SoCal Multifamily Program Process Evaluation – 2014-2015 10/15/14 SoCal Multifamily Program Process Evaluation – 2014-2015 February 9, 2017 Ingo Bensch, Evergreen Economics

10/15/14 Acknowledgements PWP Inc.   CIC Research  

Agenda Program(s) Overview Evaluation Description Results Questions Goals Methods Results Selected Findings Recommendations Questions

Program Overview Program Target Audience SoCal IOUs Notes MFEER 10/15/14 Program Overview Program Target Audience SoCal IOUs Notes MFEER All MF housing SCE, SDG&E, SoCalGas Large, generally lighting dominated EUC-MF SDG&E, SoCalGas (SCE not continuing) Small, whole-building focused MIDI Moderate income Direct install, in-unit, income-qualified ESA Low income Separate program area (LI) CMHP Mfd Homes Not included in this evaluation

Program Context: Overall Vision 10/15/14 Program Context: Overall Vision

Evaluation Objectives (primarily forward looking) 10/15/14 Understand decision-makers Awareness and practices Information sources Perceptions, experience, and satisfaction Decision-making factors, drivers, and intention to act Explore common area laundry opps Feasibility, potential cost-effectiveness, design Building operator training Need, cost

Study Methods Topic Area Method Background 10/15/14 Study Methods Topic Area Method Background In-person program manager workshop In-person program contractor focus group Literature review MF owner/operator research In-depth interviews with facility decision-makers for 10 owners/operators of large MF portfolios Telephone survey of MFEER participants (n=195) Laundry study Telephone interviews of third party route operators bldg owners/operators Secondary research MFEER participant survey Building operator training Review of BOC training offerings and content Interviews with representatives of training providers and regional collaboratives that use the training

Results and Recommendations 10/15/14 Results and Recommendations Organized Along Seven Topic Areas Geographic and Temporal Consistency Single Point of Contact Program Participant Experiences Expanding to More Comprehensive Measures and Participation Common Area Laundry Building Operator Training Integration of Disparate Multifamily Programs

Geographic and Temporal Consistency 10/15/14 Findings and observations Research highlights importance of consistency of offerings across time and geographies, as well as importance of utility-specific relationships. MF owners/operators need time to include a large-scale measure replacement. Differences in measures, incentives, and details across IOU service areas are confusing.

Geographic and Temporal Consistency 10/15/14 Findings and observations (continued) (Joint) outreach visits to operators of large portfolios spanning IOU service areas are well-received. There are opportunities to coordinate across IOUs, other energy utilities and non-energy utilities (like water agencies).

Geographic and Temporal Consistency 10/15/14 Recommendation #1 Maintain consistency and predictability in program offerings over time. Directed at IOUs and the CPUC Need long-term measure and program offerings of 2+ yrs and continue to allow reservation of funds Consider timespan of MF building renovations in setting future program cycles (CPUC) May already be in the works

Single Point of Contact 10/15/14 Single Point of Contact Findings and observations Single point of contact is a good concept and viewed favorably by contractors and MF decision-makers. Utility and contractor relationships with customers complement each other. Opportunity for a team approach Teamwork includes within-utility relationships with the customer

Single Point of Contact 10/15/14 Single Point of Contact Findings and observations (continued) Single points of contact may function differently for small and large portfolios. In-person outreach and consistent staffing were highlighted as important by large portfolio decision makers.

Single Point of Contact 10/15/14 Single Point of Contact Recommendation #2 Single point of contact to include joint customer outreach by both utility staff and implementation contractors. Outreach should be customized. Directed at IOUs and implementation contractors Customization may include efficiency upgrade, opportunities across multiple buildings, and beyond Will maximize value to customer and should increase engagement and receptivity

Program Participant Experiences 10/15/14 Program Participant Experiences Findings and observations MFEER survey suggests consistently positive participant experiences. Based primarily on no-cost measures for SCE customers Limited numbers of participants with cost- shared measures; also limited participants from SoCalGas or SDG&E customers

Program Participant Experiences 10/15/14 Program Participant Experiences Findings and observations (continued) Received feedback on simplifying processes. Better accommodate application for multiple buildings Timing of verification visits to minimize tenant disruptions

Expanding to More Comprehensive Measures and Participation 10/15/14 Findings and observations MFEER lighting still dominates market-rate MF efficiency adoptions. Program vision would require expansion in: Measures beyond lighting; Portfolio-participation; and Cross-program participation. There is unrealized potential among past participants.

Expanding to More Comprehensive Measures and Participation 10/15/14 Recommendation #3 Expand customer involvement in the full range of MF program and measures available by continuing and expanding MFEER program as entry point to program participation. Directed to IOUs IOUs should record and track customer-specific energy-saving opportunities, program participation by measure category, and program participation status for each customer

Expanding to More Comprehensive Measures and Participation 10/15/14 Recommendation #4 Continue to seek out and offer new (and cost- effective) measures. Potential offerings include: Laundry initiative to promote greater equipment efficiency among common area laundry equipment Enhanced multifamily-specific building operator training for facility staff

Common Area Laundry Findings and observations 10/15/14 Common Area Laundry Findings and observations Common area laundry in majority of MF bldgs Most equipment provided through 3rd party leases Prevalence in larger bldgs Reliable potential elusive w/out field work See page 111

Common Area Laundry Findings and observations (cont’d) 10/15/14 Common Area Laundry Findings and observations (cont’d) Discuss benefits and barriers to program options to incent efficiency levels of laundry equipment (page 114) Regulatory standards are important factor (and changing) Cost-effectiveness calculations of a rebate program would require more information Third-party providers could vet program design (not unique to CA) Easy information-based opportunities

Common Area Laundry Recommendation #5 10/15/14 Common Area Laundry Recommendation #5 Consider informational campaign to encourage efficient laundry practices in common areas and transition to most practical efficient equipment when leased equipment is upgraded. Directed to IOUs IOU campaign would target MF operators Include outreach to assist MF operator decision- making when replacing leased equipment Include information tools to encourage EE practices by tenants

Building Operator Training 10/15/14 Building Operator Training Findings and observations Multiple training offerings available, including BOC. BOC is very comprehensive and also offered; could be tailored to MF. Already being done elsewhere Most applicable to bldgs with large central systems Training does not appear to be a high priority for most bldg operators. Would need to be well-tailored and marketed well

Integration of Disparate Multifamily Programs 10/15/14 Findings and observations One goal of the program vision was to integrate the existing programs into a more unified offering for customers. Programs differ in targets (units vs. bldgs vs. owners) and metrics. Low income and energy efficiency programs differ not only in program structures, but also regulatory paradigms. Recent CPUC decision addresses some of these differences

Integration of Disparate Multifamily Programs 10/15/14 Recommendation #6 Use a shared customer relationship management (CRM) system to facilitate sharing across program, functional and utility lines. Directed to IOUs Applies within utilities, across utilities, and to coordination with contractors

Regulatory Developments 10/15/14 Regulatory Developments CPUC Decision D. 16-11-022 (for ESA) Authorizes use of ESA $s for multifamily common area efficiency upgrades Provides more flexibility and accountability on achieving energy efficiency on a portfolio basis and aligns ESA more with program designs of EE programs Called out MF as a hard-to-reach group and directed the utilities to “press harder” to reach them

Next Steps Process / Next Steps Timeline ✔ 10/15/14 Next Steps Process / Next Steps Timeline ✔ Draft report posted on PDA site January 27, 2017  Comment period closes February 10, 2017 * Response to comments February 13-17, 2017 Finalize report February 20-24, 2017 Report posted to CALMAC Week of February 27, 2017 * Upcoming activity; anticipated timing

Questions or Discussion 10/15/14 Questions or Discussion ?

For questions or comments, please contact: Southern California Edison 10/15/14 Thank You For questions or comments, please contact: Ingo Bensch Evergreen Economics (510) 463-3171 bensch@evergreenecon.com or Piotr Urbanski, Ph.D. Southern California Edison Project Manager, Measurement and Evaluation (626) 302-6187 Piotr.Urbanski@sce.com