SCE “To-Code” Pilot Lessons Learned

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 Comments for Workshop on EEU Budget for August 6, 2008.
Advertisements

1 Energy Efficiency and Iowa Utilities Presentation to the Energy Policy Advisory Forum, convened by Governor-Elect Chet Culver January 4, 2007 Presented.
Lighting EMV Roadmap Update Jeorge Tagnipes California Public Utilities Commission March 25, 2014.
Utilities’ Update on Energy Savings Assistance Program Contractor Selection LIOB Meeting October 29, 2012 Sacramento, California.
California Public Utilities Commission Residential Rate Structure Rulemaking R Workshop Overview Time Variant Pricing (TVP) Workshop Gabe Petlin.
Resource Adequacy, Reliability, Risks and Markets October 9, 2006 Sean Gallagher California Public Utilities Commission Energy Division, Director.
Bryan Warren 4/28/15 SoCalGas To-Code Pilot Status Update: Development of Concept 1.
The Equality Act 2010 and Accessibility of lifts for disabled users.
BASELINE POLICY FRAMEWORK Dina Mackin, CPUC Workshop on Energy Efficiency Baselines April 28, 2015 California Public Utilities Commission1.
SCE To-Code Pilot Proposal
Office of the Auditor General of Canada The State of Program Evaluation in the Canadian Federal Government Glenn Wheeler Director, Results Measurement.
Olly Spence Commissioning Lead The Care Act What does it mean for you?
Energy Storage R Energy Storage Procurement & Policy Options Arthur O’Donnell/Aloke Gupta/Elizaveta Malashenko Energy Division Grid Planning.
1 Ex Ante Review of the SBD Program Energy Division Staff and Contractors Energy Efficiency Industrial/Agricultural Programs and Portfolio Forecasting.
Post 2012 Energy Efficiency Planning Schedule: Options and Implications February 16, am - 5 pm CPUC Auditorium.
EDISON INTERNATIONAL® SM Internal Use Only Page 1 Circulating Block Heater Alfredo Gutierrez Cal TF Work Paper Presentation October 23, 2014.
PIERRE DELFORGE JUNE 18, 2015 IEPR CEC STAFF WORKSHOP PLUG LOAD EFFICIENCY STRATEGIES.
To and Through Code Pilot Preliminary Design Overview Jane Kruse Manager, Commercial EE Programs April 28, 2015.
Residential Sector Market Studies Planning Tool Output of Market Studies Needs Assessment ( study) July 29, 2014 webinar Opinion Dynamics, for California.
February 9, 2010 Prescriptive Whole House Retrofit Program Webinar.
Demand Response and the California Information Display Pilot 2005 AEIC Load Research Conference Myrtle Beach, South Carolina July 11, 2005 Mark S. Martinez,
Linking the Wholesale and Retail Markets through Dynamic Retail Pricing Presented by: Henry Yoshimura Manager, Demand Response ISO New England September.
Experience you can trust. Phase 1: Cataloguing Available End-Use and Efficiency Load Data September 15, 2009 End-Use Load Data Update Project.
1 Achieving the Governor’s EE Goal: Unleashing Potential in Existing Buildings Aaron Johnson Vice President, Customer Energy Solutions July 6, 2015.
Energy Savings Assistance Program Workforce Education and Training (WE&T) Workshop # 5 October 31, 2011.
Implementer’s Group July 2015 RTF Meeting Debrief and Upcoming Meeting Prep July 29, 2015.
Knowledge to Shape Your Future Electric / Gas / Water Information collection, analysis and application Presentation to the Low Income Oversight Board November.
1 California Solar Initiative Low Income Multifamily Program Public Workshop March 17, 2008 San Francisco, CA.
Presentation to Energy Optimization Collaborative October 2015 ENERGY A Proposal to Expand the Calibration Research Agenda: Part Two.
JOINT UTILITY LOW INCOME PUBLIC MEETING California Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE) Programs Pacific Gas and Electric Company San Diego Gas & Electric.
Exit Capacity Substitution and Revision Transmission Workstream meeting, 3 rd December 2009.
DR issues in California discussed last year in March Historical DR in California: some background issues –Twenty years of programs/tariffs I/C and AC cycling.
Utilities’ Update on Energy Savings Assistance Program Studies Ordered in D LIOB Meeting August 21, 2013 Sacramento, California.
Low Income Programs Application ESA Program Energy Savings: New Strategies Workshop 2: Review of the ESA Program San Francisco, CA October 19,
Evaluation Plans for Energy Efficiency Programs Outline for California Measurement Advisory Council February 21, 2007.
Click to edit Master title style 1 Energy Savings Assistance Program And California Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE) Program Proposed Decision.
GrocerSmart™ 4.0 RTF Approval of Software and Adherence to RTF Guidelines April 5, 2011.
Workshop #2 (Review of ESAP) ESAP Energy Savings – Discussion of Barriers October 19, 2011 CPUC Alex Jackson, NRDC 1.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT PROCESS FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY BUSINESS PLAN DEVELOPMENT March, 2016.
Joint Energy Auction Implementation Proposal of PG&E, SCE and SDG&E California Public Utilities Commission Workshop – November 1, 2006.
PAURAVI SHAH IOU WATTAGE RANGE METHOD(WRM) WORKING GROUP: HENRY LIU(PG&E), PAURAVI SHAH(PG&E),MINI DAMODARAN(PG&E), THOMAS PASKER, AJAY WADHERA (SCE),
Presentation to the UUCF Coordinating Team October 5, 2016
Multifamily Working Group Announcement Webinar
BLACK HILLS ENERGY 2016 Energy Efficiency Portfolio Annual Results Overview December 8, :00am – 12:00pm MST Mark James – Energy Efficiency Program.
Existing Condition Baseline Programs & Codes and Standards
To-Code Pilot Status Update – April 11, 2016.
EM&V Framework Refresh Needs Assessment
Potomac Edison Preliminary Energy Efficiency and Conservation Programs
Potomac Edison Preliminary Energy Efficiency and Conservation Programs
Pension Freedom and Automatic Enrolment - Next Steps
2016 Benchmarking Insights Conference Boulder, CO
EE Third-Party Solicitation Process Workshop Solicitation Alignment
Track 2 Working Group 4th Meeting
Track 2 Working Group 4th Meeting
Potential and Goals Primer
Ex Ante Review Overview
CPUC Rate Proceedings Relevant for TOU
Workshop Presentation
Py2015 California statewide on-bill finance
UK Link Technology Refresh
18th European Ecoinnovation Forum – Barcelona May 2015 OUTCOMES
Barriers and enabling tools for renewable heating and cooling
Chris Kramer, Energy Futures Group
State Allocation Board Hearing Solar Energy and Energy Efficiency Project Options for California Schools Mark Johnson, Energy Solutions Manager - Schools.
Passenger Mobility Statistics 21 May 2015
Exit Capacity Substitution and Revision
Services & Service Territory
2019 Potential and Goals Study Workshop
CHALLENGES IN MEETING 2020 HCFC PHASE OUT TARGETS
Surveys on ODS alternatives
Presentation transcript:

SCE “To-Code” Pilot Lessons Learned Derek Okada Senior Manager Policy & Planning April 11, 2017 Southern California Edison

Discussion Objective: Agenda: Provide an update on key lessons learned from the joint IOU “To-Code” pilot. Agenda: Background “To-Code” Pilot Parameters Challenges with SCE’s Original “To-Code” Pilot Proposal Other Technologies Considered Lessons Learned Southern California Edison

Background In 2014, the Commission issued D.14-10-046 that directed the IOUs to develop and implement a pilot program to understand whether there is below-code savings that can be targeted to inform Phase 3 of the EE OIR. August 14, 2015, the IOUs file a joint Advice Letter seeking approval for a “To-Code” Pilot with LED fixtures and other competing measures. October 8 2015, P.U. Code Section 381.2(b) (i.e., AB 802) requires the Commission to authorize the IOUs to offer “to-code” programs. Early 2016, the IOUs recognized that the LED fixture pilot as designed would not be successful and would require a redesign. SCE considered other potential technologies. Mid 2016, SCE discussed the LED fixture challenges with E2E. SCE continued to identify alternative potential pilot designs. End of 2016. SCE proposes a commercial PCT pilot concept and shares with E2E and Energy Division. Southern California Edison

“To-Code” Pilot Parameters Program design should be cost effective – “determine if cost-effective rate-payer funded programs can be developed” Incentives to be made available for “to-code”, and through-code savings Program should be budgeted up to $1m per IOU using program funds authorized in the decision. Find similar cohorts within a service territory, then break them into control and treatment groups Treatment group eligible for “to and through” code incentives; Control group receives only above-code incentives Pilot should run for 1 full calendar year (to see impacts across seasons) Include program implementation and third-party evaluation with the evaluation to address at a minimum program impact on both program uptake (e.g., increase program replacement rates, which customers are participating, customer energy use) Additional Requirements (From “To-Code” Workshop and input from E2E) Include competing measures w/ co-pay (E2E) Include long-lived measure (ALJ indicated requirement) Southern California Edison 4

Challenges with Original Joint IOU “To-Code” Pilot Proposal As originally designed, the LED fixtures concept was deemed to have a low probability of success and did not appear likely to provide the Commission with any useful information. Customer uptake/adoption was deemed questionable because the LED fixtures cost significantly more than competing measures (e.g. T-8 fluorescents) but do not offer significantly greater savings. These same customers that would likely be targeted with these measures have been offered competing measures (fluorescent) at NO COST through the Direct Install program. Unknown degree to which below code lighting technology (saturation of T-12’s) still exists. The competing measures will be short lived (code moving to LED as the standard in 2018). If the offer was limited to LED equipment only, (rather than including alternate measures), incentives would need to be significantly larger further diminishing potential cost effectiveness. Southern California Edison 5

Other Technologies Considered LED Fixtures: No Competing Measures Non-LED Lighting: Competing Measures Only Lighting Controls Refrigeration Controls Refrigeration Equipment Cost of upgrades would result in extremely small sample size & not cost effective Not Cost Effective Not long-lived equipment Not long-lived equipment Not long-lived equipment No above code savings HVAC Equipment: Residential HVAC Equipment: Non-Residential Behavioral/Maintenance Interventions Swimming Pool Pumps Surveys Cost of upgrades would result in extremely small sample size & not cost effective Cost of upgrades would result in extremely small sample size & not cost effective Cost of upgrades would result in extremely small sample size & not cost effective Does not comply with requirement to extended through 1 year Lack of a “to-code” baseline HVAC Controls: Non-Residential May be difficult to meet pilot design needs given potential sample size requirements Southern California Edison 6

Lessons Learned Having a prescribed budget in advance of defining cost requirements for conducting study limits available options. Applying an RCT design limits the “To-Code” market potential by setting aside a control group and is not ideal for some opt-in programs Designing a “cost-effective” program may be difficult given that D.16-08-019 requires that downstream incentives cover full measure cost and midstream and upstream incentives are not allowed. Targeting a single measure will not likely inform the full scope of below code opportunities. The largest below code opportunity may fall within HVAC, but motivating equipment change may not be cost effective and the current budget is too small. Other, cheaper methods may exist to inform below code market potential and customer interest (e.g., surveys). The incentive value offered may dramatically affect uptake, but the pilot isn’t necessarily focused on customer response to a variety of incentive levels. Rather, it may inform response to only two fixed incentive offers (“to” and through-code), and if designed to be cost effective, those offers may be too low to garner participation. Stranded below-code potential therefore may remain stranded. Recent legislation (AB 802) and subsequent Commission guidance allows IOUs to pursue below code opportunities, raising the question, “Is the original intent of the pilot still valid?” Southern California Edison 7

Thank You Derek M. Okada Senior Manager, Policy & Planning Derek.Okada@sce.com Office: 626.302.0790 Mobile: 310.944.0557 Southern California Edison 8

Addendum Southern California Edison 9

Decision 14-10-046 To-Code Pilot Description Southern California Edison