Independent Evaluation Results
Itron evaluated SGIP processes, impacts, and administrative approaches for 2001 and 2002, and provided recommendations for improvements to the program. Data collection sources included program tracking data from the program administrators, marketing plans and materials, and interviews with program participants (host customers, suppliers, program administrators, and on-site verification auditors). Itron also surveyed non-participant customers and suppliers, some of whom had attended SGIP workshops.
Itron encountered difficulties collecting onsite operational data, such as thermal efficiency and generator output. Some customers who installed their own onsite monitoring equipment either did not use the generator or the equipment, did not provide Itron access to facility operational data as previously agreed, or expressed concern about program administrators potentially receiving the data. Some utility administrators had problems with internal data collection, which delayed delivery of certain interconnection and metering data to the consultant.
Overall, the program received high satisfaction ratings from customers and suppliers. These participants believe the SGIP helps develop a demand for DG, particularly by supporting third-party installations. Some suppliers state their business is dependent on the SGIP. Other customer/supplier observations: the interconnection process remains problematic, meter installation and billing for net metered systems is confusing, and the Program Handbook is complex.
The Itron 2002 Process and Impacts reports made ten recommendations for improving the SGIP:
1. Modify incentive structure. Eliminate project cost limit, move toward flat, dollar per watt incentives.
2. Develop an exit strategy. Extend current end date to allow a transitional strategy, conduct additional process evaluation.
3. Eliminate requirements for air permit and interconnection applications.
4. Extend proof of progress and completion deadlines for new construction projects.
5. Simplify requirements for completion deadline. Eliminate final project cost breakdown, accept temporary rather than final permit to operate.
6. Assign an SGIP representative or subcommittee to educate other entities, such as utility interconnection staff and local building agencies, about program requirements and help troubleshoot problems.
7. Revise Program Handbook and contractual documents to require participants to provide operational project data to Itron (not utilities) upon request, and provide reasonable compensation to cover those costs.
8. Improve interconnection process to ensure implementation is consistent across the state, particularly requirements for protection devices.
9. Improve website links to program information. Provide links to SGIP information, industry information sources, and other key DG websites.
10. Determine cost effectiveness methodology for all load removal programs.
Itron also examined the relative effectiveness of utility and non-utility administration. Itron concluded that a true non-utility approach is not feasible due to the current contract design and funding mechanisms. Factors cited include differences across market areas and utilities, utility fiscal oversight of the non-utility administrator, and interventions by the working group.
