Timing and Duration of Energy Efficiency Programs

1. Funding Cycle. Participants agreed that extending the program funding cycle to two years was a positive change for energy efficiency. Is there a need to go beyond a two-year program funding cycle? If so what are the specific reasons why a longer funding cycle would be preferable? Would it be possible to authorize program funding over a three-year period but also allow program administrators to adjust program designs on an annual or semi-annual basis to respond to feedback from the market place? What specific measures, projects or energy users require a funding cycle longer than two years to increase participation or investment in energy efficiency? What types of investments or increases in energy savings would result from longer funding cycles?

2. Lead Time. Several participants stated that due to internal (and sometimes external) budgeting and decision process reasons, they require longer -lead times to participate in energy efficiency programs. How much lead-time do manufacturers and retailers need to effectively integrate energy efficiency into their production and marketing decisions? How long do commercial and industrial businesses require to plan and develop project designs and budget decisions that integrate energy efficiency? How much lead-time do residential and nonresidential new construction project developers need to be able to effectively participate in new construction programs? What lead times do government or institutional organizations need?

3. Integrated Approach (multiple measures). Several panelists and audience members recommended a more integrated approach to efficiency programs in which a comprehensive approach to both residential and non-residential investments and strategic upgrades could be encouraged, rather than providing separate programs for different types of measures or specific technologies. Should the Commission move toward an energy efficiency program structure that encourages "portfolios" of actions, including process-oriented improvements, and do so on a continuous basis, rather than approving isolated programs with a limited funding-cycle? What changes in administrative structure and or reporting requirements would be needed to support this change? What types of customers would benefit from this paradigm? What types of projects would fit into this paradigm? Which programs or measures might see a decline in efficiency gains if this type of approach were adopted?