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

2. 10/15/14
Acknowledgements
PWP Inc.
CIC Research

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

4. 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

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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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.

10. 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).

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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.

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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.

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. Regulatory Developments
10/15/14
Regulatory Developments
CPUC Decision D (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

27. 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

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

29. 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) or
Piotr Urbanski, Ph.D.
Southern California Edison
Project Manager, Measurement and Evaluation
(626)