confidential and proprietary. Do not distribute or copy. 33

Recently Viewed Presentations

  • Reader's Notebook - Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Schools

    Reader's Notebook - Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Schools

    Entries in your "Notebook" As you read, have your reader's notebook next to you as you write your personal response in them. State your feelings, thoughts, reactions, and questions about situations, ideas, actions, characters, settings, symbols, plot, theme, and any...
  • Introduction to Information Retrieval ` `%%%`#`&12 ...

    Introduction to Information Retrieval ` `%%%`#`&12 ...

    Unstructureddatain1650. WhichplaysofShakespearecontainthewordsBrutusandCaesar,but not Calpurnia? OnecouldgrepallofShakespeare'splaysforBrutusandCaesar ...
  • Introduction to Discrete Structures Introduction

    Introduction to Discrete Structures Introduction

    Arial MS Pゴシック Calibri Courier Wingdings Symbol Office Theme Custom Design 1_Office Theme Introduction CSCE 235H Introduction to Discrete Structures Roles & Office Hours Online Information Outline Introduction Important Dates Goal & Sequence of Activities Effort Distribution Goal of the...
  • Benchmark Estimating

    Benchmark Estimating

    Benchmark Estimating Part of the MacDonald Group of companies Why you should partner with us for the TMR 3PCM RFP submission benchmarkestimating.com
  • Native Americans of the PNW - Mr. Holm's Class

    Native Americans of the PNW - Mr. Holm's Class

    Coyote helps Chinook tribe get food (similar to Stephen King-Children of the Corn) Clackamas (arms) Page 96. Origin Stories/Oral Histories. Charger (pg. 91) From the Skagit in Western WA. Great Flood leaves 5 Indians alive. ... Native Americans of the...
  • PowerPoint Presentation

    PowerPoint Presentation

    June 2018, CSI Press Release. 77% of Americans consider US prescription drug costs "unreasonable." Sept 2018, Associated Press "Cost of prescription drugs for tens of millions of Americans rose $2 billion last year, and all signs point to a continued...
  • Boy Scouts of America - Name Not Changing

    Boy Scouts of America - Name Not Changing

    Boy Scouts of America - Name Not Changing. Beginning February 2019, the Boy Scout program name will change to "Scouts BSA" and will begin serving girls, as well as boys.Under the new name of "Scouts BSA," . Leadership Corp shirt...
  • Weather-based Disease Risk Assessment in Turf R. Latin

    Weather-based Disease Risk Assessment in Turf R. Latin

    Gray leaf spot Pink snow mold Dollar spot Brown patch Summer patch Pythium blight Anthracnose Published works describing the use of temperature and moisture variables to predict disease outbreaks* Dollar spot Pythium blight Rhizoctonia blight Anthracnose Gray leaf spot Pink...