Mark J. Ferron is the assigned Commissioner and Darwin E. Farrar and Julie A. Fitch are the assigned ALJs in this proceeding.
1. Energy efficiency portfolios as a whole must have a benefit cost ratio greater than one (i.e., the net benefit must be positive).
2. The Total Resource Cost and Program Administrator Cost cost-effectiveness tests are used to determine the cost-effectiveness of the energy efficiency portfolio.
3. The forecasted cost of renewable energy is higher than the forecasted cost of wholesale energy and capacity market purchases.
4. The primary source of our ex ante values is the DEER.
5. Staff's proposed ex ante update has followed our guidance and focuses on the expected High Impact Measures in the utilities' portfolios.
6. The 2011 DEER Update utilizes building simulation methods that are similar to those used in all previous versions of DEER.
7. Non-DEER ex ante values will often depend upon DEER.
8. A low Net-To-Gross value indicates that much of the savings resulting from the activity would have occurred without utility portfolio support.
9. Our potential and goals studies now incorporate Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning interactive effects.
10. The Final Potential Study report has been released and is publicly available on the Commission website for parties to review.
11. The draft potential study methodology misinterpreted the 2006-2008 evaluation results (which indicated that 20% of all refrigerators were recycled). After subsequent revisions, the final Potential Study corrects this error.
12. The Potential Study projected that the market potential for basic Compact Flourescent Lamps in would decline to zero by 2018.
13. By 2014, PG&E plans to roll out behavior programs to 20% of households; SCE plans to roll them out to 0.4% of households; SDG&E plans to reach 3.3% of households; and SCE plans to emphasize the home energy audits and to maintain its programs on a pilot scale.
14. The use of the IOUs' program plans to estimate behavior potential would lead to potential estimates, and thus energy savings goals, that are orders of magnitude greater for PG&E than for SCE.
15. The Staff Proposal for 2013-2014 Energy Efficiency Goals recommended that, consistent with past Commission decisions, the 2013-2014 goals should:
a. Be aggressive yet achievable;
b. Support long-term planning;
c. Encourage a focus on long-term savings; and
d. Be based on the best available information.
16. In the 2006-2008 portfolio the realization of Codes and Standards savings as a portion of the total portfolio did indeed act as a hedge, as the policy intended.
17. It is important that we continue to encourage the utilities to develop the market for new technologies through both emerging technology and mainstream incentive programs.
18. It is equally important that measures are not pushed through to code before they are market ready, and that we do not incent the utilities to do so.
19. We have not witnessed the consistent, effective transition of emerging technologies into mainstream incentive programs in past portfolios.
20. The goals adopted in D.04-09-060 were applied on a net basis.
21. D.08-07-047 adjusted the IOU-specific goals to a gross basis.
22. The IOUs should support more strategic, statewide long term energy efficiency programs in the portfolio design.
23. The purpose of Codes and Standards goals is to give the IOUs credit for their specific contributions to new energy savings via their Codes and Standards advocacy work, which should not include naturally occurring savings or the advocacy work of other entities.
24. Cumulative goals encourage IOUs to invest in long-lived energy efficiency measures that produce persistent savings and are also needed for planning purposes, such as for supply-side procurement decisions.
25. Staff recommended that cumulative goals for the 2013-2014 transition portfolio be based exclusively on:
· The annual goals for 2013-2014;
· Recovery of unmet goals based on 2010-12 ex ante planning assumptions pursuant to D.11-07-030 and D.10-12-052; and
· Recovery of savings from the effects of decay.
26. The proposed goals do not include recovery of savings from unmet goals prior to 2010, or recovery of any shortfalls relative to 2010-2012 ex-post savings in the event evaluation results in downward adjustments.
27. The study to evaluate assumptions regarding decay is not completed.
28. Stakeholders and their interests in energy efficiency financing are diverse. There is no "one size fits all" financing program design that will work for all customers segments and all market actors.
29. Successful energy efficiency financing program designs require attention to multiple aspects of customer needs, consumer lending laws, and other legal and regulatory constraints.
30. The existing OBF program for non-residential customers has successfully reached customers, particularly in the small business and institutional markets.
31. SDG&E/SoCalGas have had the most successful OBF program and their staff has acquired useful experience with the design and implementation of financing programs among the IOUs.
32. Some geographically distributed and diverse financing programs have been supported by American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding in 2011 and 2012 and have been successful in piloting potential financing approaches that should be replicated and/or standardized for offerings statewide in the future.
33. Consistent statewide financing program designs with standardized terms offer the potential to attract larger amounts of private capital to assist customers in making energy efficiency improvements to their buildings.
34. Development of a customer database related to financing programs, while protecting individual customer confidentiality, will help inform stakeholders about target markets, risks, and expectations to better tailor financing offerings and bring additional capital to California.
35. There are 44 local government partnerships statewide and they focus on three broad areas of activity: (1) retrofit of local government buildings, (2) promotion of utility core programs, and (3) pursuit of energy efficiency activities identified in the Strategic Plan.
36. There is a strong need for local government programs that can provide deep retrofits.
37. Many local governments are better positioned to administer energy efficiency programs than they were seven years ago.
38. Authorizing pilots in the 2013-2014 transition portfolio would provide local governments the opportunity to develop a track record.
39. A key objective underlying the proposed pilots is to determine if local governments are in a position to plan and administer energy efficiency programs, absent utility support or intervention.
40. IOUs should expand their commitment to third-party implementation.
41. With effective oversight, performance based contracts can effectively mitigate risk that ratepayer contributions do not produce commensurate value.
42. There has been an exceptional rise in new, nimble, mission driven, third-party service providers, and increasing dynamism in customer demand for efficient technologies and services.
43. Streamlining and standardizing delivery of programs can create less confusion among programs and possibly encourage new entry into the market.
44. The Strategic Plan emphasizes reducing plug loads as part of residential market transformation strategies.
45. The establishment of a comprehensive residential retrofit program and reduced interest rate financing for whole house energy improvements, called for in AB 758 has resulted in significant investment in building a statewide Energy Upgrade California program infrastructure to train contractors, establish quality assurance procedures, build a statewide web portal, and conduct marketing and outreach.
46. Although a stepwise declining incentive structure for a ten-year period could add to program complexity, it may hasten market development and heighten urgency amongst contractors and homeowners by providing a clear end to incentives.
47. A ten-year stepwise declining incentive would also help reduce ratepayer costs for the program over the long term.
48. The California HVAC replacement rate for residential and non-residential units may be as high as 800,000 units per year, for a total annual market of about $1 billion. Space cooling constitutes seven percent of residential electricity consumption and a higher percentage of peak demand.
49. Streamlining the review and approval of HVAC replacement jobs that are being considered for expansion into Energy Upgrade California whole house jobs seems the most important first step towards increasing HVAC contractor participation in Energy Upgrade California.
50. Streamlining Energy Upgrade California program application and job approval procedures more generally is essential to developing contractor support for the program.
51. No party supports establishing Energy Upgrade California incentives for home energy ratings at the time of sale.
52. The Energy Upgrade California "basic" program was designed to appeal to moderate income households considering a lower cost whole house energy upgrade investment and as a program entry point for contractors new to the whole house energy performance business.
53. The results of the IOUs' "whole building" pilot projects would help to inform our guidance on the statewide Energy Upgrade California multifamily program for the 2013-2014 period.
54. Plug load, appliances, and "miscellaneous" uses comprise about 66% of current California home electricity usage, with plug loads (televisions, personal computers, and office equipment) accounting for about 20% of home electricity usage alone.
55. The Appliance Recycling Program can continue to remain cost-effective.
56. Early expert coordination can reduce costs to ratepayers and consumers of associated with Zero Net Energy residential building codes by 2020, and support both market stability and long range planning.
57. A Zero Net Energy Roadmap should include and be based on best estimates for cost-effective combinations of onsite renewable energy and energy efficiency for the range of building types.
58. D.09-09-047 approved $1 billion in commercial energy efficiency programs for both existing buildings and new construction for the 2010-2012 program cycle.
59. The December 7, 2011 Programmatic Guidance Ruling solicited comments on a Staff Proposal for the various market segments within the IOUs' energy efficiency portfolio.
60. Local Government Partnerships often cater to small and medium commercial customers and have knowledge of these customers within their city and county confines. Local governments can also leverage insight on neighborhoods within a city, to further engage small commercial customers.
61. Energy efficiency audits can help customers identify additional energy efficiency opportunities.
62. Collaboration on Emerging Technologies is important between Commission Staff, the IOUs, and other industry stakeholders.
63. Measures of energy savings after energy efficiency installations are not readily available for commercial building projects.
64. Performance data at the building, tenant, or end use level is pertinent information, and proposals to increase measurement, retention, and utilization of such information should be included in the 2013-2014 transition applications.
65. Increasing the measurement of energy and energy savings may encourage additional financing for energy efficiency projects.
66. Split incentives are an inherent market barrier in tenant leased space in the commercial sector.
67. There is benefit to reducing the number and complexity of programs by consolidating lighting measures into a single statewide program.
68. To facilitate market transformation and a long-term savings strategy, measures for all lighting sectors need to focus on market transformation.
69. The current function of the Lighting Market Transformation program is important and the program should remain.
70. The 2011 Potential Study indicates substantial achievable savings are available from these advanced lighting measures.
71. Light-emitting Diode and Compact Fluorescent Lighting technologies tend to be complementary.
72. In California there is substantial energy saving potential from the replacement of inefficient incandescent down lamps that are deployed in buildings all across the state with more efficient LED down lamps.
73. Progressive increases in building and appliance efficiency standards are a critical component of achieving the State's long-term energy efficiency goals.
74. The 2010-2012 Codes and Standards program is projected to account for 19% of the IOUs' total portfolio energy savings and 17% of total demand reduction.
75. Pilots, demonstrations, training and outreach programs expose customers to new technologies and practices and ultimately result in higher rates of market acceptance and consequently higher rates of compliance.
76. Statewide IOU Emerging Technology Program efforts in 2010-2012 have experienced several challenges.
77. Current Emerging Technology Program expenditures reflect extremely low program activity levels.
78. With over two-thirds of the program cycle behind us, the IOUs have spent less than one-quarter of their original Emerging Technology Program budgets.
79. The current slow rate of program activities (and especially the relatively low number of projects targeting scaled field placements and demonstrations) indicates that the Emerging Technologies program is underperforming.
80. The Emerging Technologies Program plays a critical cross-cutting role in technology development and deployment that spans all major market sectors and end uses.
81. Technology assessments are important for assessing performance claims and driving new technologies into the energy efficiency portfolio.
82. Given the cross-cutting role of the Emerging Technologies Program, there is a need for the Emerging Technologies Program to utilize a robust collaborative approach.
83. The Emerging Technologies Program represents a major strategy that can help meet Zero Net Energy goals and identify opportunities for advancing future Codes and Standards.
84. The Emerging Technologies Program can be used to bring market actors together in order to increase coordination and funding, leverage Research and Development opportunities, and support collaborative prospects.
85. Utility programs can play two roles that support our workforce training objectives. The IOUs can:
a. Enact "supply-push" strategies, such as training and certification programs, which produce the high-road workforce needed to meet our clean energy goals; and
b. Enact "demand-pull" strategies, such as skills standards and certification requirements for utility incentive programs, which create demand for and sustain high-road jobs and companies.
86. The utilities are actively involved in "supply-push" strategies through their workforce education and training programs.
87. The IOUs have begun requiring contractors participating in programs such as HVAC quality installation and maintenance and Energy Upgrade California to receive certain training.
88. The utilities have accumulated some experience with the sector strategy approach through their participation in the CALCTP initiative.
89. 30 - 50% of new HVAC systems and 85% of replacement systems are installed incorrectly.
90. The HVAC market is a prime target for testing the expansion of a sector strategies approach to a larger and more complex market (than, for example, the advanced lighting controls market addressed by CALCTP).
91. A pre-determined set-aside for workforce education and training budgets for the residential sector is inappropriate.
92. One of the state's largest end uses of electricity is in the treatment, heating, and conveyance of water in California.
93. The concept that saving water saves energy is dubbed the "water-energy nexus.
94. Parties recommend that leak detection and pressure management programs be offered by the IOUs.
95. Water systems efficiency is the most critical new strategy to capture additional water/energy nexus benefits in the energy efficiency program.
96. The IOUs should focus their water/energy nexus proposals in their 2013-2014 applications from the source of the water to the distribution point and through the system.
97. Agricultural and industrial customers are the largest end users of water in the state.
98. The Strategic Plan articulated a vision of a statewide ME&O program that includes integrated demand-side management messages and inspires consumer action.
99. A great deal of useful market and demographic research was developed by the Commission and the utilities during 2009 and 2010 in support of the development of the Engage 360 brand.
100. In energy efficiency proceedings, the Commission has at different times used either the before-tax or the after-tax WACC as the discount rate.
101. The avoided cost of ancillary services accounts for the decrease in the additional services needed to deliver electricity due to load reductions resulting from energy efficiency.
102. The current DEER methodology, which includes the use of building simulation, meets our expectations and directions for the DEER update.
103. Continuing a statewide ME&O campaign in general to educate consumers about the impacts of energy use, as well as to spur immediate energy-related action, is valuable.
104. The Energy Upgrade California brand name provides a viable and appropriate platform to build on and transform from the name of a single residential retrofit program to a broader campaign for demand-side ME&O information and energy efficiency actions.
105. To maintain consistency across demand-side resource proceedings, Staff proposed that we apply the same discount rate used in evaluating other demand-side resources to the energy efficiency portfolio.
106. The Engage 360 brand was conceived as an umbrella brand for statewide ME&O activities that started with building a movement and tapping into networks of community leaders.
107. The Engage 360 brand does not resonate with consumers because it has no obvious connection to energy use.
108. The Flex Your Power brand, and its associated brand Flex Alert, was created during the California energy crisis of 2000 and 2001 and inspired by emergency energy shortages necessitating emergency conservation by consumers. It is not an appropriate brand platform for generalized energy education and demand-side actions, especially those that relate to use of natural gas.
109. The Flex Alert brand is appropriate for continued use in system emergency situations.
110. Energy Upgrade California is a brand that is currently associated with a single residential retrofit program, funded jointly by the California IOUs and using American Recovery and Reinvestment Act stimulus funding through the California Energy Commission and local governments.
111. Energy Upgrade California is a brand that has the potential to be expanded to be associated with general energy knowledge and education primarily by residential and small commercial customers. Energy Upgrade California also contains emphasis on consumers taking immediate and permanent action, because of the use of the word "upgrade."
112. To be effective, a statewide ME&O campaign must be coordinated with all of the other local and program-specific ME&O messages targeted at residential and small commercial consumers.
113. PG&E has the staff resources and expertise to serve as the utility coordinator on behalf of all utilities whose ratepayers fund the statewide ME&O campaign beginning in 2012 and continuing in 2013-2014.
114. CCSE has the experience and vision to execute the statewide ME&O campaign in 2013-2014 in coordination with Commission Staff, the California Energy Commission, the utilities, and local governments.
115. The Energy Upgrade California web portal utilizes the rebate finder database from the Engage 360 web portal, which provides valuable functionality to consumers.
116. SDG&E was authorized in a January 31, 2012 ACR to spend up to $588,000 on a contract to ensure Energy Upgrade California web portal maintenance and upgrading during 2012.
117. Approximately $48 million of the original $60 million funding for 2010-2012 statewide ME&O activities has not been spent.
118. The residential HVAC Quality Installation and Quality Maintenance programs, commercial HVAC Quality Installation and Quality Maintenance programs, and funding for the Western HVAC Performance Alliance are key programs in our efforts to transform the HVAC industry.
119. The Final Report on the status and impact of benchmarking is expected to be released in March 2012 and will provide recommendations on how to improve benchmarking activities at the utilities.
120. Integrating demand-side program offerings has been an objective of the Commission since 2007.
121. Commission Staff is currently overseeing an independent third-party evaluation to assess the success of the Statewide Integrated Demand-Side Management Program and disseminate lessons learned.
122. Though the Commission previously directed the Integrated Demand-Side Management taskforce to utilize external subject matter experts in its deliberations, only one external subject matter expert was invited to participate in taskforce meetings.
123. The utilities experienced challenges over the 2010-2012 portfolio cycle in developing a statewide integrated audit tool as required by the Commission.
124. There are few examples of integrated marketing campaigns and collateral that actively promote the full range of Demand-Side Management resources to customers.
125. Early Integrated Demand-Side Management program evaluation efforts identified a lack of quantifiable or integrated data for Integrated Demand-Side Management program and pilot efforts over the 2010-2012 portfolio.
126. With the adoption of this Decision, the demand response portfolio cycle of 2012-2014 and the energy efficiency portfolio cycle of 2013-2014 will be in sync starting in 2015.
127. The Continuous Energy Improvement pilot has almost reached its participation level goals and initiated a Continuous Energy Improvement process evaluation beginning in 2012 to develop lessons learned and best-practices.
128. Utility Continuous Energy Improvement program representatives have identified the need to include a focus on mid-sized non-residential customers.
129. Ex ante savings estimates are the foundation for portfolio planning and reporting accomplishments, and the starting point for evaluation and verification.
130. We currently require that Commission Staff review all utility proposed non-DEER assumptions and values.
131. For many custom project activities, the 2006-2008 evaluation results for gross savings were well below the currently adopted gross realization rate adjustment of 90%.
132. The net to gross ratio for custom programs has held steady at approximately 0.5 in evaluations since 1998.
133. Commission Staff have completed two of the six workshops mandated under D.10-10-033.
134. Commission Staff organized a workshop to review and further vet Market Transformation Indicators that were initially proposed for 2010-2012 evaluations.
135. Based on the workshop, parties' comments, and current evaluation work, Commission Staff produced a series of recommendations for revisions to the Market Transformation Indicators established for the 2010-2012 portfolio and proposing new Market Transformation Indicators (and identifying next steps) for the 2013-2014 portfolio.
136. The utilities currently report their energy efficiency program accomplishments in the form of detailed claims or "tracking data."
137. The tracking data are the foundation for evaluation activities.
138. Commission Staff and the utilities are working collaboratively on tracking database submittals that will automatically look-up and pull data from a database of frozen ex ante input parameters that are adopted by the Commission. This system, when complete, will improve the transparency of freezing ex ante values, making and validating claims, tracking portfolio progress, and conducting portfolio level analysis.
139. The majority of 2006-2009 portfolio savings (and a significant portion of projected 2010-2012 program savings) were derived from basic Compact Fluorescent Lighting, a measure with a short design life but high annual savings levels.
140. We see merit in proposals to reinstitute the Programs Advisory Groups.
1. The goals for the 2013-2014 transition portfolio should be informed by the 2011 Energy Efficiency Potential Study.
2. The most appropriate value to use in this proceeding for GHG emissions reductions is the value which has already been litigated and approved in prior Commission proceedings.
3. The after-tax Weighted Average Cost of Capital should be used for the 2013-2014 energy efficiency cycle.
4. Parties' request that only noncontroversial DEER values be updated should not be adopted.
5. Piloting and ex ante value research for new measures is necessary to ensure the utility portfolios can respond to technology changes and innovations in the future while maintaining accurate impact and cost-effectiveness forecasts upon which budgeting decisions can rely.
6. Based upon older evaluation results the DEER should be updated with 2006-2008 evaluation Net-To-Gross results rather than the older DEER values.
7. Similar measures delivered by similar activities should have single statewide DEER values unless recent evaluations show a significant variation between utilities and that difference is supported by a historical trend of evaluation results.
8. The utilities should not curtail custom measure and project activities due to low gross savings or Net to Gross results.
9. The utilities should be allowed to request, in their non-DEER workpaper submissions, that an Emerging Technology measure be assigned a Net to Gross value at or above the 0.85 default value.
10. Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning interactive effects should be incorporated into DEER.
11. The inclusion of Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning interactive effects into DEER places a similar requirement for inclusion of those effects into non-DEER workpapers and custom measures and projects calculations.
12. Staff's recommendations for updates to DEER are reasonable.
13. It is reasonable and prudent to set consistent assumptions for program participation at 5% of households, signaling our expectation that behavioral programs should be substantively, but not excessively, represented in IOU program portfolios.
14. The IOUs should be allowed to apply alternate behavioral programs to achieve their goals if they find other approaches to be more effective.
15. The Commission should adopt the approach to behavioral programs proposed in the Final Study.
16. The Staff Proposal for 2013-2014 Energy Efficiency Goals is reasonable provided the adopted goals include the final DEER values and avoided cost methodology.
17. Our adoption of goals for each utility based on the 2011 Potential Study does not in any way prevent the utilities from proposing programs and estimating savings that exceed the adopted goals if they are convinced that additional attainable potential not identified in the Potential Study exists.
18. Codes and Standards savings are overestimated in the draft Goals Proposal, and should be adjusted for attribution and realization of verified savings.
19. It is prudent to develop and hold utilities accountable for separate Codes and Standards and IOU program goals.
20. The proceeding record is not sufficient to allow us to address questions regarding how to define what technologies should qualify to meet the emerging technologies goals.
21. It is reasonable to continue to set IOU program goals on a gross basis.
22. There is no inherent reason why Codes and Standards and IOU programs goal structures should be aligned.
23. It is not reasonable for the IOUs' portfolios to include free riders in order to meet cost-effectiveness requirements
24. Energy efficiency portfolios as a whole must have a benefit cost ratio greater than one (i.e., the net benefit must be positive).
25. The OBF program for non-residential customers should be continued, offered on a consistent basis statewide, and improved, if possible, such as by offering longer loan terms for more comprehensive projects, in 2013-2014.
26. Successful financing programs that were originally supported by American Recovery and Reinvestment Act stimulus funding in 2011 and 2012 should be continued in 2012, 2013, and 2014, if they can meet the following criteria:
· Potential for scalability to larger target markets;
· Ability to leverage ratepayer funds with private loan capital;
· Ability to test unique and/or new program design and delivery options;
· Ability to serve previously-unserved or under-served markets;
· Ability to offer low interest rates to consumers; and
· Effective utilization of total combined ratepayer funding support from all sources.
27. Utilities should analyze how financing can be offered in combination with rebates and incentives, and whether incentives may be scaled back and/or offered as alternatives to financing, to maximize overall portfolio cost-effectiveness.
28. SDG&E/SoCalGas should be required to hire as soon as possible in 2012, on behalf of all utilities and stakeholders and co-funded by all utilities, an expert financing consultant to develop new programs and conduct stakeholder processes to inform those programs.
29. New statewide financing program strategies should be designed and proposed in 2012 for piloting in 2013 and full-scale rollout in 2014 in the following areas:
· A credit enhancement strategy for the single-family residential market as well as any other strategies that operate within existing statutory constraints;
· A financing program strategy designed specifically for the multi-family residential market that includes both credit enhancement and an on-bill repayment option and/or tariff-based energy efficiency improvement reimbursement mechanism that may require legislative change to fully implement;
· A credit enhancement strategy for the small business market; and
· An on-bill repayment strategy for all non-residential customers.
30. An on-bill repayment strategy for all residential customers should not be required to be developed by the utilities at this time, though this is still a goal for the Commission in the future. Utilities may propose pilot approaches in the single-family residential sector in 2013-2014 within existing statutory constraints in the residential market.
31. Currently, disconnection of utility service for residential customers for non-payment of a third-party charge on a utility bill not related to the provision of utility service is prohibited by Public Utilities Code Sections 777.1(e) and 779.2(a).
32. For each new statewide financing program area, the expert financing consultant should be required to recommend functional roles and structure and identify who could serve the following functions, at a minimum:
· Financing program administrator;
· Credit enhancement manager;
· Administrator of interest rate buy downs (if applicable);
· Capital providers;
· Lenders/loan originators;
· Servicing agent and/or clearinghouse for data flow from lenders to on-bill repayment facility; and
· On-bill repayment billing administrator.
33. Each new statewide financing program area should be designed as a uniform statewide program.
34. New statewide financing programs should be submitted as resource programs.
35. Credit enhancements are an appropriate use of utility ratepayer funds, similar to rebates or other incentives, to encourage energy efficiency investments.
36. A new on-bill repayment program for non-residential customers should not require bill neutrality but should require that customers are presented with an estimate of expected energy savings and bill impacts prior to agreeing to a project.
37. A new on-bill repayment program for non-residential customers should require pro-rata allocation of funds in the event of partial payments received from customers.
38. The IOUs should support more strategic, statewide long term energy efficiency programs in the portfolio design.
39. The Codes and Standards goals should give the IOUs credit for their specific contributions to new energy savings via their Codes and Standards advocacy work, and should not include naturally occurring savings or the advocacy work of other entities.
40. Policies and programs supporting California's Zero Net Energy residential goals should support marketplace stability and long term planning.
41. Ratepayer-funded Residential New Construction programs should strive to support development of Zero Net Energy compliant residential buildings across the market segments, including multifamily, single family, and affordable housing developments.
42. The IOUs should consult with the California Energy Commission, Commission Staff, builders and other stakeholders regarding appropriate incentive levels for this increased building efficiency performance.
43. The IOUs should collaborate with the California Energy Commission, our Staff, and other expert stakeholders to develop a Zero Net Energy Roadmap that identifies efficiency measures likely to be adopted into Title 24 California Energy Commission Standards in 2017 and 2020 for inclusion in future IOU Residential New Construction program cycles.
44. It is reasonable to offer higher subsidies for new technologies to spur market adoption and development.
45. The Emerging Technologies Program should work closely with the California Energy Commission's Codes and Standards program to support the advancement of emerging technologies and their integration into future codes.
46. Senate Bill 454 requires recipients of utility incentive dollars to warrant that they have complied with building permit requirements and utilized licensed contractors.
47. The California Advanced Lighting Controls Training Partnership program should be continued.
48. It is not prudent to spend significant amounts of ratepayer funds on expanded water-energy nexus programs until the cost-effectiveness of these programs, and particularly the net benefits that accrue to energy utility ratepayers, are better understood.
49. Successful local government programs should be continued in the 2013-2014 period.
50. The local governments should be allowed to submit Program Implementation Plans (that utilize the same template established for the IOUs' programs) and budgets for proposed regional pilots in the 2013-2014 applications. The Program Implementation Plans should showcase how the pilot would support the identified benefits of local government program administration as described by LGSEC in its comments.
51. In developing their Program Implementation Plans, prospective local governments should refer to the Strategic Plan Menu of Local Government Strategic Actions.
52. Consistent with this decision's preference for deep retrofit programs, a goal of the local government pilots should be to achieve deep energy efficiency savings.
53. Consistent with the current standard established in D.05-01-055, the IOUs should identify a minimum of 20% of funding for the entire portfolio that will be put out to competitive bid to third parties for the purpose of soliciting innovative ideas and proposals for improved portfolio performance.
54. The Energy Upgrade California program should be structured as both a short-term resource acquisition program and a market transformation program, with clearly articulated program objectives in both areas.
55. The delivery of the Energy Upgrade California whole house program should be closely coordinated with the delivery of residential plug load/appliance programs. Market transformation objectives for the Energy Upgrade California program should reflect market transformation objectives for these end uses as well the broader objectives of whole house deep energy retrofits.
56. Requiring contractors to warrant that they have obtained applicable permits and having the IOUs collect copies of permit numbers (and/or permits, where feasible) prior to awarding incentives is reasonable and advances California's peak energy use reduction goals.
57. Senate Bill 454 does not imply that utilities have authority or responsibility for enforcing building energy or water code standards.
58. All ratepayers should have the opportunity to benefit from participation in California's deep energy use reduction programs such as the Energy Upgrade California program.
59. The IOUs should submit evaluation reports of their 2012 Energy Upgrade California multifamily pilot projects in the 2013-2014 application proceedings, no later than three months after completion of those projects.
60. The IOUs should include a plan and timeline for proposing and implementing a statewide Energy Upgrade California multifamily program in their 2013-2014 transition period applications that addresses the Commission Staff Energy Upgrade California multifamily program recommendations summarized above.
61. Use of the Engage 360 brand name should be discontinued because it is confusing to customers and is not generally associated with taking energy actions.
62. The emergency portion of the Flex Your Power campaign, called Flex Alert, should be continued and coordinated with an overall statewide demand-side ME&O program restructured under the Energy Upgrade California name in 2013-2014.
63. The utilities should propose a comprehensive statewide ME&O campaign and budget for 2013-2014 utilizing the Energy Upgrade California brand name as a larger umbrella for demand-side actions by residential and small commercial consumers, as well as generalized energy education.
64. The statewide ME&O proposal should be filed in a separate application for statewide ME&O by no later than August 3, 2012. The application should explain how all statewide ME&O activities will be coordinated with local and program-specific marketing activities and budgets for energy efficiency, demand response, distributed generation, low-income and any other relevant demand-side programs in 2013-2014.
65. The utilities should be authorized to spend an additional maximum of $5 million in 2012 out of the statewide ME&O energy efficiency budget on Energy Upgrade California marketing and outreach to transition to a larger umbrella for the statewide ME&O campaign in 2013-2014.
66. PG&E should serve as the statewide utility coordinator and contracting agent for the statewide ME&O campaign, on behalf of all utilities whose customers fund the program beginning immediately.
67. CCSE should serve as the statewide ME&O program implementer, under contract with PG&E no later than July 1, 2012, and in coordination with Commission Staff, California Energy Commission Staff, the utilities, and local governments operating demand-side programs.
68. CCSE should have a budget of at least $500,000 in 2012 for startup activities associated with the statewide marketing and outreach campaign.
69. The utilities should consult with CCSE, Commission Staff, California Energy Commission, local government and third-party Energy Upgrade California program purveyors in the design of both 2012 transition and 2013-2014 efforts for statewide ME&O involving Energy Upgrade California and the Energy Upgrade California web portal.
70. The utilities should spend a minimum of $5 million and a maximum of $10 million in 2012 out of the remaining statewide ME&O budget on augmenting programmatic activities associated with the Energy Upgrade California residential retrofit programs run by utilities, the California Energy Commission, local governments, and/or third parties. These may include additional funding for the Energy Upgrade California program itself, financing programs, and/or workforce, education, and training now associated with American Reinvestment and Recovery Act-funded components of Energy Upgrade California. Criteria should be developed to fund the most successful and/or replicable of these programs.
71. Additional unspent 2010-2012 ME&O funds should be returned to ratepayers either by reducing balancing accounts or utilizing funds already collected to fund 2013-2014 statewide ME&O activities.
72. Web portal content from Engage 360, including the rebate finder and any other useful content, should be fully migrated to the Energy Upgrade California web portal, with the Engage 360 web portal decommissioned by no later than the end of 2013.
73. The January 31, 2012 ACR on the Energy Upgrade California web portal in 2012 should be affirmed, with the clarification that SDG&E should have contracting flexibility to ensure the most expeditious way to continue maintenance and upgrades to the Energy Upgrade California web portal in 2012.
74. Future authority and funding for the demand response portion of Integrated Demand-Side Management activities should be considered in energy efficiency proceedings starting with the energy efficiency applications for 2013-2015.
75. The statewide Integrated Demand-Side Management program and related integration goals and objectives should continue to be pursued in the 2013-2014 transition portfolio.
76. Since not all of the relevant resource proceedings are on concurrent cycles, it is reasonable for the utilities to make their proposals and funding requests for demand-side resource integration activities in their energy efficiency applications.
77. The costs associated with funding strategies to actively engage the workforce education and training sector should be shared between the Continuous Energy Improvement and the Workforce Education and Training Statewide Program budgets.
78. Once early Continuous Energy Improvement evaluation findings become available, Continuous Energy Improvement Program Implementation Plans should be revised to describe how programs will be modified mid-cycle in consideration of these findings.
79. The Commission Staff should perform the review and make recommendations as to the ex ante values we should adopt.
80. Our Staff should have significant latitude in performing DEER and other policy oversight functions and, absent specific directives to the contrary, should not be required to consult with or otherwise utilize any other groups to perform this work.
81. The collaborative approach and dispute resolution process articulated in D.10-04-029 do not apply to the DEER update process.
82. While we require that Staff seek input from parties on ex ante values, Commission Staff should recommend ex ante values that reflect the best estimate of expected real portfolio accomplishments based upon the most appropriate and accurate data available.
83. The ex ante values used for planning should be the best estimates of the likely accomplishments of the utilities' proposed portfolios.
84. While we generally agree with parties' request that ex ante values be adopted and held constant throughout the portfolio cycle, mid-cycle updates of ex ante values should occur where, for example, newly adopted codes or standards take effect during the cycle.
85. Because the codes and standards changes that will be effective by 2014 should be known by the end of 2012, DEER should be updated for use in 2015 and beyond planning.
86. The utilities are not yet in full compliance with the review requirements we set forth in D.11-07-039, and revisions to the custom project ex ante review process should not be made at this time.
87. The current default gross realization rate value of 0.90 should be retained for use in the 2013-2014 transition portfolio.
88. Each utility's evaluation budget should be determined by its proportional share of total program budgets, consistent with D.10-04-029.
89. In order to facilitate our review of the 2013-2014 portfolio applications, it is reasonable to require a minimum level of strategic assessment and identification of expected market effects anticipated from specific programs.
90. Frozen ex ante savings parameters and tracking data should be submitted and evaluated as part of a systematic process that creates a connection between ex ante savings parameters, unverified tracking data, and impact evaluations. The goal of the incentive mechanism should be to foster greater innovation and creativity within the utilities' engineering and management and to ensure that energy efficiency savings (not merely savings account) became a top priority.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. No later than July 2, 2012, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall file applications to establish energy efficiency programs and budgets for 2013 and 2014.
2. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall use the new avoided cost calculator (which includes the recommended data inputs) and the after-tax Weighted Average Cost of Capital as the discount rate.
3. Commission Staff shall continue their efforts to update cost-effectiveness methodologies. In particular, Staff shall continue to explore issues related to calculation of the discount rate so that improvements may be made to the energy efficiency cost-effectiveness methodology for use in planning future portfolios.
4. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall include in their portfolio applications a prospective showing of the estimated Total Resource Cost and Program Administrator Cost ratios for their proposed portfolios.
5. In their review of utility proposed ex ante values for new measures, Commission Staff shall balance the need for accurate ex ante values with the equally important need to continuously augment the portfolios with new technologies that offer promise.
6. Commission Staff shall strive for uniform statewide Net-To-Gross planning values that represent typical expected results in the Database of Energy Efficient Resources update for the next planning cycle for measures in which the variation between utilities is not significant.
7. Commission Staff shall undertake research in support of Database of Energy Efficient Resources updates when the existing evaluations results, analysis methods and other research literature are found lacking.
8. The proposed dispositions for issues provided in Attachment A to this Decision are adopted and Commission Staff shall modify the final Database of Energy Efficiency Resources 2011 release to include all changes in those proposed dispositions.
9. Commission Staff shall provide notice to the service list of this proceeding within five days of the effective date of this Decision of the location of the final Database of Energy Efficiency Resources 2011 release which shall be utilized for 2013-2014 program planning and reporting.
10. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall use the clarifying direction contained in the adopted dispositions for issues in Attachment A to this Decision in ex ante value filings required by this Commission.
11. Commission Staff shall provide separate Net-To-Gross values for gas and electric projects that are developed for those types of projects alone, unless the values are sufficiently similar that a single value is warranted.
12. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall not curtail custom measure and project activities due to low gross savings or Net-to-Gross results.
13. Commission Staff shall track the results of its custom project and measure review activities, as well as related 2010-12 impact evaluation activities, and report any results on Net-to-Gross values in a timely manner so as to inform the adoption of ex ante update values for the next program cycle.
14. Commission Staff shall assign a new Net-to-Gross category for Emerging Technology measures with a default Net-to-Gross value of 0.85.
15. Commission Staff shall accept or reject a proposed Emerging Technology measure classification and set any Emerging Technology measure's Net-to-Gross ratio at a higher value than the default value as it deems appropriate.
Energy Savings Goals
16. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall endeavor to exceed the behavioral programs participation minimum of 5% of the households represented in their program portfolios, by pursuing behavioral programs on a greater scale if they believe this goal underestimates potential in this area.
17. The goals for the 2013-2014 transition portfolio based on the 2011 Potential Study are adopted.
18. The compliance rates shall remain constant at 85% for appliances and 83% for codes.
19. Codes and Standards goals are adopted on an adjusted net basis.
20. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall be given credit for 100% of evaluated savings from 2006-2008 on that persist into future program cycles, and shall be responsible for making up one half of the decay.
Financing
21. By no later than August 1, 2012, San Diego Gas & Electric Company and Southern California Gas Company shall hire, on behalf of themselves, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and Southern California Edison Company, and co-funded by all of the named utilities, an expert financing consultant to design new pilot financing programs for 2013-2014 and to convene working groups on the new program design and data collection needed to support scalable financing programs in the future.
22. In their 2013-2014 program portfolio filings, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall propose a statewide portfolio of financing programs funded at a level of at least $200 million statewide over the two-year period, consisting of the following components:
a. Continuation of and improvement to the on-bill financing programs currently in the utility 2010-2012 portfolios for non-residential customers;
b. Continuation of successful financing programs that were originally supported by American Recovery and Reinvestment Act stimulus funding in 2011 and 2012 and implemented by third parties, local governments, and/or via the California Energy Commission; and
c. A set of new financing programs to be designed in 2012, and then offered consistently on a statewide basis, in pilot form in 2013, and on a larger scale in 2014.
23. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall propose new statewide financing programs in their 2013-2014 portfolio applications for piloting in 2013 and full-scale offering in 2014, to include the following elements:
a. A credit enhancement strategy for the single-family residential market and any other proposed single-family program approaches operating within existing statutory constraints;
b. A financing program strategy designed specifically for the multi-family residential market that includes both credit enhancement and an on-bill repayment option and/or tariff-based energy efficiency improvement reimbursement mechanism that may require legislative change to fully implement;
c. A credit enhancement strategy for the small business market; and
d. An on-bill repayment strategy for all non-residential customers.
24. The on-bill repayment strategy for non-residential customers proposed for 2013-2014 shall not require bill neutrality and shall allow for pro-rata allocation of payments between utility bill obligations and loan repayment.
25. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall, beginning in 2012 and in consultation with the expert financing consultant hired by San Diego Gas & Electric Company and Southern California Gas Company and a working group convened by the consultant, develop or contribute to a larger-scale database or databases of financing related data and information, that can be shared publicly after appropriately masking individual customer confidential information, and that consists of the following minimum types of information:
a. Customer type;
b. Host site characteristics;
c. Utility payment history;
d. Borrower credit scores and energy project repayment history;
e. Energy project performance data; and
f. Billing impacts comparing pre- and post-installation utility bills.
26. By the end of the third quarter of 2012, the expert financing consultant hired by San Diego Gas & Electric Company and Southern California Gas Company shall present 2013 pilot program design details in a written program plan and a public workshop.
27. No later than January 1, 2013, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall continue to provide On-Bill Financing programs and funding consistently statewide.
28. No later than August 1, 2012, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall provide funding for selected successful financing programs previously supported by American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds in 2011 and 2012.
29. In their 2013-2014 energy efficiency program portfolio applications, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall address their strategy for maximizing portfolio cost-effectiveness by offering financing programs in coordination with rebate/incentive programs, either by offering financing in lieu of rebates and/or by lower incentives in cases where financing is also provided. The financing programs shall be considered resource programs designed to deliver additional energy efficiency savings beyond those available through other programs.
30. In their 2013-2014 energy efficiency program portfolio applications, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall propose a methodology to estimate incremental savings delivered by the statewide financing programs towards their energy savings goals, while avoiding double-counting of savings from other programs.
31. In 2013-2014 statewide financing programs, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall not require that all measures supported by financing programs be part of another utility incentive program.
Local Government, Government Partnerships and Third-Party Delivery
32. The 2013-2014 applications of Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall include a separate set of criteria for increases in local government programs and shall be consistent with the overarching goal of deeper retrofits.
33. To the extent that Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, or Southern California Gas Company rejects any of the suggested criteria, its 2013-2014 application shall list those criteria and the rationale for rejecting them. The 2013-2014 applications shall also include the Program Implementation Plans (PIPs) of local government programs/partnerships that meet the expansion criteria, and a separate set of PIPs that meet the expansion criteria that were rejected.
34. Any Program Implementation Plan submitted by a local government shall demonstrate the extent to which the proposed regional pilots:
a. Leverage additional state and federal resources so that energy efficiency programs are offered at lower costs to ratepayers;
b. Address the water/energy nexus;
c. Develop and deploy new and existing technologies;
d. Address workforce training issues;
e. Address hard-to-reach customer segments such as low to moderate income residential households and small to medium sized businesses; and
f. Include an organizational chart that identifies the local governments that are part of the proposed regional pilot, a narrative description for each of their roles, and plans to coordinate.
35. Commission Staff shall conduct and/or oversee the evaluation of any local government pilots selected, in a manner consistent with the process set forth for evaluation of utility programs in Decision 10-04-029 and other decisions.
36. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall contract for selected regional pilots and Commission Staff shall serve as a joint contract manager in the contract.
37. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall identify a minimum of 20% of funding for the entire proposed 2013-2014 energy efficiency portfolio that will be put out to competitive bid to third parties for the purpose of soliciting innovative ideas and proposals for improved portfolio performance.
38. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall file with their 2013-2014 applications a table ("Third Party Procurement Table") identifying all current Purchase Orders (or comparable contracts/agreements) between the utility and third parties funded through energy efficiency balancing accounts. The table shall include:
a. The utility's unique purchase order number;
b. vendor name;
c. detailed description of the procured activity;
d. whether procurement supports utility- implemented program(s) or third-party implemented program(s);
e. whether the vendor was chosen through competitive solicitation or bilaterally;
f. start date;
g. end date;
h. purchase order amount;
i. whether service is provided on a "performance basis" (Yes or No);
j. description of performance basis terms and conditions, as applicable; and,
k. determination of whether the purchase contributes to the utility's General Order 156 goals.
l. Complete Purchase Orders (or comparable contracts/agreements) for every entry identified in the Third-Party Procurement Table.
39. The 2013-2014 applications of Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall explain which existing third-party programs should be extended in 2013-2014 and why. If renegotiations of third-party implementer contracts will be necessary, the utility shall explain how it will ensure a timely start. In addition, each utility shall identify which existing third-party programs should be discontinued in 2013-2014 and why.
40. The 2013-2014 applications of Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall identify additional opportunities to enlist new third-party implemented programs through competitive solicitations.
Reducing the Number and Complexity of Programs
41. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall exclude the separate statewide Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning and new construction programs from their transition portfolio applications. However, the cross-sector collaborative activities and information-sharing tools that have been developed through these programs need not be discontinued.
42. The 2013-2014 applications of Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall identify the elements of the existing statewide Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning and new construction programs they recommend maintaining, and the remaining programs in which those activities and tools will be "housed" and funded.
Program Guidance for the Residential Sector
43. The 2013-2014 applications of Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall reflect a recognition of the Energy Upgrade California program as a market transformation-oriented program.
44. Commission Staff shall use a Database for Energy Efficient Resources default Net-to-Gross ratio of 0.85 as a floor for Energy Upgrade California custom projects.
45. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall include in their 2013-2014 Energy Upgrade California proposal strategies to better leverage the program to achieve energy savings from plug loads, appliances, lighting, and/or swimming pools.
46. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall include in their 2013-2014 applications a proposal for a ten-year stepwise declining incentive structure for the Energy Upgrade California whole house program.
47. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall include a streamlined Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning Emergency Replacement Energy Upgrade California protocol in their 2013-2014 applications, based on the approach provided in Attachment B.
48. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall consider in their 2013-2014 applications whether a streamlined Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning Emergency Replacement Energy Upgrade California protocol should be available only to top-performing contractors with consistently strong quality assurance records or those with stronger building performance certification credentials.
49. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall include in their 2013-2014 applications a "Fast Track" Energy Upgrade California job approval protocol based on the Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning Energy Replacement Protocol. This proposal shall apply more generally to the Energy Upgrade California program.
50. If needed, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall propose changes to the Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning Upstream Incentives program to bring it into alignment with Senate Bill 454, while preserving it as a cost-effective program.
51. No incentives for equipment requiring a building permit shall be provided any contractor or customer without that contractor or customer certifying that s/he has complied with all permit requirements and utilized a licensed contractor.
52. Programs proposed by Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall comply with Senate Bill 454 requirements, and all applicable programs shall support Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning permit acquisition as a matter of course.
53. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall institute the following changes to support Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) permit acquisition in conjunction with their HVAC and Energy Upgrade California programs:
a. Energy Upgrade California jobs involving HVAC replacements must include submittal of the HVAC permit number and a contractor certification that appropriate permits have been obtained, for inclusion in program records.
b. Show in their 2013-2014 applications all programs to which the requirements above apply (and present copies of the incentive/rebate applications or other documentation) evidence that they are in full compliance with Senate Bill 454 and this decision.
54. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall consult with local governments, as well as regional and statewide government entities and include in their 2013-2014 proposals a budget for and a narrative description of the role that these entities shall play in advancing Energy Upgrade California objectives in 2013-2014.
55. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall work with the Commission Staff, the California Energy Commission and others to convene a workshop to review Energy Upgrade California workforce training needs upon completion of Energy Upgrade California process evaluations in 2012.
56. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall identify contractor and technician training objectives for the Energy Upgrade California program, consistent with its role as a market transformation program.
57. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall explore changes to the "basic" Energy Upgrade California program pathway to make it more appealing to moderate income households and shall propose these changes in their 2013-2014 applications.
58. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall establish Middle Income Direct Install programs in 2013-2014, if they have not yet done so, and shall explore expansion of eligible Middle Income Direct Install measures to improve the program's comprehensiveness.
59. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall consult with relevant stakeholder groups, experts, and Commission Staff to develop a concrete proposal for implementing voluntary training and outreach partnerships with California's real estate industry in their 2013-2014 applications.
60. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall work with local governments and the California Energy Commission to identify jurisdictions wishing to pilot incentives for Whole House Home Energy Rating System II assessments and/or ratings as part of the Energy Upgrade California program.
61. Commission Staff, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall work collaboratively with the California Energy Commission and other stakeholders to identify approaches to adequately broaden the allowable software under the Energy Upgrade California program while containing costs required for needed Commission Staff reviews.
62. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall clearly define the "whole house" program in their Program Implementation Plans for the 2013-2014 transition portfolio and include in their 2013-2014 Energy Upgrade California program estimates of the number of single-family homes they plan to participate in the program in the 2013-2014 transition period.
63. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall include in their 2013-2014 applications the criteria they use to determine the best delivery channel for any given plug load or appliance incentive or intervention in their plug load and appliance Program Implementation Plans for the 2013-2014 transition period.
64. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall clearly identify in their 2013-2014 applications the selected delivery channels for all measures included in the Home Energy Efficiency Rebate and Business and Consumer Electronics programs and identify where synergies allow for more coordinated engagement work with retailers and manufacturers across the Home Energy Efficiency Rebate and Business and Consumer Electronics programs.
65. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall simplify and streamline the plug load and appliance programs in their 2013-2014 applications to maximize synergies with manufacturers and retailers and reduce administrative costs.
66. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall explore how their Business and Consumer Electronics and Home Energy Efficiency Rebate programs can support manufacturers' implementation of voluntary product specifications that support the development of mandatory "horizontal standards" for plug loads and appliances.
67. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall include in their Home Energy Efficiency Rebate and Business and Consumer Electronics 2013-2014 program proposals a strategic discussion of how they will use these programs to advance market transformation toward Title 20 codes and standards changes.
68. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall include a reoriented Appliance Recycling Program in their 2013-2014 transition period proposals, and shall take all feasible steps to minimize costs associated with this program while maximizing savings.
69. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall include in their 2013-2014 applications a timeline by which increased levels of incentives supporting the more efficient building codes expected to be adopted in Title 24 can be incorporated into their Residential New Construction programs.
70. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall identify in their 2013-2014 applications (1) market barriers to achieving residential Zero Net Energy homes by 2020 and (2) the mechanisms that their proposed Residential New Construction programs will employ to address any such barriers starting in 2013.
71. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall identify in their 2013-2014 applications potential pilot projects or trials to test new program designs that would improve marketplace innovation and engagement and homeowner awareness within the 2013-2014 timeframe.
72. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall participate in efforts to develop a Zero Net Energy Roadmap that identifies efficiency measures which are likely to be adopted in the Title 24 Residential New Construction Standards in 2017 and 2020, for inclusion in their Residential New Construction program cycles beginning in 2015.
Program Guidance for the Commercial Sector
73. The implementation plans in the 2013-2014 applications of Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall detail how the Direct Install and Deemed Incentive programs can utilize and coordinate with the Local Government Partnership Programs, and Business Improvement Districts. Their Program Implementation Plans shall include a showing how they will utilize Business Improvement Districts to engage customers.
74. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall examine the effects of an audit requirement on customers implementing three or more measures. They shall set forth the results of this examination in their 2013-2014 applications.
75. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall propose to pilot the Building Energy Asset Rating System tool in their 2013-2014 applications.
76. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall file Program Implementation Plans in their 2013-2014 applications that reflect raised incentive levels for Emerging Technologies in the 2013-2014 period.
77. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall include in their 2013-2014 applications proposals to improve the measurement, retention, and use of performance data.
78. In their 2013-2014 applications, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall incorporate new approaches for their commercial programs to achieve deeper energy retrofits and packages of measures.
79. In their 2013-2014 applications, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall propose programs focused on overcoming the split-incentive barrier in multi-tenant buildings.
80. In their 2013-2014 applications, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall submit an approach for dealing with split incentives that includes incentives for sub-metering and plug load control technologies for both owner and non-owner occupied buildings.
Lighting
81. In their 2013-2014 applications, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall propose and budget for upstream rebates in the Primary Lighting subprogram for basic Compact Fluorescent Lamps to capture the remaining market potential of Compact Fluorescent Lamps, less any of the same potential captured through the Energy Saving Assistance Program during the same period.
82. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall include a Statewide Lighting Program in their 2013-2014 applications.
83. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall continue supporting the technology assessment of pre-commercialized lighting measures in the Emerging Technology Program in their 2013-2014 applications.
84. In their 2013-2014 applications, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall propose a Lighting Innovation subprogram to support advanced lighting technologies aimed at early adopters.
85. In their 2013-2014 applications, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall propose a Primary Lighting subprogram in the Statewide Lighting Program for the purpose of supporting lighting measures that have reached a greater level of commercialization.
86. In their 2013-2014 applications, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall propose a Lighting Market Transformation subprogram within the Statewide Lighting Program.
87. In their 2013-2014 applications, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall only propose rebates for general service screw base Light Emitting Diodes products that are consistent with the quality standards developed by the California Energy Commission.
88. In their 2013-2014 applications, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall only propose rebates for Light Emitting Diodes products that have a United States Department of Energy Lighting Facts® label.
89. In their 2013-2014 applications, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall propose upstream rebates for specialty Compact Fluorescent Lamps products, with the exception of dimmable Compact Fluorescent Lamps products, in the new Primary Lighting subprogram.
90. In their 2013-2014 applications, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall propose upstream rebates for dimmable linear fluorescent ballasts in the new Primary Lighting subprogram.
Codes and Standards
91. In the Codes and Standards program implementation plan sections of their 2013-2014 applications, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall include a detailed description for the statewide "Planning and Coordination Subprogram" that implement the "integrated dynamic approach." The program implementation plan should include an outline of the relevant roles of each of the Codes and Standards sub-programs relative to other IOUs programs and non-IOUs initiatives, as well as program objectives, strategies, expected outcomes, and program budgets.
92. In their 2013-2014 applications, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall propose expansion of their Codes and Standards programs through coordinated initiatives with the statewide Workforce Education and Training programs. This shall be a non-resource sub-program with the primary objective of providing technical training and certification programs for contractors and technicians, specifically, targeting new and advanced technologies that are candidates for adoption into future Reach Codes, Building Codes and Appliance Standards.
93. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall partner with the California Energy Commission to support their marketing, outreach and education activities to improve compliance with codes and standards.
94. In their 2013-2014 applications, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall examine and propose pilots to test the use of incentives to support critical improvement code compliance consistent with the following threshold criteria:
· Existing (adopted) codes and standards with documented and verified low compliance rates and a minimum two-year gap between the date the standard has been adopted and its effective date;
· Existing (adopted) and/or new Reach Codes; and
· Future codes and standards that have yet to be adopted by the California Energy Commission but have undergone technology assessment through the Emerging Technologies Program, and for which Codes and Standards Enhancement studies have been prepared.
95. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall work with the California Energy Commission and Commission Staff to obtain recommendations on (a) potential local jurisdictions to target for Reach Code adoption, and (b) specific areas of low code compliance based on documented/verified low compliance rates for existing codes, for the purpose of exploring the use of incentives to augment code compliance.
Emerging Technologies Program
96. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall leverage findings from existing research, as well as findings from current evaluation and the Commission Potential and Goals studies, to obtain robust market potential estimates on targeted technologies and systems.
97. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall utilize enhanced market behavioral research to address customer and end-users acceptance and adoption of new technologies, in particular for technologies that are being considered for transfer into the energy efficiency portfolio.
98. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall include in their Emerging Technologies Program implementation plans in their 2013-2014 applications the following:
a. For each of the three program goals, provide a detailed plan (program activities) on how the six program elements will be utilized to meet the goals (including updates to the quantifiable targets (objectives), timeline, and budgets) while addressing the various market sectors and end-uses;
b. Provide a planning budget allocation by market sectors and end-use for each program element.
c. Provide a budget for the following key market sectors: Residential, Commercial, Industrial and Agricultural, and for the following key end-uses: Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning advanced technologies, Plug-Loads and controls, Lighting, Integrated building design and operation, and Other;
d. For each program element, provide a planning budget allocation for short-term projects (within the program-cycle) versus long-term projects (projects that will exceed three years).
e. For Technology Assessments, provide a planning budget allocation for assessing new advanced and/or unproven technologies versus emerging and/or under-utilized technologies.
99. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall coordinate with the Codes and Standards program and the California Energy Commission's Codes and Standards programs to (a) support the advancement of emerging technologies and approaches, including demonstration of technologies, that are candidates for adoption into future codes and standards as well as Reach Codes, and (b) identify critical early planning workforce training needs for advanced technologies.
100. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall establish a "Collaborative" membership category in the Emerging Technologies Coordinating Council.
101. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company may further develop and expand the Technology Resource Incubator Outreach program trial solicitation.
102. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall include an Appendix to the Emerging Technologies program implementation plan in their 2013-2014 applications that details clear path of approaches and specific projects activities for transitioning new technologies from major external initiatives into the utility programs.
103. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall revise and update their Emerging Technologies program implementation plan to address the directives included in this Decision, including details on its programmatic initiatives that will accomplish the reductions in plug loads and advancing building integrated design and operation solutions to achieve the Zero Net Energy goals of the Strategic Plan.
104. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall develop Residential and Commercial roadmaps that encompass existing building retrofit and new construction programs for Commission Staff's review by the end of the fourth quarter of 2013, in preparation for their inclusion in their 2015 and later energy efficiency portfolios.
Workforce Education and Training
105. In their 2013-2014 applications, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall propose continued support of the California Advanced Lighting Controls Training Partnership sector strategy in the 2013-2014 transition period.
106. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall explore partnership opportunities that will result in shared resources and/or co-funding and describe these arrangements in their program implementation plan as it applies to the California Advanced Lighting Controls Training Partnership program.
107. In their 2013-2014 applications, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall submit a plan to test the sector strategy approach for Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning, beginning with the non-residential sectors.
108. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall endeavor to have skills standards for Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning installations established by the end of 2013.
109. In their 2013-2014 applications, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall develop a Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning sector strategy pilot in concert with the statewide Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning Commercial Quality Installation program.
110. In their 2013-2014 applications, the workforce education and training program plans of Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall address any and all recommendations made in Workforce, Education and Training Needs Assessment.
111. In their 2013-2014 applications, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall include information regarding Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning quality installation, California Advanced Lighting Controls Training Partnership certified installations, and any other sector strategy-induced skill standards set forth in this decision.
112. In the California Advanced Lighting Controls Training Partnership and Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning pilot initiatives, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall explore and, if appropriate, propose to pilot mandatory and/or voluntary incentive-based approaches to promoting high-road skill standards in the 2013-2014 program period.
Water-Energy Nexus Programs
113. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall include proposals in their 2013-2014 applications to increase targeting of agricultural and industrial customers.
114. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall propose to continue to offer measures and services to the water sector through their calculated energy efficiency savings programs in the 2013-2014 portfolio, as they currently do.
115. In their 2013-2014 applications, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall propose 2013-2014 efforts (either through limited, water sector focused pilot programs or through targeted efforts within the existing calculated savings programs) that go to leak-loss detection and remediation, and pressure management services for water entities that are utility customers.
116. Commission Staff shall develop a robust record in the 2013-2014 application proceedings or in another energy efficiency rulemaking to identify potential cost-effective water-energy nexus efficiency programs, including strategies to overcome barriers to adoption and deployment of the identified measures.
Marketing, Education, and Outreach
117. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall file standalone applications, separate from their 2013-2014 energy efficiency portfolio applications, no later than August 3, 2012 for a statewide marketing, education, and outreach (ME&O) program for 2013-2014 with the following characteristics:
a. Provides general energy education and demand-side management program information for residential and small commercial customers. General education includes, but is not necessarily limited to, information about the impacts of energy use and energy costs and rates. Demand-side management program information includes, but is not necessarily limited to, demand response, energy efficiency, distributed generation, and low-income programs.
b. Utilizes the Energy Upgrade California brand name as a larger umbrella platform to encourage demand-side actions.
c. Describes how any local and program-specific ME&O activities for energy efficiency, demand response, distributed generation, low-income programs, and any other relevant demand-side programs will be coordinated with the statewide program.
d. Includes a budget for continuing the emergency portion of the Flex Your Power campaign, called Flex Alert, and coordinating it with the overall statewide ME&O campaign under the Energy Upgrade California umbrella.
e. Utilizes the market and demographic research conducted in support of the Engage 360 campaign to craft an approach to statewide ME&O in 2013-2014 under the Energy Upgrade California umbrella brand.
f. Continues the current emphasis on prompting residential and small business customers to immediately take action related to their energy use.
118. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company may spend a maximum of $5 million in 2012 out of the 2010-2012 statewide marketing, education, and outreach energy efficiency budget on Energy Upgrade California marketing and outreach to transition to a larger umbrella for the statewide campaign in 2013-2014.
119. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall spend a minimum of $5 million and a maximum of $10 million in 2012 out of the remaining 2010-2012 statewide marketing, education, and outreach budget on augmenting programmatic activities associated with the Energy Upgrade California programs run by the utilities, the California Energy Commission, and local governments, including associated financing and/or workforce, education, and training programs. These utilities shall developed criteria, in coordination with Staff of this Commission and the California Energy Commission, to offer additional funding to the most successful and/or replicable programs.
120. Unspent 2010-2012 marketing, education, and outreach funds beyond those identified in Ordering Paragraphs 115 and 116 above shall be returned to ratepayers either by reducing energy efficiency balancing accounts or utilizing funds already collected to fund new statewide marketing, education, and outreach activities in 2013-2014.
121. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall consult with Commission Staff, California Energy Commission Staff, the California Center for Sustainable Energy, local governments and third-party Energy Upgrade California program purveyors on:
a. Budget and criteria for augmenting any programs related to Energy Upgrade California in 2012.
b. Budget for and design of marketing, education, and outreach activities in 2012 to transition toward a statewide approach for utilizing the Energy Upgrade California brand more broadly for energy education and demand-side management actions by residential and small commercial customers.
c. Budget for and design of the Energy Upgrade California web portal.
d. The content of their statewide marketing, education, and outreach applications due to be filed at the Commission no later than August 3, 2012.
122. For the 2013-2014 statewide marketing, education, and outreach campaign, as well as for transition activities in 2012, Pacific Gas and Electric Company shall serve as the utility coordinator and contractual agent on behalf of itself, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company, effective immediately.
123. For the 2013-2014 statewide marketing, education, and outreach campaign, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, on behalf of itself, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company, shall contract with the California Center for Sustainable Energy (CCSE) no later than July 1, 2012 to begin activities to allow them to fully implement the program beginning in 2013. A total of at least $500,000 shall be allocated to CCSE for the remainder of 2012. The budget for 2013-2014 shall be proposed in the utility 2013-2014 applications.
124. For the 2013-2014 statewide marketing, education, and outreach campaign, both Pacific Gas and Electric Company and the California Center for Sustainable Energy shall consult with Commission Staff, California Energy Commission Staff, local governments, and other relevant entities as identified by agency Staff, in the design and oversight of the program and shall establish appropriate stakeholder feedback, coordination, and governance structures based on this consultation.
125. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company and Southern California Gas Company shall serve their 2013-2014 applications for statewide marketing, education, and outreach for demand-side resources, including energy efficiency, demand response, distributed generation, and electric energy storage to the relevant service lists, including: Rulemaking (R.) 07-01-041, R.10-05-004, R.10-12-007, R.08-12-009, R.09-11-014, and Application 11-03-001 et al.
126. The January 31, 2012 Assigned Commissioner's Ruling (ACR) on the use of statewide marketing and outreach funds to support the Energy Upgrade California web portal in 2012 is affirmed, with the clarification that San Diego Gas & Electric Company is authorized to utilize the most expeditious contractual path to ensure that the web portal is maintained and upgraded as otherwise required in the January 31, 2012 ACR.
127. The web portal content from Engage 360, including the rebate finder and any other useful content, shall be fully migrated to the Energy Upgrade California web portal, with the Engage 360 web portal decommissioned, by no later than the end of 2013.
128. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall continue their benchmarking activities in 2013-2014.
129. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall revise their existing Integrated Demand-Side Management Program Implementation Plans for the 2013-2014 transition portfolio, and shall include a clear plan to obtain input from stakeholders and experts on each of the eight tasks identified in Decision 09-090-47.
130. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall include in their revised Integrated Demand-Side Management Program Implementation Plans a detailed accounting of the Integrated Demand-Side Management pilot programs and projects.
131. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall work with Commission Staff to ensure that an adequate level of detail is provided in their reports on Integrated Demand-Side Management pilot efforts.
132. Commission Staff shall continue to monitor and provide input into the audit tool development processes of Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company, to ensure that these products are designed in a reasonable manner and timeframe.
133. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall include in their revised Integrated Demand-Side Management Program Implementation Plan a clear plan to pursue integrated marketing in the 2013-2014 program cycles.
134. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall include data collection plans in their revised Integrated Demand-Side Management Program Implementation Plan in the 2013-2014 portfolio applications that:
a. Consider current reporting expectations for each of the Demand-Side Management strategies;
b. Identify the common information that is currently collected for Demand-Side Management resources; and
c. Propose a strategy for reporting integrated Demand-Side Management information.
135. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall include the demand response, distributed generation, and Advanced Metering Initiative portions of their Integrated Demand Side Management-related costs in the Integrated Demand-Side Management budget requests included in their 2013-2014 applications, with justification for why funding should be continued.
136. The 2013-2014 applications of Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company, including their proposals and funding requests for demand-side resource integration activities, shall be served on parties in the other relevant energy efficiency proceedings.
137. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall propose to continue to support the Continuous Energy Improvement program in their 2013-2014 portfolios and shall include a Continuous Energy Improvement Program Implementation Plan in their 2013-2014 applications.
138. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall include strategies in their 2013-2014 applications to actively engage workforce education and training sector strategy efforts.
139. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall propose expansion of the Continuous Energy Improvement pilot scope to include mid-sized non-residential customers in the 2013-2014 portfolios in the revised Program Implementation Plans they submit with their 2013-2014 applications.
140. Once early Continuous Energy Improvement evaluation findings become available, Continuous Energy Improvement Program Implementation Plans shall be revised to describe how the program will be modified mid-cycle in consideration of these findings.
141. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall make appropriate adjustments to their participation and incentive calculation rules and update their ex ante value calculations in response to codes and standards changes.
142. Commission Staff shall prepare and release a plan for Database of Energy Efficient Resources (DEER) updates that covers the anticipated mid-cycle codes and standard changes and a subsequent DEER updates to be used for planning portfolios 2015 and beyond.
143. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall utilize Database for Energy Efficient Resources (DEER) assumptions, methods, and data in the development of non-DEER values whenever appropriate, and shall follow Commission Staff direction relating to the determination of appropriate application of DEER to non-DEER values.
144. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company, when adding new measures to their portfolios, shall (1) utilize due diligence when developing the proposed ex ante values such that those new ex ante values represent the expected electricity and natural gas savings, costs, and lifetime of the measure; (2) undertake research, in collaboration with Commission Staff, as required, to establish reasonable expected values; and (3) pilot promising new technologies and utilize the results of research undertaken during the piloting period to improve the ex ante values. Commission Staff shall allow new additions to be utilized in the portfolio prior to all necessary research being completed, when appropriate, by approving interim ex ante values.
145. Commission Staff shall review the processes used to derive ex ante values in other jurisdictions and make recommendations for improvements to the Commission's process for consideration prior to beginning the ex ante update for the post-2014 cycle.
146. The custom ex ante review process adopted in Decision 11-07-030 shall continue in the 2013-2014 transition portfolios.
147. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall ensure that custom measure and project calculation tools or methods are consistent with the adopted Database of Energy Efficient Resources values and assumptions as applicable.
148. Commission Staff shall develop directions for Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company to follow for individual custom projects, which may span the 2010-2012 and 2013-2014 program cycles.
149. Commission Staff shall assign, at its discretion, Net-to-Gross (net of free ridership) values as part of its ex ante project reviews process.
150. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall make programmatic changes to their custom programs per the recommendations and findings in recent evaluation studies.
151. Commission Staff shall, with input from Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, Southern California Gas Company, and other parties, develop recommendations on:
a. Whether it is appropriate to replace the regulation, code, or standard baseline with a typical installation baseline for use in calculating energy savings;
b. Under what circumstances and based upon what kind of evidence such a change could be made;
c. If the change to a typical installation baseline is made, how the baseline parameters should be established for use in setting ex ante values; and
d. Assuming the above change, what are the time and budget implications for both Commission Staff and utilities for both ex ante and ex post savings development.
152. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall identify and recommend ways to aid or support code enforcement activities through their energy efficiency program activities.
153. Commission Staff shall work with the parties to develop proposals for "rolling portfolio cycles" and/or "evergreen programs" for possible implementation in the post-2014 period.
Evaluation
154. Commission Staff, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall continue collaborative efforts to gather input and share information on evaluation findings.
155. Information from the evaluation activities shall be made available to Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, Southern California Gas Company, and interested stakeholders as it becomes available.
156. Information emerging from the evaluations shall be used to refine and improve programs on an on-going basis, and/or shall be available to assist in portfolio design decisions and revising frozen ex ante savings parameters for the next program cycle.
157. In their 2013-2014 applications, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall propose funding for evaluation activities at four percent of the total proposed portfolio budget.
158. In their 2013-2014 applications, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall propose that the distribution of the Evaluation budget between them and Commission Staff shall remain at 27.5% and 72.5%, respectively.
159. Commission Staff shall recommend adoption of Market Transformation Indicators for the balance of the 2010 portfolio and for the 2013-2014 portfolio.
160. Commission Staff shall establish an evaluation Project Coordination Group whose primary function will be to review, deliberate, and provide feedback on proposals of Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company for changing the Market Transformation Indicators to be adopted in an upcoming Ruling.
Next Steps
161. If mid-cycle changes to Market Transformation Indicators are deemed necessary, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall submit Tier 1 Advice Letters articulating the changes.
162. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall identify in their 2013-2014 applications, proposals for programs or initiatives that have been designed to accomplish "market transformation."
163. In their 2013-2014 applications, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall include a line item in their proposed budgets for meeting the requirements for compliance with standardized tracking data submittals in a manner consistent with guidance provided by Commission Staff.
164. The 2013-2014 applications and supporting documentation of Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall follow a common format.
165. To support the summary budget and cost-effectiveness tables required herein, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall make a detailed cost-effectiveness showing that provides information on the energy savings assumptions and costs that were used to derive the values in the summary tables.
166. In their 2013-2014 applications, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall supply supporting documentation on the assumptions used to develop the contents of their cost-effectiveness calculator submission to facilitate review by Commission Staff and parties.
167. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall include proposals in their 2013-2014 applications to potentially utilize Programs Advisory Groups as a consultative resource for mid-cycle program changes or additions for post-2014 portfolio planning.
168. The Executive Director shall cause this decision to be served on the service lists of: Rulemaking (R.) 07-01-041, R.10-12-007, R.10-05-004, R.08-12-009, and Application 11-03-001 et al.
169. The motions for party status of the California Building Performance Contractors Association, NRG Answers, Switch Lighting Company, and Simple Energy, Inc. are granted.
170. All other motions outstanding in this proceeding as of the date of this decision and not specifically mentioned in this decision are denied.
171. In their 2013-2014 applications, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company may each file, in addition to a portfolio of energy efficiency programs that is compliant with all of the foregoing ordering paragraphs, one additional alternative energy efficiency program portfolio proposal. Should a utility elect this option, it shall consult with the other utilities to develop a consistent approach across all utilities, to the extent feasible, to the definition of a second scenario. Each utility's application shall include (a) a full cost-effectiveness analysis of the second scenario portfolio, (b) a detailed explanation of the extent to which the additional portfolio does or does not comply with any of the foregoing ordering paragraphs, (c) an itemized summary of the differences between the two portfolios, and (d) a detailed discussion of the rationale for each area in which the two portfolios differ.
This order is effective today.
Dated May 10, 2012, at Fresno, California.
MICHAEL R. PEEVEY
President
TIMOTHY ALAN SIMON
MICHEL PETER FLORIO
CATHERINE J.K. SANDOVAL
MARK J. FERRON
Commissioners
I reserve the right to file a concurrence.
/s/ MICHAEL R. PEEVEY
President
I reserve the right to file a concurrence.
/s/ TIMOTHY ALAN SIMON
Commissioner
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Summary of Changes to Database for Energy Efficiency Resources 2011
A. Summary of changes to the draft DEER2011 Update proposed by the DEER team in response to party comments.
SCE514
1. Description of Issue: The reduction in baseline wattage for linear fluorescent fixtures due to the phasing out of older magnetic ballasts does not take in to account the significant existing stocks of these older ballasts. Similarly, the change to calculation of RUL based on lamp life, instead of ballast life that has been historically used, also does not consider significant stocks of older magnetic ballasts.
DEER team proposed disposition of Issue:
As discussed in Appendix A-1 of the "DEER Database: 2011 Update Documentation", older or standard magnetic ballasts have been prohibited for commercial applications since 1990. Any standard magnetic ballast still in service in 2013 or later would have been in service for almost twice its expected life in typical applications. The DEER team does not consider the EUL of such ballast as a reasonable choice for the basis of the DEER default RUL of one-third the EUL.
The revised RUL is based on revisions to federal and state standards that prohibit the shipment of the most commonly applied T12 lamps by July 2012. Since T8 lamps require the use of electronic ballasts, the DEER team believes it is reasonable to revise the RUL to be based on lamp life, which is shorter than ballast life, since, as lamps burn out, both ballast and lamp will need to be upgraded to more efficient equipment. The DEER team also subtracted a year from the RUL calculated based on lamp life to account for the 2013 effective date of DEER and the likelihood that the removed lamps will have been in service for approximately one year. However, the DEER team acknowledges that some customers may have older lamps in storage, which means the one year reduction in RUL would not be applicable.
Based upon the above discussion, the DEER team proposes to revise the RUL to be based solely on the nominal lamp life of T12 lamps without subtraction of one year using the formula below as revised from the draft documentation.
RUL = 20,000 hr lamp life / bldg EFLH / 3.
2. Description of Issue: SCE is concerned that the development of the lighting profiles developed for residential CFL savings estimates may contain problems related to installation analysis and the use of a sinusoid annualization.
DEER team proposed disposition of Issue:
It is important to note that the CFL installation and operations analysis described in the "DEER Database: 2011 Update Documentation" was only utilized to develop updated annual operating hours for residential CFLs. Utilizing the sinusoidal annualization resulted in slightly higher annual operating hours than not utilizing that approximation. However, when the DEER team examined the CFL usage profiles from the 06-08 residential upstream lighting evaluation lighting logger data those use profiles were found to be similar to those developed for DEER 2008. Therefore, the usage shapes and resultant interactive effects factors from 2008 were retained, and only annual operating hours and coincident demand factors have been updated. The DEER team shares IOU concerns about the development of revised usage profiles and intends to further analyze the 2006-2008 upstream CFL data for the next DEER update.
Based upon the above discussion, the DEER team does not propose any changes at this time in response to the comment; however the issue of updating the residential lighting use profiles using recent metering results will be reconsidered for the next DEER update.
3. Description of Issue: The calculation of coincident factor in Appendix A-2-3 appears to not align with the DEER peak demand definition.
DEER team proposed disposition of Issue:
The lighting analysis described in Appendix A-2 of the "DEER Database: 2011 Update Documentation" was not used to revise the unit energy savings (UES) values for nonresidential lighting measures contained in the 2011 DEER Update. As further background, the logger research described in Appendix A-2 resulted in developing individual profiles for each day of the week. While the DEER definition is based on the three day average (or nine total hours), the analysis in Appendix A-2 averages all five weekdays (or fifteen total hours) since it cannot be known on which the DEER peak demand period falls.
Based upon the above discussion, the DEER team does not propose any changes at this time in response to the comment; however the update of non-residential lighting energy savings parameters utilizing recent metering results, upon which Appendix A-2 is based, will be reconsidered for the next DEER update.
4. Description of Issue: The modeling of residential "foliage" appears to be inconsistent across climate zones.
DEER team proposed disposition of Issue:
The calibration process for the residential DEER models uses both thermostat schedules and shading of overall solar gain as variable parameters to create models that match heating and cooling annual energy use targets. The target UEC values vary by climate zone, building type and building vintage and thus the thermostat and solar shading schedules vary by these same parameters. The heating and cooling target values have not been updated since the DEER2008 update.
Only the hottest climate zone (CZ15) required modifications to the default shading schedule; the shading is effectively increased to lower cooling energy requirements. The shading schedules have not changed for the DEER2011 update relative to the DEER2008 values.
Based upon the above discussion, the DEER team does not propose any changes at this time in response to the comment; however the calibration of residential heating and cooling energy use to updated target values will be reconsidered for the next DEER update.
5. Description of Issue: Large package air conditioner measures (>= 760 kBtuh) appear to have the incorrect efficiency specified for the code baseline.
DEER team proposed disposition of Issue:
This issue was identified and documented by the DEER team on 12/5/2011 and will be fixed in the update. The Code/Standard Technology for some HVAC measures incorrectly describes the 2005 Title-24 code required technologies instead of the 2008 Title-24 code required technologies. The associated energy impacts are correct, only the code technology descriptions are incorrect. The table below provides details of the corrections incorporated into the DEER2011 Update in response to this issue and comment.
6. Description of Issue: The absence of specialty building types with long operating hours limits the use of DEER to typical buildings and forces specialty buildings to have workpapers or be handled via a custom measure.
DEER team proposed disposition of Issue:
At this time only the building types available in DEER may be used for non-DEER workpaper values. does allow the use of the current DEER building types to represent other non-DEER buildings types. However, there is no existing EM&V data to support the claim that the typical building types in DEER should have longer operating hours. However, the utilities may utilize a customized calculation approach in situations where it is desired to use site specific parameters to develop energy savings estimates. The customized approach should be utilized for activities that target a building with operating parameters that are substantially different than the DEER assumptions. However, it is expected that in these cases there will be a M&V plan for measurement activities to support the operating hour claims during the custom project review process.
Based upon the above discussion, the DEER team does not propose any changes at this time in response to the comment.
7. Description of Issue: A small food store building type should be added.
DEER team proposed disposition of Issue:
The DEER team agrees that additional building types should be considered for future updates. At this time, however, only the building types available in DEER may be used. Commission Staff does allow the use of current DEER building types to represent other non-DEER buildings types. For the specific case of small food store, it is acceptable to use the DEER Grocery Store building or to use a mixture of building types such as Grocery Store and Small Retail. The utilities may propose equivalent relationships between DEER and non-DEER buildings through the workpaper process. Commission Staff has approved utility proposed relationships in several existing utility workpapers.
The DEER team has added a customized building type weight feature to the READI tool to accommodate the utilities desire to utilize a combination of existing DEER building types to represent a typical composite building type within their program activities. The weights used to create a new building type will be subject to review by Commission Staff; once approved, the new weighted building type will be incorporated into the DEER database and the associated energy impacts will be able to be referenced as DEER impacts.
8. Description of Issue: The draft DEER does not address measures that are known to be missing from older versions of DEER such as exterior lighting.
DEER team proposed disposition of Issue:
The DEER team has updated the values for residential exterior CFL lighting in the DEER2011 update. There are currently no values for other types of exterior lighting. The utilities must propose values for other types of residential or all non-residential exterior lighting via the submission of non-DEER workpapers.
9. Description of Issue: Updated measure load shapes referenced in the Technology Group Sections should be verified and/or adjusted with metering data planned with EM&V work. Alternatively, load shapes could be simplified to reduce mismatches.
DEER team proposed disposition of Issue:
The term "load shape" was mistakenly used in Section 4 of the "DEER Database: 2011 Update Documentation" to refer to the usage profiles of luminaires and screw-in CFLs. The DEER team intends the term "load shape" to represent the normalized hourly impact of a measure. The DEER team has revised the DEER documentation accordingly.
Using the DEER2011 Update impact modeling results, the DEER team has augmented the impact profiles (load shapes) for the following measure cases:
i. Residential central HP
ii. Commercial packaged and split HP
iii. Residential clothes washer and dishwasher
iv. Residential building shell
Using the DEER2011 Update impact modeling results, the DEER team has augmented the impact profiles (load shapes) for the following measure cases:
v. Residential indoor lighting
vi. Residential refrigerator/freezer, indoors
vii. Residential refrigerator/freezer, outdoors
viii. Residential duct sealing
ix. Residential refrigerant charge
x. Residential refrigerant charge + duct sealing
xi. Commercial CFL indoor lighting
xii. Commercial non-CFL indoor lighting
xiii. Commercial chillers
xiv. Commercial split/packaged AC, high efficiency
xv. Commercial split/packaged AC, refrigerant charge
xvi. Commercial split/packaged AC, duct sealing
The DEER team has posted the above listed DEER2011 load shapes on the DEER website DEER2011 for 13-14 page515. These load shapes will also be included into the 2013-2014 E3 cost effectiveness calculators made available for use by the utilities in their application filings.
10. Description of Issue: The draft DEER does not include a method for utilizing standardized lighting savings methodologies for technologies not included in the current draft.
DEER team proposed disposition of Issue:
In response to this comment and request from the utilities, the DEER team has augmented the DEER2011 database and the READI tool to allow DEER lighting savings methodologies to be utilized to calculate savings for technology combinations (measures) not included in the standard set of DEER measures. This new feature can also be utilized in conjunction with the customized weighting feature described earlier. The technologies used to create a new lighting measure will be subject to review by Commission Staff; once approved, the new lighting measure will be incorporated into the DEER database and the associated energy impacts will be able to be referenced as DEER impacts. This new features is described in more detail below.
The energy impacts associated with all DEER2011 lighting measures are scaled based on a single set of energy impacts for each lighting category. The lighting categories are:
i. Commercial indoor general lighting, including linear fluorescent and HID fixtures
ii. Commercial indoor CFL general lighting
iii. Commercial exit lighting
iv. Residential indoor general lighting
v. Residential outdoor lighting
Direct energy and demand impacts (the impacts due to the lighting end-use change only, excluding HVAC interactive effects) for each category vary by building type, building vintage (new, existing, or specific vintage years) and building location. HVAC interactive effects are applied to these direct energy impacts to determine the basis for whole-building energy impacts.
The DEER2011 READI database interface tool provides a means to create new lighting measures based on the existing sets of scalable energy impacts (listed above) combined with the appropriate HVAC interactive effects factors. A proposed new measure definition references a proposed-for-installation lighting technology along with a code baseline lighting technology, and in the case of early retirement, a pre-existing lighting technology. This new measure definition will then be applied to the standard DEER energy impacts and HVAC interactive effects to create a proposed "customized" DEER set of energy impacts. Upon review and approval by Commission Staff, a new "custom" DEER measures, based on the adopted DEER method, will be incorporated in the standard measure list and will be able to be referenced as a DEER measure.
The DEER2011 READI database interface tool also allows for weighting the energy impacts associated with existing building types together to create a new set of energy impacts for the custom weighted building type. The weights used to create the new building type will be subject to review by Commission Staff; once approved, the new weighted building type will be incorporated into the DEER database and the associated energy impacts will be able to be referenced as DEER impacts.
Integral LED lamp technologies present a particular challenge for determining ex ante savings in that the READI tool does not include applicable wattage reduction ratios for these technologies. The DEER team is also concerned that the annual operating hours values currently in DEER (either non-CFL or CFL) may not be representative of operating hours for installed integral LED lamps. At this time Commission Staff is reviewing utility 2010-2012 phase 2 workpaper submissions for LED technologies which include proposals for wattage reduction relationships as well as annual hours of use. Commission Staff is working with the utilities to develop acceptable workpaper values for integral LED technologies. Once approved these workpapers shall apply until these technologies are incorporated into the READI database interface tool via the new measure technology feature described above or are added into the DEER database in the next DEER update.
11. Description of Issue: Additional specifications for commercial dX cooling equipment should be added for small units with SEER > 14 and large units with EER > 12.
DEER team proposed disposition of Issue:
Technologies representing the higher SEER units have not yet been added for the DEER2011 Update. The DEER team will work with the IOUs to develop a workpaper that includes estimation methods for SEER rated units that meet the latest CEE specifications. Once approved by Commission Staff, these values will be utilized until the next DEER update. The DEER team will address additions needed for the latest CEE specification in the next DEER update.
12. Description of Issue: DEER should be subject to some type of "open-book" sensitivity testing of results. Regression approaches should be used to develop savings which would produce more accurate results compared to simulation outputs for every combination of measure, building type, building vintage and climate zone.
DEER team proposed disposition of Issue:
The DEER team does not propose any changes at this time in response to the comment; however the DEER team will seek input from parties to determine where and when to use a particular analysis approach from the range of available techniques and to choose approaches that make the most sense given the weight of evidence and requirements for a particular measure or program activity.
PG&E516
1. Description of Issue: Clarify the correct table of interactive effects and operating hours to be used for non-DEER lighting measures
DEER team proposed disposition of Issue:
This issue is addressing a workbook of Lighting HVAC interactive effects that included a reference to an outdated residential lighting hours-of-use. Though this reference did not affect the HVAC interactive effects values contained in the workbook, the workbook was re-published with the corrected lighting hours-of-use on 12-13-2011 and the link provided on the "DEER2011 for 13-14" page of DEEResources.com. ( http://deeresources.com/DEER2011/download/LightingHVACInteractiveEffects_13Dec2011.xls) Note that the final tables of DEER Lighting HVAC interactive effects will be impacted by the disposition of NRDC issue #2 below, such that the spreadsheet listed here will be superseded by the final DEER2011 Update version of HVAC interactive effects factors.
2. Description of Issue: Clarify which interactive effects should be used for LED lighting measures
DEER team proposed disposition of Issue:
The DEER HVAC interactive effects tables contain interactive effects factors based on IOU, building type, building location, building vintage and lighting type. The lighting types are:
· Non-CFL (for commercial buildings only)
· Exit fixtures (for commercial buildings only)
· CFL (for both commercial and residential building types)
All LED lighting measures that replace existing incandescent or CFL fixtures are to use the HVAC interactive effects for the CFL lighting type.
All LED lighting measures that replace linear fluorescent or HID lighting fixtures are to use the HVAC interactive effects for the Non-CFL lighting type.
All LED lighting measures that replace existing Exit fixtures are to use the HVAC interactive effects for the Exit Fixture lighting type.
3. Description of Issue: DEER should specify that the Code/Standard Field value for a lighting measure be used as a base case for a Replace On Burnout/NEW measure
DEER team proposed disposition of Issue:
The DEER2011 database includes measures that can be utilized for the following measure application types: replace on burnout (ROB) and normal replacement (NR) with both these cases usually referred to as the ROB case; new construction (NC) and capacity expansion (CE) with both these cases referred to as the NC case; early retirement (ER); and early retirement for RUL period only (ERRUL). In the READI database interface tool the "supported applications" field for a measure specifies the cases for which energy impacts are available for the measure. Measures that support ROB, NC, and ER application types have impacts for the above code or above standard practice case. Measures that support ER and ERRUL application types have impacts for the above pre-existing case. The above pre-existing impacts apply for the RUL period and the above code or above standard practice impacts apply to the post RUL period. Measures that only support the ERRUL only have impacts for the above pre-existing case since these measures just meet code or standard practice thus do not have savings that can be claimed in the post-RUL period. For ROB and NC measures the above code or above standard practice impacts apply to the entire EUL.
The DEER team, during the investigations related to this comment, noticed that some measures did not have the proper "supported applications" field setting and additionally some measures did not have the required impacts for the above code or above standard practice case. These issues have been corrected and database revisions have been made to include code baselines as described below by lighting technology class.
· There is a group of linear fluorescent and HID measures in the DEER2011 database where measure and code technologies are identical. These measures were incorrectly identified in the database as "New Construction" and "Replace on Burnout" measures. The DEER team has revised and correctly identified these measures as "Early Retirement" with savings only for the RUL period. In addition, T5 lamp measures which had negative above-code savings have been revised to remove the negative savings by correctly setting the code base equal to the measure.
· Exit signs in the DEER2011 database did not have code baselines. Exit signs have been covered by federal standards since January 1, 2006, therefore the DEER team added code baselines for all exit sign measures. These measures have been revised to specify the support of "Early Retirement", "New Construction" and "Replace on Burnout" measure application types.
· Some linear fluorescent and HID measures in the DEER2011 database were missing code baselines. The DEER team has added code baselines that are consistent with federal and state (Title 20 and Title 24) standards for these measures.
· There are some 4 foot linear fluorescent, 8 foot linear fluorescent and HID fixtures that do not have federal or state code requirements governing the efficiency of the fixture components. Examples are 3-lamp linear fluorescent ballasts, very high output (VHO) linear fluorescent lamps, and metal halide fixtures less than 150 watts. The DEER team has established code baselines for these fixtures using the same criteria as other covered fixtures.
Note that screw-in CFLs and pin-based CFL fixture retrofits are not covered by code at this time so no code baseline was assigned to these lighting technologies in the DEER2011 update. Additionally, with the exception of Exit Signs, LED technologies are not included in the DEER2011 update. The DEER team expects to more closely examine the appropriate baseline to use for these technologies under alternative installation circumstances during the next DEER update process to identify if alternate "supported applications" should be implemented for these technologies.
The DEER2011 READI database interface tool has been revised to allow the development of custom lighting measures as described under SCE item 10 above. Each lighting technology available to use in describing a new measure will include references to an appropriate code baseline technology to be used in both ROB and NC measure cases. Additionally, for early retirement measures, the existing technology case shall be used for the RUL period while the code baseline case shall be used for the period following the RUL.
4. Description of Issue: DEER needs to specify what value should be used as a base case for a working measure that is retired before it burns out when the life of the measure has exceeded the Remaining Useful Life (RUL) period.
DEER team proposed disposition of Issue:
There are two issues here: first, if equipment retired before it burns out fits the CPUC definition of equipment eligible to be treated, for utilities savings claims purposes, under the early retirement (ER) rules; and second, what savings values to utilize during the early retirement or accelerated retirement (RUL) period.
Not all equipment retired before it burns out is eligible for consideration to be treated as a program induced early retirement. Sometimes, as in the case of new construction, the early retirement baseline is not an option. However, when early retirement is an option the evidence that supports program induced early retirement must be weighed against the evidence supporting a replace-on-burnout or normal replacement baseline or new construction choice. It is necessary to establish that a preponderance of evidence indicates the program has induced the replacement rather than merely caused an increase in efficiency in a replacement that would have occurred in the absence of the program. Once the preponderance of evidence review has established that the program caused the existing equipment to be replaced earlier than would have happened in the absence of the program, there is a need to establish the period of accelerated retirement. DEER contains values for the effective useful life (EUL) for many technologies and recommends using one-third of the EUL as the remaining useful life (RUL) until further study results are available to establish more accurate values. For the case of program induced early retirement, the RUL of the existing equipment should be used as the starting assumption for the period of accelerated retirement.
As noted in the PG&E item 3 above, the DEER2011 database includes measures that can be utilized for the early retirement (ER) and early retirement for RUL period only (ERRUL) cases. Measures that apply for the ER case must have impacts for the above pre-existing case as well as the above code or above standard practice case; the above pre-existing impacts apply for the RUL period and the above code or above standard practice impacts apply to the post RUL period. Measures that apply for the ERRUL only have impacts for the above pre-existing case since these measures just meet code or standard practice thus does not have savings that can be claimed in the post-RUL period.
5. Description of Issue: DEER (or this update) should specify which CDF value should be used when there is no climate zone and vintage variation.
DEER team proposed disposition of Issue:
The exact nature of this issue is ambiguous, so the DEER team provides three alternate directions to be followed in the appropriate cases as described below.
For the case where the whole-building energy impacts for a DEER measure have no climate zone or vintage variation, there will be only one CDF per building type. In this case the location and building vintage will be listed as "any" in the DEER2011 database. As an example, this is the case for residential outdoor lighting measures in DEER.
For the case where the direct energy impacts (end-use impacts not including the HVAC interactive effects) for a DEER lighting measure have no climate zone or vintage variation, whole-building impacts are accounted for via the DEER Lighting HVAC interactive effects tables. The whole building impact including HVAC interactive effects have location (climate) and building vintage variation. If the location and vintage information are know that information should be used to select the correct HVAC interactive effects factors to apply to the direct end-use impact when calculating the whole building energy impacts. For the situations where the climate zone location or building vintage is not known, the climate zone and/or vintage weighted HVAC demand interactive-effects values can be used. The DEER Lighting HVAC interactive effects tables and DEER2011 database impact tables include a location entry for overall "utility service territory" (the "IOU" location) and for a weighted "Existing" vintage (the "Ex" building vintage). The demand factors based on these selections can be used when the location or vintage is not known.
For custom measures and projects the DEER methods for calculating CDF and HVAC interactive effects are to be utilized. When possible and appropriate, based on similarity of a DEER measure to the custom measure or project, DEER values shall be used. As discussed in SCE item 10 above, the READI database interface tool has capabilities to develop new lighting measures as well as customized weighted building types and measures. Custom lighting measures and projects shall utilize these DEER methods and values to the extent possible. When an appropriate DEER values is not available, the DEER methods shall be utilized to the extent possible. The DEER definition for peak demand savings applies to all deemed and custom measures and projects. DEER CDF values should be used as appropriate, however, the DEER peak demand savings definition can be utilized directly when sufficient site metered data for a custom measure or project is available to accurately estimate the demand reduction during the DEER defined demand period using the DEER peak demand calculation method.
The DEER demand impact is defined as the average demand impact, for an installed measure, as would be "seen" at the electric grid level, averaged over the nine hours, between 2PM and 5PM, during the three consecutive weekday period which contains the highest average temperature during the 12PM to 6PM period for those three days. For analysis using the CEC adopted Title 24 weather files, which are used as the DEER reference weather files, the dates that correspond to this definition, are provided in the DEER documentation. DEER methods utilize the kWh consumed during each hour as representing the average demand for that hour. The DEER method than calculates the average of the nine average demand values for the defined peak period hours. When the peak electric demand savings for a custom measure or project is being determined based upon metering during current weather conditions, the metered data would need to be projected into the DEER reference weather files or the metered data would need to be collected during a period which represents the equivalent conditions as the DEER peak definition. A current weather period which represents the equivalent conditions as the DEER peak definition period may not be the same dates as for the DEER reference files.
6. Description of Issue: Since interior residential lighting hours of operation changed, DEER needs to specify what interactive effects should be used to calculate non-DEER residential lighting work papers.
DEER team proposed disposition of Issue:
The DEER team evaluated how the HVAC interactive effects would change based on the new residential lighting impacts hours-of-use. Since the normalized profile of usage did not change significantly, the ratio of whole-building impact to direct impacts (that are referred to as the HVAC interactive effect factors) did not change significantly. For the DEER2011 update, the residential lighting interactive effects have not changed based on lighting hours-of-use.
Note that the final tables of DEER Lighting HVAC interactive effects have been impacted by the disposition of NRDC issue #2 below.
7. Description of Issue: For commercial HVAC equipment, the savings impact for package/split AC and HP units still reference EER and does not reflect IEER for part-load operations. DEER should list savings impacts referenced to IEER for this equipment.
DEER team proposed disposition of Issue:
DEER values for 2013-2014 shall be based on EER as in previous versions. Additionally, the code baseline shall be based on EER ratings. The DEER team will investigate the development of savings estimates based on IEER for the next DEER update. The utilities may propose, via the non-DEER workpaper process, methods to map between IEER and DEER EER based values for use prior to the time DEER includes IEER based values.
8. Description of Issue: For residential HVAC equipment, PG&E recommends the SEER and EER combination for split system AC be revisited and updated. The EER rating of 11.61 for the 16 SEER units appears low. According to AHRI, there are over 6,000 units with 16 SEER and 12 EER combinations. This 11.61 EER and 16 SEER do not match the CEE specifications. The EER and SEER for AC should align with the Heatpump unit (index# 216) which is 12.06 EER and 16 SEER.
DEER team proposed disposition of Issue:
The DEER team will work with the IOUs to develop a workpaper that includes estimation methods for SEER rated units that meet the latest CEE specifications. Once approved by Commission Staff, these values will be utilized until the next DEER update.
9. Description of Issue: The whole house fan measure is omitted from this version of DEER. PG&E recommends it be added back into DEER.
DEER team proposed disposition of Issue:
This measure was included in the DEER2011 database, but was not viewable via the DEER2011 READI database interface tool due to an incorrect label in the Technology Type classification table. This issue has been fixed and the whole house fan measure now appears under the "HVAC - Ventilation and Air Distribution" use category and the "HVAC Technology - Whole House Fan" technology type.
10. Description of Issue: The Evaporative Cooler measure (direct, indirect, direct/indirect) impacts on the gas side seem exponentially high. Input parameters used in the Quest DEER modeling should be revisited.
DEER team proposed disposition of Issue:
This measure was not updated from DEER2005. The DEER team investigated the simulation methods and software used to develop the 2005 savings estimates and identified issues that are believed to have caused the therm savings results to be incorrectly estimated. Additionally, some of the 2005 DEER building models for the evaporative cooler measure were re-analyzed using the DEER2011 software that includes improvements to the evaporative cooler operations, and the results the re-analysis showed that negative gas impacts were near zero.
Based upon the above discussion, the DEER team proposes the continued use the existing kWh and kW impacts with the gas impacts set to zero. The DEER2011 database has been updated to reflect this change. This measure shall be updated with the next version of DEER.
11. Description of Issue: For the thermostat measure the hotter climate zones (central valley) have huge negative savings impacts on both the kWh and therm savings. PG&E recommends this anomaly be reviewed.
DEER team proposed disposition of Issue:
The DEER2011 energy impacts for this measure are carried over from the DEER 2005 energy impacts and were put out for review at that time. The energy impacts are based on the SCE paper "Programmable Thermostats Installed into Residential Buildings: Predicting Energy Saving Using Occupant Behavior & Simulation". This paper describes the analysis of the programmable thermostat measure based on 2004 RASS data for reported thermostat use by occupants with manual thermostats and with programmable thermostats and detailed energy simulation based on the resulting thermostat schedules. No data have been presented to indicate that the basis for this measure needs to be updated. This measure will be reviewed again for the next update and if new information indicates that assumptions or inputs require updating those changes will be incorporated into the next update.
Based upon the above discussion, the DEER team does not propose any changes at this time in response to the comment; however the issue of updating the residential thermostat usage assumptions for both baseline calibration as well as the programmable thermostat measure using recent RASS and other survey results will be reconsidered for the next DEER update.
12. Description of Issue: The savings differ by Residential HVAC type for the clothes washer measures. If this is a whether dependent measure, DEER should specify how to weight this measure by HVAC system type.
DEER team proposed disposition of Issue:
Upon investigation, the DEER team discovered errors in the analysis of residential clothes washers such that domestic hot water (DHW) and dryer energy savings were significantly underestimated. The energy savings results for these measures have been updated to show correct DHW and dryer energy savings. In addition, the results for individual HVAC system types will be weighted based on published DEER HVAC weights to produce results for a "weighted" HVAC type.
13. Description of Issue: DEER should specify methodology for the appliance measures posted so that utilities can develop savings for other efficiency levels than those posted (e.g., clothes washers with MEF of 2.4).
DEER team proposed disposition of Issue:
Clothes washer efficiency measures require the identification of typical annual energy use values for washing machine energy, dryer machine and heating energy, and DHW energy (if any). These assumptions have been developed by the DEER team and included in the document "ENERGY_2007 Clothes Washers Workbook_4_final.xls". This document has been added to the DEER update website. The DEER team will work with IOUs to develop similar enduse values as well as overall energy savings estimates for higher efficiency clothes washers.
14. Description of Issue: DEER should specify the methodology for weighting residential HVAC systems together for each IOU service territory to simplify measure parameters.
DEER team proposed disposition of Issue:
The residential HVAC weights were developed as part of the non-DEER ex ante process for the 2010-2012 cycle. The documentation and derivation of the weights that was provided to IOUs during the ex ante review process, however, was not included into the DEER2011 documentation. The DEER team will take the following action to supply additional information and documentation:
a. The DEER2011 database will be augmented to include HVAC-weighted results for all measures that have impacts for multiple HVAC types.
b. The values used to weight HVAC system types will be added to the DEER database and will be accessible using an updated version of READI.
c. A workbook documenting how the database tables were developed will be published. (DEER2011-Weights-Development.xls)
d. The residential HVAC weights were published on Basecamp in the "2010 ED workbooks" project on 1-27-2011 (https://energydivision.basecamphq.com/projects/4484275/file/70967195/DEER2010-2012ResidentialImpacts%20v1_4.zip)
e. The commercial HVAC weights were published on Basecamp in the "2010 ED workbooks" project on 3-4-2010 (https://energydivision.basecamphq.com/projects/4484275/file/45436342/DEER%20Lighting%20Measure%20Workbook%20-%203Mar2010.zip)
SDG&E517
1. Description of Issue: Table ES-1 shows an increase in operating hours for residential interior operating hours, but a decrease of 32% in overall savings compared to 2008. This doesn't make sense given that wattage reduction in the current draft is only slightly less than the wattage reduction used in 2008.
DEER team proposed disposition of Issue:
This comment points out a typographical error in the "DEER Database: 2011 Update Documentation". The DEER teams has identified and corrected the following typographical errors to the "DEER Database: 2011 Update Documentation".
a. Page ES-2, Table ES1, first row; the hourly estimates for internal CFL as in the 2011 and 2008 columns were reversed.
b. Page ES-5; Table ES-5, last row, first column add the words "and Specialty" to the first cell in the measure columns. The cell should read " Residential Basic and Specialty CFL's"
c. Page 4-12, Table 4-12 Delta Watts CFLs - Commercial sector. The estimates in the column labeled "2008 Delta Watts" were inadvertently copied from column 4 "Pre Wattage". However, much of the information in this section was NOT utilized in the DEER2011 update; therefore all unused portions of this section have been removed.
d. Page 6-4, Table 6-1, Master Table of NTGR, column 4, NTGR in the 2008 DEER v2.05, all of the commercial and industrial values in this column should be corrected from 0.54 to 0.64.
e. Page 13-2,13-4 and 13-5, Tables 13-1, 13-4 and 13-5, The measure name in the first column is given as Residential Gas Storage/ Instantaneous Water heaters with EF >.62. This description should be replaced with the words "Residential Gas Storage Water Heaters with EF>.62 and EF<=0.65" in all three tables where this measure name is given to describe the characteristics of gas water heaters.
2. Description of Issue: The DEER documentation at ES-2 notes that EPACT will prohibit the shipment of most 4 foot and 8 foot T12 lamps as of July 14, 2012. SDG&E specifically asks "Does this mean that there will not be a dual baseline for these measures (T12 fixture retrofits) moving forward?" SDG&E also requests that specific RUL values for linear fluorescent measures be included in DEER.
DEER team proposed disposition of Issue:
See the same issue under SCE item 1 above.
3. Description of Issue: Please provide data and references for the energy savings factors (ESF) use in the calculation of savings for low flow showerheads and faucet aerators.
DEER team proposed disposition of Issue:
The DEER team proposes that these measures revert to non-DEER workpaper values that will be updated and submitted with the utilities 2013-2014 applications. All information on energy savings for these measures will be deleted from the DEER2011 Update database and documentation.
EnerNOC518
1. Description of Issue: Clarify the specific values for lighting hours and coincidence factors in non-residential buildings.
DEER team proposed disposition of Issue:
This comment seems to relate to SCE comment 1 above. Appendix A-2 of the "DEER Database: 2011 Update Documentation" was not used to revise the UES values for nonresidential lighting measures contained in the 2011 DEER Update. Refer to Appendix A-1 for all documentation on assumption and method changes that relate to non-residential lighting energy savings values.
2. Description of Issue: The draft DEER appears to be missing several specific building types. Clarify if this is an oversight or if these buildings fall into an "other" category.
DEER team proposed disposition of Issue:
See SCE comment 7 above. The utilities can propose, via the workpaper process, a new building type composed of multiple existing DEER building types. The READI tool can be used to weight up multiple DEER building type results into a new customized building type.
3. Description of Issue: Existing logger data (from 2006-2008 EM&V) used to develop proposed hours may not accurately reflect the number of lighting hours in most non-residential buildings.
DEER team proposed disposition of Issue:
See previous comment above. See also SCE comment 6 above.
TURN519
1. Description of Issue: TURN is concerned that non-residential lighting operating hours have not been updated, while the draft DEER documentation states that "the HOU [hours of use] values based on the 2006-2008 evaluations are lower for most building types than those in DEER 2008" which suggest that savings for non-residential lighting measures may be overstated.
DEER team proposed disposition of Issue:
The DEER team shares the concern that some of the non-residential lighting usage profiles, hours-of-use and peak coincidence factors may be causing over-estimates for some non-residential lighting measures in situations. Due to time limitations an update for these parameters was not able to be completed for this update. DEER lighting parameters for many non-residential buildings that represent common facilities of participants in the utilities programs were found to be in good agreement with the 2006-2008 evaluation results. Work will continue to analyze the 2006-2008 non-residential lighting data for input into the DEER update process.
Based upon the above discussion, the DEER team does not propose any changes at this time in response to the comment; however the issue of updating the non-residential lighting kWh, kW and therm values using recent metering results will be reconsidered for the next DEER update.
2. Description of Issue: The increase in operating hours for residential exterior CFLs is surprising, especially compared to the decrease (10% increase vs. 32 percent decrease) in operating hours for residential interior CFLs. TURN recommends continued investigation and update.
DEER team proposed disposition of Issue:
The DEER team shares the concern that some of the residential lighting usage profiles, hours-of-use and peak coincidence factors may require further examination to insure metering data anomalies are identified and corrected. However, at this time the values used for the DEER2011 Update are considered the best available information and the most appropriate to use.
Based upon the above discussion, the DEER team does not propose any changes at this time in response to the comment; however the issue of re-examining the residential lighting metering results to correct for any identified data anomalies will be considered for the next DEER update.
3. Description of Issue: For non-early retirement measures (such as replace on burnout and new construction), DEER assumes the basecase is a minimally code compliant technology "whereas it is entirely feasible that current standard practice exceed those standards." TURN recommends investigation of standard practice and that DEER code baselines be revised to standard practice baselines.
DEER team proposed disposition of Issue:
For new equipment choices that are subject to existing regulations, codes or standards, current policy (found in Appendix I of D.11-07-030 and updated in this decision) provides that the baseline equipment be determined by the regulation, code or standards requirements. There may be instances where there is sufficient evidence or documentation that the efficiency or energy use of equipment that meets the requirements of the regulation, code or standard does not well represent the efficiency or energy use of typical installed equipment. In those cases it may be appropriate to assign a baseline that better represents the typically installed equipment in place of equipment defined by the regulation, code or standards. There may also be cases when existing regulations, codes and standards are being ignored or circumvented. Thus it may be possible in some cases for the typical baseline performance to lead to higher energy use than would be seen if the regulation, code or standard was correctly followed or adequately enforced. However, at this time the DEER team does not have sufficient reliable quantitative evidence to recommend a change in DEER baseline assumptions.
Based upon the above discussion, the DEER team does not propose any changes at this time in response to the comment; however the issue of examining evidence that could support moving to a "market typical" baseline for selected measures will be examined during the next DEER update process.
NRDC520
1. Description of Issue: NRDC states that the proposed estimates of residential interactive effects are substantially higher than in other states.
DEER team proposed disposition of Issue:
When the assumptions behind the values used by these other programs are carefully evaluated, the differences can be explained.
Table 1.1 shows the State of Minnesota published HVAC interactive effects factors as calculated by the method of Rundquist521. The heating IE Factor in the Rundquist method is proportional to the Perimeter Fraction, which is the proportion of building floor area that lies within 15 feet of an exterior wall. The basis of this calculation is the assumption that the core of the building is in a cooling mode throughout the year, and only the perimeter will experience negative heating interactive effects (heating takeback). The residential building values published for Minnesota make the same building shape assumption as the commercial building, where in reality a residential building would have a much higher Perimeter Fraction. As shown by the alternate calculation in Table 1 the HVAC IE factor for a single family home according to the Rundquist method should be double the value of the commercial building. Moreover, the Rundquist method was developed 19 years ago using a commercial building energy model. The resulting high internal heat gains, the absence of duct heat loss and other factors make this resource questionable as a tool for estimating residential interactive effects, even when appropriate geometry adjustments are made.
Table 1 Minnesota Heating HVAC Interactive Effects Factors (Minnesota, 2012a and 2012b)
The Regional Technical Forum of the Northwest Power and Conservation Council has published a workbook describing energy savings for compact fluorescent lighting in residential buildings. One parameter listed in this workbook is the space heat interaction factor, which is given as 22%. This parameter is actually an electric-only impact for the entire market. Its calculation begins with the change in heating load per unit change in lighting energy for a single building. A factor of 47% is then applied to account for the fraction of heating in the market that is electric, and a divisor of 1.07 is applied to account for the average efficiency of an assumed mix of electric resistance and heat pump systems.
In the same workbook, the heating interactive effects factor for a single residence with gas-only heat is listed as -0.0295 Therms of gas per kWh of lighting savings, or 87% heating takeback. This falls right in line with the DEER factors listed in Table 22.
The Technical Reference User Manual of Efficiency Vermont (2010) indicates the use of the Rundquist method for determination of HVAC Interactive Effects. For residential buildings, the manual shows the fraction of hours in heating to be zero. No rationale is presented in the manual to explain why this was done.
2. Description of Issue: NRDC comments on the draft DEER2011 database state that residential HVAC interactive-effects for therms associated with lighting measures have increased from the previous reported values.
DEER team proposed disposition of Issue:
The residential HVAC interactive effects factors changed from the DEER2008 (version 2.05) database to the DEER2011 database due to the documented updates in the residential models and simulation tools. However, none of these updates were expected to cause the gas interactive effects (or "heating take-back") to increase.
The authors of the NRDC comments, in their Attachment B attempted to calculate residential HVAC interactive effects factors for the 2011 DEER release using what they term "DEER simulations". The details of these calculations are not revealed in Attachment B, but the results do not consistently match the actual DEER2011 HVAC interactive effects factors as published. As shown in Table 3 the heating IE Factors for a single family residence increase by less than 1% for existing buildings and decrease by about 5% for new construction.
Table 3 Trends in DEER HVAC Interactive Effects Factors for Single Family Residence
Investigation by the DEER team, while researching the NRDC comments, uncovered an error that caused the heating "take-back" for residential lighting measures to be over-estimated due to the inclusion of non-IOU heating fuel in the calculation. The DEER database and support workbooks will be updated with the correct residential HVAC interactive effects factors. Note: none of the results used as input to the HVAC IE factor calculations will change, but the process itself will be corrected to properly account for non-IOU heating fuel.
B. Summary of changes to the draft DEER2011 Update proposed by the DEER team identified during the investigation of party comments or directed by Commission Staff.
1. How issue was identified: SCE comments and Commission Staff direction
Description of Issue: There is false precision in the DEER energy impacts due to too many significant digits being reported in the DEER database and calculated results.
DEER team proposed disposition of Issue:
The DEER database interface has been modified to report results with 2 to 3 significant digits. All data written to CSV file (i.e. downloaded from the DEER database using READI) will have 3 significant figures; data shown as "DEER Energy Impact Values" within READI will have 3 significant figures. HVAC interactive effects values for kW and kWh will be rounded to two decimals, therm values will be rounded to two significant figures. Note: data stored in the DEER2011 database tables used to calculated measure impacts may retain a greater number of significant figures; all values reported as DEER energy impacts will follow the guidance described above.
2. How issue was identified: PG&E via direct email on 1-20-2012
Description of Issue: Lighting energy impacts for education buildings are not consistent with reported HVAC interaction factors and reported coincident demand factors.
DEER team proposed disposition of Issue:
An error was identified and documented on the DEER2011 FAQ on 12/14/2011 regarding the coincident demand impacts for education buildings. The DEER database will be updated with the correct coincident demand factors for all education buildings.
3. How issue was identified: DEER team review while investigating party comments
Description of Issue: The "existing vintage" energy impacts were calculated by weighting individual building vintage impacts together based on building stock data. This process did not properly account for the latest vintage (built after 2009), causing the reported existing vintage energy impacts to be approximately 2% too high. It was also noted that the energy impact values and the common units values used to normalize the energy impact values were weighted separately. The correct method to weight these values is to calculate the normalized impacts (simulated impacts divided by common units) before weighting the values. This error can cause the normalized weighted impacts to be 2-3% high or low.
DEER team proposed disposition of Issue:
The weighting process has been corrected and the existing vintage energy impacts have been recalculated based on the normalized vintage-specific results. The vintage-specific energy impacts will not be changed, only the process that weights the vintage-specific results into a single "Existing" vintage will be corrected. To accomplish this correction and recalculation all vintage values have been added into the database and the weighting process feature has been added into the READI tool. These additions to the database and the READI tool also enable the DEER team and the utilities to develop new weighted measures for DEER based upon existing DEER measures using customized weighting of those measures. This capability is further described elsewhere in this document.
4. How issue was identified: DEER team review while investigating party comments
Description of Issue: The profile for residential dishwasher measure is not the intended dishwasher profile, but is the same profile utilized for clothes washers.
DEER team proposed disposition of Issue:
The usage profile used for the residential dishwasher measures was replaced with an appropriate residential dishwasher usage profile. The DEER2011 database and documentation were updated with new results and descriptions. Note: direct energy impacts for the dishwasher and hot water heater associated with these measures will not change, only the HVAC interaction effects and the peak demand impacts are changed.
5. How issue was identified: Commission Staff review of party comments
Description of Issue: What NTG value should be used for custom measures and projects which include the installation of technologies providing both gas and electric savings.
DEER team proposed disposition of Issue:
This discussion applies to custom measures and projects which are implemented at a single site as well as planned and installed as a single project.
Custom measures and projects which are predominately electric technologies shall use the DEER NTG for custom electric technologies and that NTG shall also be applied to any gas savings that may result as an added benefit from that technology application. Similarly, custom measures and projects which are predominately natural gas technologies shall use the DEER NTG for the custom natural gas technologies and that NTG shall also be applied to any electric savings that may result as an added benefit from that technology application.
Measures and projects that contain a mix of electric and gas technologies shall have separate NTG values applied to their respective gas and electric savings. These measures or projects can be reported as separate gas and electric claims using the DEER NTG for the respective custom gas and electric technologies. Alternatively, these measures or projects can be reported as a single claim with separate electric and gas NTG values. These separate gas and electric NTG values shall be calculated using the DEER NTG for the respective custom gas and electric technology weighted up into composite gas and electric NTG values based upon the contribution to gas and electric savings for each measure relative to the total gas and electric savings or all measures. For the weighting calculation, electric savings from gas technologies shall utilize the gas technology NTG and gas savings from electric technologies shall use the electric technology NTG.
6. How issue was identified: Commission Staff review of party comments
Description of Issue: Should DEER NTG values for a single measure have common statewide values? For a single measure, should a single DEER NTG values be applied to kWh, kW, and therm savings and participant costs?
DEER team proposed disposition of Issue:
Following Commission direction the DEER team has made two adjustments, as described below, to the draft NTG value tables.
1) Statewide average NTG values are provided for measures installed using similar delivery approaches for which the variation in the IOU-specific NTG values is twenty percent or less. The statewide average values are calculated by weighting individual measure NTG values by its share in total energy savings.
2) Whenever possible, based upon the underlying NTG data availability, similar measures are mapped into individual DEER measure NTG table entries based up their predominate technologies being either gas or electric. For example, domestic water heaters will have separate measure specifications for natural gas burners versus electric resistance elements versus electric heat pump technologies. For electric technologies, the measure NTG shall be based upon the kWh NTG value unless the measure is predominately a demand reduction measure. A single NTG value will be provided for each measure NTG table entry and that NTG value shall be applied to the kWh, kw, therm savings and participant cost parameters for that measure when used in a utility claim for that measure.
Attachment B: HVAC Emergency Retrofit Protocol
This attachment contains the emergency repair guidelines for Participating Contractors in the Sacramento Municipal Utility District Home Performance Program. Work on a piece of malfunctioning equipment may start after the Participating Contractor submits a Jobs Reporting Template (JRT) with a completed Advanced (pre-retrofit) tab to California Building Performance Contractors Association through the Vision database522, regardless of the standard 72-hour pre-retrofit verification window, under the following conditions:
1. The repair must be considered an emergency: Repairs are considered an emergency when an HVAC system cannot operate properly or is non-functional, thus causing the homeowner to be very uncomfortable or distressed at a level that is unsafe and even hazardous.
Emergency repair items consist of the following:
d)Heating systems not working or critically malfunctioning
e)Cooling systems not working or critically malfunctioning
f)Significant holes in roofs/walls where the home cannot reach the required depressurization limits for blower door testing according to BPI-BA523 Technical Standards
2. A complete pre-retrofit assessment must be completed: Contractors must perform a full test-in assessment and build an energy model of the work-scope via the JRT, including the emergency retrofit, that demonstrates an energy savings of 20% or greater for the project to qualify as an emergency retrofit job. Files, including the JRT and energy model, are to be submitted via the Vision database reporting system prior to any work being performed (failure to send the results prior to installing the new equipment will deem the project not eligible for the Emergency Retrofit Protocol). Contractors may "swap out" only the malfunctioning equipment prior to receiving an Authorization to Proceed for any other home performance improvements that may be planned (should there be any other home performance measures proposed). Final test-out results must be provided to CBPCA through the Vision database within three business days after the emergency measure is installed.
Contractors must complete the PRE-retrofit tab of the JRT, as usual, plus the following elements to qualify the project:
a.) "Notes" section of the JRT: include what system or issue needs removal or repair, and include why it is deemed an emergency;
b.) Energy model of the emergency repair work-scope, plus any additional work-scope items for additional savings, showing at least a 20% energy savings; and,
c) Pictures of the system or issue
3. The following modeling guidelines must be followed for the emergency repair:
a) Any item replaced on an emergency basis will be modeled using the vintage table value; and,
b) All other items are accepted as reported.
4. Contractors must "right-size" the new unit. Right-sizing is a critical piece of home performance. Contractors are to use Manual J524 and Manual D525.
5. The following guidelines will dictate a homeowner's rebate:
a) If the homeowner decides not to go forward with additional home performance work beyond the unit change-out within 30 days, the job will be deemed completed and the homeowner can apply for the whole-house Advanced Program rebate if the energy savings are at least 20%; or,
b) If the homeowner decides to go forward with additional home performance work within 30 days, the rebate will be delayed until the job is complete.
c) If the emergency retrofit work does not meet the Advanced Program's 20% threshold, the job will be eligible only for the stand-alone SMUD non-home performance HVAC rebate, whose amount will depend upon that program's specifications. In addition, the Participating Contractor making the emergency repair must be on SMUD's approved HVAC contractor list to be eligible to offer the stand-alone rebate.
6. Quality Control measures as a result of an emergency retrofit job: Two emergency repairs per Participating Contractor will be allowed before CBPCA increases the non-emergency pre-retrofit inspection rate for that contractor (this is the pre-retrofit QA Verification that ensures home performance principles are being followed). After the first two emergency repairs, each subsequent emergency adds a pre-retrofit QA Verification to that Contractor's queue of non-emergency jobs.
Attachment C: 2013 - 2014 WE&T Course Listings / Programs
Green Collar Sector |
Admin. |
Class Location |
Ed. Level (1) |
Collaborators (2) |
Class Length (3) |
# of Times / yr |
Approx Annual Cost (IOU) |
Approx Annual Cost (Collaborator) |
Continuing Education, Entry Level, or Both (4) |
Class Component - Codes & Standards |
Class Component - Integration - Existing Bldgs (5) |
Class Component - Zero Net Energy(6) |
Class Component - Low Income Outreach (7) |
Class Component - Emerging Technology(8) |
Class Component - Sector Strategies (9) |
Class Component - Needs Assessment (10) |
Targeted Market Sector (11) |
IOU Course Contact |
Phone |
|
HVAC |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Designers, Architects, & Building Contractors - Existing |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Designers, Architects, & Building Contractors - New |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Designers, Architects, & Building Contractors - General (New & Existing Buildings) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Building and Energy Managers |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-HVAC Installers |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Codes & Standards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Energy & Environment - K-12 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Careers in Energy Management - College |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trade Level Apprenticeship or Pre-Apprenticeship |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(See below for definitions and instructions to complete this table.)
2013 - 2014 WE&T Course / Program Listing Legend:
Column Header |
Definition |
Code | |
1 |
Ed. Level(1) |
Education Sector |
CSU, UC, K-12, CC (Community College), Trade / Labor (including IOU only courses), |
2 |
Collaborators(2) |
External Entities Partnering with the IOU to provide resources for training effort (ex: facilities, materials, trainers, outreach) |
List Name of Collaborator |
3 |
Class Length(3) |
Number of days |
Half-Day, Full Day, Two Day, Three Day, Annual (if traditional school schedule), etc. |
4 |
Continuing Education, Entry Level, or Both(4) |
Indicate if the target audience for the class are entry level participants or continuing education or both. |
C - Continuing Education, E - Entry Level, Both - B |
5 |
Integration - Existing Bldgs(5) |
The class incorporates other demand side technologies (EE, DR, & DG) via an integrated systems approach. |
Include the designation EE, DR, and/or DG to indicate which demand side resources are covered by the class. |
6 |
Zero Net Energy(6) |
The class addresses primarily new buildings, incorporating all demand side technologies (EE, DR, & DG) in a whole building perspective. |
X - if applicable |
7 |
Low Income Outreach(7) |
The class is actively promoted to low income participants and a procedure is in place to make it more affordable and convenient for these entities to participate. |
X - if applicable |
8 |
Emerging Technology(8) |
the class includes training for emerging technologies |
X - if applicable |
9 |
Sector Strategies |
The class is offered as part of a more comprehensive "sector strategy" (pursuant to SDG&E AL 2260-E-B / 2041-G-B et al.) effort involving educational / training partnerships with external partners and addresses recommendations identified in the Statewide WE&T Needs Assessment, published by UCB in March of 2011. |
X - if applicable |
10 |
Needs Assessment |
The class addresses a recommendation area included in the Statewide WE&T Needs Assessment. |
Indicate which NA recommendation area the class addresses; SS - Skill Standards, C - Certifications, JP - Job Placement. |
11 |
Market Sector(8) |
Indicate what market sector the course caters to. Use the same market sectors identified in the Strategic Plan. If codes & standards are included in the training indicate by including "C&S" after the market sector identification. |
Commercial, Residential, Industrial, Agricultural |
Attachment D: Integrated Pilot Programs (2013 - 2014)
(See below for definitions and instructions to complete this table.)
Pilot Program |
Demand Side Resources Included (1) |
Enabling Technologies Included (2) |
Emerging Technologies Included (3) |
Customer Segment - Existing or New Construction (4) |
% of ZNE Anticipated (program / avg project) (5) |
Anticipated Savings kWh (program / avg project) |
Anticipated Savings KW (program / avg project) |
Anticipated Savings Therms (program / avg project) |
Program Cycle Budget Allocation (6) |
Estimated Avg Cost Per Building |
Estimated # of Existing or New Customer Accounts Included in the Pilot (7) |
Notes | ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Integrated Pilot Program Legend:
|
Column Title |
Definition |
Code |
1 |
Demand Side Resources Included |
Indicate which demand side resources are being included in the pilot |
Include all that are applicable: EE, DR, DG |
2 |
Enabling Technologies Included |
Indicate if there are any integration enabling technologies included in the program offering |
Include all that apply: AMI, S - Storage, O - Other (describe in "notes" column) |
3 |
Emerging Technologies Included |
Indicated whether technologies considered "emerging" are included in the pilot. Include a short description of the technology/ies in the "Notes" column. |
X - If Yes |
4 |
Existing or New Construction (3) |
Indicate what customer segment the program targets |
RNC - Residential New Construction, RE - Residential Existing, NRNC - Non-Residential New Construction. NRE - Non-Residential Existing. RB - Residential Both (existing and new), NRB - Non-Residential Both (existing and new) |
5 |
% of ZNE Anticipated |
Indicate estimated % of annual load will be saved when compared to similar standard buildings (Fill in two columns one for program and one for avg per project in the program) |
Indicate a "%" for each: program / avg project |
6 |
Program Cycle Budget Allocation |
Indicate the overall budget allocated to this pilot including the dollars dedicated to the pilot as well as dollars contributed by other programs to support the pilot. Include the % split and sources of other funding in the "notes" column. |
$ Overall Budget for Pilot |
7 |
Estimated # of Existing or New Customer Accounts Included in the Pilot |
Indicate the number of existing customers participating in the pilot as well as the number of new accounts that will be created via new construction included in the pilot. |
Include a combined number for new and existing customer accounts participating in the pilot. |
(END OF ATTACHMENTS)
514 SCE opening comments at B2-3.
515 See http://deeresources.com/DEER2011/download/DEER2011UpdateLoadshapes.zip.
516 PG&E opening comments at 21-23.
517 SDG&E/SoCalGas opening comments Attachment at 3-4.
518 EnerNOC opening comments at 7-8.
519 TURN opening comments at 3-4.
520 NRDC opening comments at 6 and Attachment B at 29.
521 Rundquist, R., K.F. Johnson, and D.J. Aumann. 1993. "Calculating Lighting and HVAC Interactions," ASHRAE Journal, November 1993.
522 "Vision" database is a tool developed by ICF Consulting about construction jobs. The database documents pre and post retrofit tasks per BPI standards required for the Energy Upgrade California (EUC) program.
523 Building Performance Institute (BPI)- Building Analyst (BA).
524 Manual J is a protocol developed by the Air Conditioning Contractors of America (ACCA) using HVAC electrical load calculations to determine how much heating and/or cooling, and therefore correct size air conditioning unit, a house needs.
525 Manual D is a protocol developed by ACCA to determine the ideal duct design and sizing for a home.