Energy Efficiency Portfolio Report

May 2018

Energy Efficiency Portfolio

Report

CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

Energy Efficiency Report | 1

Table of Contents

Acronyms ............................................................................................................................................................................. 7

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................ 8

Scope of California’s Energy Efficiency Programs ................................................................................................... 8

Portfolio Impacts and Success of the 2013-2015 Energy Efficiency Programs .................................................. 8

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................................... 13

Scope of this Report .................................................................................................................................................... 13

Organization of this Report ........................................................................................................................................ 14

Evaluation Methodology and Terminology ............................................................................................................. 14

2013-2015 Portfolio Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 16

Goals and Overview of 2013-2015 Portfolio Activities ......................................................................................... 16

Impacts of the 2013-2015 Energy Efficiency Portfolio ......................................................................................... 17

Common Challenges across the Portfolio ................................................................................................................ 25

Residential .......................................................................................................................................................................... 26

Overview ........................................................................................................................................................................ 26

Estimated Savings ........................................................................................................................................................ 26

Residential Energy Efficiency Programs .................................................................................................................. 27

Highlights....................................................................................................................................................................... 27

Findings .......................................................................................................................................................................... 28

Path to Statewide Goals .............................................................................................................................................. 30

Commercial ........................................................................................................................................................................ 32

Overview ........................................................................................................................................................................ 32

Estimated Savings ........................................................................................................................................................ 33

Commercial Programs ................................................................................................................................................. 33

Highlights....................................................................................................................................................................... 34

Findings .......................................................................................................................................................................... 35

Path to Statewide Goals .............................................................................................................................................. 36

Institutional Partnerships ................................................................................................................................................. 38

Overview ........................................................................................................................................................................ 38

Estimated Savings ........................................................................................................................................................ 38

Institutional Partnership Programs ........................................................................................................................... 39

Highlights....................................................................................................................................................................... 40

Energy Efficiency Report | 2

Findings .......................................................................................................................................................................... 40

Industrial and Agriculture ................................................................................................................................................ 41

Overview ........................................................................................................................................................................ 41

Estimated Savings ........................................................................................................................................................ 41

Industrial & Agricultural Programs ........................................................................................................................... 42

Highlights....................................................................................................................................................................... 43

Findings .......................................................................................................................................................................... 43

Path to Statewide Goals .............................................................................................................................................. 45

Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning .................................................................................................................. 46

Overview ........................................................................................................................................................................ 46

Estimated Savings ........................................................................................................................................................ 47

HVAC Energy Efficiency Programs ......................................................................................................................... 47

Highlights....................................................................................................................................................................... 48

Findings .......................................................................................................................................................................... 48

Path to Statewide Savings ........................................................................................................................................... 51

Lighting ............................................................................................................................................................................... 52

Overview ........................................................................................................................................................................ 52

Estimated Savings ........................................................................................................................................................ 53

Lighting Programs ........................................................................................................................................................ 53

Findings .......................................................................................................................................................................... 54

Path to Statewide Goals .............................................................................................................................................. 56

Zero Net Energy / New Construction ......................................................................................................................... 57

Overview ........................................................................................................................................................................ 57

Estimated Savings ........................................................................................................................................................ 58

Zero Net Energy / New Construction Programs .................................................................................................. 58

Highlights....................................................................................................................................................................... 59

Findings .......................................................................................................................................................................... 59

Path to Statewide Goals .............................................................................................................................................. 60

Codes and Standards ........................................................................................................................................................ 62

Overview ........................................................................................................................................................................ 62

Estimated Savings ........................................................................................................................................................ 63

Codes and Standards Programs ................................................................................................................................. 63

Highlights....................................................................................................................................................................... 64

Energy Efficiency Report | 3

Findings .......................................................................................................................................................................... 67

Path to Statewide Goals .............................................................................................................................................. 68

Integrated Demand-Side Management .......................................................................................................................... 69

Overview ........................................................................................................................................................................ 69

Estimated Savings ........................................................................................................................................................ 69

IDSM Programs............................................................................................................................................................ 69

Highlights....................................................................................................................................................................... 70

Findings .......................................................................................................................................................................... 70

Path to Statewide Goals .............................................................................................................................................. 71

Workforce Education & Training .................................................................................................................................. 72

Overview ........................................................................................................................................................................ 72

Estimated Savings ........................................................................................................................................................ 72

WE&T Programs ......................................................................................................................................................... 72

Highlights....................................................................................................................................................................... 73

Findings .......................................................................................................................................................................... 74

Path to Statewide Goals .............................................................................................................................................. 75

Marketing, Education, and Outreach ............................................................................................................................ 76

Overview ........................................................................................................................................................................ 76

Estimated Savings ........................................................................................................................................................ 76

Marketing, Education, and Outreach Programs ...................................................................................................... 76

Highlights....................................................................................................................................................................... 77

Findings .......................................................................................................................................................................... 79

Path to Statewide Goals .............................................................................................................................................. 83

Emerging Technologies ................................................................................................................................................... 84

Overview ........................................................................................................................................................................ 84

Estimated Savings ........................................................................................................................................................ 84

Emerging Technologies Programs ............................................................................................................................ 85

Highlights....................................................................................................................................................................... 85

Findings .......................................................................................................................................................................... 85

Path to Statewide Goals .............................................................................................................................................. 87

Local Government Partnerships .................................................................................................................................... 88

Overview ........................................................................................................................................................................ 88

Energy Efficiency Report | 4

Estimated Savings ........................................................................................................................................................ 89

Local Government Partnership Programs ............................................................................................................... 89

Highlights....................................................................................................................................................................... 90

Findings .......................................................................................................................................................................... 90

Path to Statewide Goals .............................................................................................................................................. 93

Regional Energy Networks & Community Choice Aggregators .............................................................................. 94

Overview ........................................................................................................................................................................ 94

Estimated Savings ........................................................................................................................................................ 95

Overview of Non-IOU Programs ............................................................................................................................. 96

Highlights....................................................................................................................................................................... 97

Findings .......................................................................................................................................................................... 98

Finance.............................................................................................................................................................................. 101

Overview ...................................................................................................................................................................... 101

Estimated Savings ...................................................................................................................................................... 101

Energy Efficiency Financing Programs .................................................................................................................. 101

Highlights..................................................................................................................................................................... 105

Findings ........................................................................................................................................................................ 106

Path to Statewide Goals ............................................................................................................................................ 107

Public Utilities Code 913.9 Report ............................................................................................................................... 108

Glossary ............................................................................................................................................................................ 110

Appendices ....................................................................................................................................................................... 115

Appendix A: IOU Savings Compared to CPUC Savings Goals ......................................................................... 115

Appendix B: Energy Savings by Sector and End Use .......................................................................................... 119

Appendix C: Emissions Reductions ........................................................................................................................ 129

Appendix D: Cost-Effectiveness Results ............................................................................................................... 131

Appendix E: Program Level Detail – Net Lifecycle kW, kWh, Therms ........................................................... 134

Appendix F: Ex-Post Gross Lifecycle Savings by Sector, GWh, MMTherms ................................................ 135

Appendix G: Processing and Updating Utility Claim Data with Evaluation Results Data ........................... 143

Appendix H: Evaluation Decision Framework .................................................................................................... 146

Appendix I: Order-Independent Impacts of Ex Post Parameter updates on Ex Ante Reported Parameters.

....................................................................................................................................................................................... 159

Appendix J: Chapter Data Overlaps ....................................................................................................................... 170

Energy Efficiency Report | 5

Tables & Figures

Table ES-1: Energy Efficiency Savings Goals ............................................................................................................... 8

Table ES-2: 2013-2015 Energy Efficiency Programs Energy and Emissions Savings ............................................ 9

Table ES-3: Total Resource Cost by Year .................................................................................................................... 11

Table 1: 2013-2015 IOU Program Goals ...................................................................................................................... 16

Table 2: Savings, Emissions, and Cost-Effectiveness of 2013-2015 Portfolio ....................................................... 18

Table 3: Goals for the 2013-2015 Portfolio ................................................................................................................. 19

Table 4: Residential Sector Savings Snapshot .............................................................................................................. 26

Table 5: Commercial Building Types by Square Footage ......................................................................................... 32

Table 6: Commercial Sector Savings Snapshot ............................................................................................................ 33

Table 7: Institutional Partnerships Programs Savings Snapshot ............................................................................... 39

Table 8: Institutional Partnerships - Resource Partnerships ...................................................................................... 39

Table 9: Institutional Partnerships - Non-Resource Partnerships ............................................................................ 40

Table 10: Industrial and Agriculture Sector Savings Snapshot* ................................................................................ 41

Table 11: HVAC Program Savings Snapshot* ............................................................................................................. 47

Table 12: Lighting Savings Snapshot ............................................................................................................................. 53

Table 13: Zero Net Energy Programs Savings Snapshot ........................................................................................... 58

Table 14: 2013-2015 Codes and Standards Portfolio Goals ...................................................................................... 62

Table 15: Table 14: 2013-2015 Codes and Standards Savings Snapshot ................................................................. 63

Table 16: Title 20 Standards ............................................................................................................................................ 65

Table 17: Federal Standards ............................................................................................................................................ 65

Table 18: Title 24 Standards ............................................................................................................................................ 66

Table 19: Codes and Standards ....................................................................................................................................... 66

Table 20: Compliance Improvement Training Classes ............................................................................................... 67

Table 21: Marketing, Education & Outreach Objectives ........................................................................................... 77

Table 22: Emerging Technologies Program Budget by IOU .................................................................................... 84

Table 23: Local Government Partnerships Savings Snapshot ................................................................................... 89

Table 24: RENs and CCAs Savings Snapshot ............................................................................................................. 95

Table 25: Subprograms Included in the EM&V Studies ............................................................................................ 98

Table 26: On-Bill Financing Loan fund Activities from Program Inception to December 31, 2015 ............... 104

Table 27: OBF Loans Issued Statewide ...................................................................................................................... 104

Table 28: Statewide Lending by Market ...................................................................................................................... 105

Table 29: Cumulative Loan Defaults and Partial Payments since Inception through 2015 ............................... 106

Table A-1: Statewide Energy Savings for 2013-2015 Portfolio: Goals, Reported, Evaluated ............................ 115

Table A-2: PG&E Energy Savings for 2013-2015 Portfolio ................................................................................... 116

Table A-3: SCE Energy Savings for 2013-2015 Portfolio ........................................................................................ 116

Table A-4: SCG Energy Savings for 2013-2015 Portfolio ....................................................................................... 117

Table A-5: SDG&E Energy Savings for 2013-2015 Portfolio ................................................................................ 117

Table B-1a: 2013-2015 Statewide First Year Energy Savings by Sector ................................................................ 120

Table B-1b: 2013-2015 Statewide Lifecycle Energy Savings by Sector .................................................................. 121

Table B-2a: 2013-2015 First Year Savings by Sector and Program Administrator .............................................. 122

Table B-2b: 2013-2015 Lifecycle Savings by Sector and Program Administrator ............................................... 123

Table B-3a: 2013-2015 Statewide First Year Energy Savings by End Use ............................................................ 124

Energy Efficiency Report | 6

Table B-3b: 2013-2015 Statewide Lifecycle Savings by End Use ........................................................................... 125

Table B-4a: 2013-2015 Statewide First Year Savings by Sector and End Use ...................................................... 126

Table B-4b: 2013-2015 Statewide Lifecycle Savings by Sector and End Use ....................................................... 127

Table C-1a: Evaluated First Year Emissions Reductions by Program Administrator ......................................... 128

Table C-1b: Evaluated Lifecycle Emissions Reductions by Program Administrator .......................................... 129

Table D-1: IOU Reported and Commission Evaluated Cost Effectiveness - with and without Codes &

Standards (C&S) .............................................................................................................................................................. 131

Table H-1: Impact Evaluation Reports by Program Year(s) Studied ..................................................................... 145

Table H-2: Ex-Post Targeted ESPI Classifications and Uncertain Measures and Evaluation Reports ............ 146

Table H-3: Impact Evaluation Reports by Program Year(s) Studied ..................................................................... 152

Table H-4: Ex-Post Targeted ESPI Classifications and Uncertain Measures and Evaluation Reports ............ 153

Table J-1: Savings Impacts of Lighting and HVAC Measures on Market Sectors ............................................... 169

Figure ES-1: 2013-2015 Energy Efficiency Goal Attainment by IOU .................................................................... 10

Figure 1: 2013-2015 Energy Efficiency Goal Attainment by IOU ........................................................................... 19

Figure 2: Annual IOU Portfolio Cost Effectiveness Ratios (2013-2015) ................................................................ 20

Figure 3: Portfolio Cost-Effectiveness Ratios, Including Codes & Standards ....................................................... 21

Figure 4: Percentage of Electricity Savings by End Use ............................................................................................. 23

Figure 5: Percentage of Natural Gas Savings by End Use ......................................................................................... 24

Figure 6: Percent of 2013-2015 Evaluated Net Energy Savings from Lighting Measures by Sector .................. 53

Figure 7: Percent of Energy Savings by Lighting Measure ........................................................................................ 54

Figure 8: Codes and Standards Advocacy Program Evaluation Protocol ............................................................... 64

Figure 9: Summary of SW ME&O Objectives and Associated Objectives ............................................................. 78

Figure 10: SW ME&O Program Performance Against Approved Metrics ............................................................. 80

Energy Efficiency Report | 7

Acronyms

C & S Codes and Standards

CCA Community Choice Aggregator

CEC California Energy Commission

CLEESP California Long-Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan (Strategic Plan)

CO2 Carbon Dioxide

CPUC California Public Utilities Commission

EMT Energy Management Technology

EUC Energy Upgrade California

ETP Emerging Technologies Program

EM&V Evaluation, Measurement, and Verification

GWh Gigawatt-hours

HVAC Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning

IDSM Integrated Demand Side Management

IOU Investor-owned utility

MCE Marin Clean Energy

ME&O Marketing, Education, & Outreach

MMBTU Million British Thermal Units

NTGR Net to Gross Ratio

NOx Nitrogen Oxide

PA Program administrator

PIP Program Implementation Plan

PG&E Pacific Gas & Electric

REN Regional Energy Network

SCE Southern California Edison

SCG Southern California Gas Company

SDG&E San Diego Gas & Electric

SEM Strategic Energy Management

TRC Total Resource Cost

ZNE Zero Net Energy

Energy Efficiency Report | 8

Executive Summary

Scope of California’s Energy Efficiency Programs

The California Public Utilities Commission’s (CPUC) Energy Efficiency Portfolio Report summarizes the

achievements of California’s energy efficiency programs implemented from the start of 2013 through 2015.

These programs help California become more energy efficient by reducing electricity and natural gas

consumption while collectively resulting in significant reductions to California’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Energy savings were measured through more than 100 evaluation studies conducted across the set of more

than 400 programs that constituted the 2013-2015 energy efficiency program portfolio. These studies verified

the energy savings and accurately measured the progress toward meeting state energy efficiency and climate

goals. The success of energy efficiency programs affects the future need for additional power plants and

related energy infrastructure. Accurate measurement of the savings impact of California’s energy efficiency

programs, through these evaluation studies, is therefore of critical importance to planning California’s energy

future. Impact evaluations of programs take place after the program year of interest has concluded. These

evaluation studies can take a year or more to complete, with additional time needed for data processing. The

CPUC thus received data from the last of the 2015 impact evaluations in mid-2017. Compilation and analysis

of the full program cycle data set, along with writing itself, were then conducted to produce this report.

While the CPUC provides direction and oversight for the energy efficiency programs, the programs

themselves are implemented and administered by program administrators (PAs). Program administrators in

the 2013-2015 energy efficiency portfolio included the four major investor-owned utilities (IOUs): Pacific

Gas & Electric (PG&E), Southern California Edison (SCE), Southern California Gas Company (SCG), and

San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E), as well as two regional energy networks, BayREN and SoCalREN, and

one community choice aggregator, Marin Clean Energy (MCE).

The 2013-2015 portfolio cycle is the last cycle to follow the 3-year program cycle structure. In 2013, the

CPUC issued the “Order Instituting Rulemaking Concerning Energy Efficiency Rolling Portfolios, Policies,

Programs, Evaluation, and Related Issues.” The Rolling Portfolio framework is envisioned as a long-term

(e.g. 10-year) authorization and planning framework for energy efficiency programs after 2015. The CPUC is

currently in the process of implementing this new framework.

Portfolio Impacts and Success of the 2013-2015 Energy Efficiency Programs

The CPUC considers a portfolio successful if the program meets the energy savings goals set at the beginning

of the program and is cost-effective. The effectiveness of the energy efficiency portfolio is measured via four

distinct metrics (corresponding units in parentheses):

 energy savings (electricity in GWh and natural gas in MM therms)

 peak electricity demand savings (MW)

 emissions savings (tons of CO2 and tons of NOx)

 Cost-effectiveness (overall dollar savings of from the program exceeds the program costs)

Throughout this document, there is a distinction made between “net” and “gross” savings. This distinction

refers to the fact that some program incentives are provided to customers who would have adopted the

Energy Efficiency Report | 9

energy efficiency equipment or practice even without at utility program. The gross savings estimate includes

these so-called free riders (i.e., gross savings estimates simply represent the estimated savings per EE widget

times the number of rebates provided for the EE widget), whereas the net savings estimates back out savings

attributed to these free riders to determine what savings occurred as a result of the EE program’s existence.

The discussion of energy savings at the portfolio level focuses on evaluated gross savings because the 2013-

2015 portfolio goals were set for evaluated gross savings. In individual sector or program chapters, however,

the default savings values discussed are evaluated net savings, in order to focus the discussion on the savings

that occurred as a direct result of program impacts and because cost-effectiveness is calculated based on net

savings.

Table ES-1: Energy Efficiency Savings Goals

2013-2015 Energy Efficiency Portfolio Goals

Electric

(GWh)

Demand

(MW)

Natural

Gas

(MM

Therms)

Program Goals

Gross

4,410

830

130

Codes and Standards Goals

1,756

243

7

Combined Goals

6,166

1,073

137

For the 2013-2015 portfolio, the CPUC goals for the energy efficiency program were a reduction in electricity

usage of 4,410 GWh and 130MMtherms in gas usage. The CPUC allowed program administrators to include

low-income program savings in their goal attainment numbers, but established separate codes and standards

savings goals.

1

Table ES-1 shows the breakdown of savings goals for the program portfolio and codes and

standards. The combined goals are shown for illustrative purposes only.

The 2013-2015 Energy Efficiency Portfolio surpassed electricity savings goals while staying

within budget

The 2013-2015 energy efficiency programs served an important role in California’s energy sector, providing

large amounts of evaluated and verified energy savings and, by extension, avoiding large quantities of

greenhouse gases and particulate emissions. These programs achieved all of this while staying within the

allocated 3-year budget for the portfolio ($2.6 billion in expenditures out of a budget of $2.7 billion).

The energy and emissions savings accrued by the portfolio over the 3-year program cycle are shown in Table

ES-2. The realization rate is the ratio of evaluated savings to savings reported (pre-evaluation) by the Program

Administrator. It is an important metric in determining the accuracy of reporting and energy savings

estimates.

1

Decision 12-11-015, “Decision Providing Guidance on 2013-2014 Energy Efficiency Portfolios and 2012 Marketing, Education, and

Outreach” Date of Issuance: 18 May 2012, p.87

Energy Efficiency Report | 10

Table ES-2: 2013-2015 Energy Efficiency Programs Energy and Emissions Savings

(1)

Energy Savings

Emissions

(2)

Electric

(GWh)

Demand

(MW)

Natural

Gas

(MM

Therms)

CO

2

(Million

Tons)

NOx

(1000

Pounds)

Goals

Gross

4,410

830

130

Evaluated

Portfolio

Savings

Gross

5,070

954

100

7,053

2,607

Net

3,230

624

67

4,102

1,568

Realization

Rate

(3)

Gross

93%

94%

76%

Net

83%

87%

75%

Codes &

Standards

Savings

(4)

Gross

12,282

2,267

93

Net

3,597

546

39

(1) First-year savings. Program savings do not include low-income savings or Codes & Standards

savings. Program savings are used to calculate cost-effectiveness and to calculate emissions

savings.

(2) Emissions are not calculated for low-income programs or Codes and Standards savings

(3) Realization rate describes the ratio of evaluated savings to savings reported (pre-evaluation) by

the Program Administrator.

(4) See the Codes & Standards chapter for more information on Codes & Standards savings and

programs

The 2013-2015 energy efficiency portfolio surpassed the electricity savings goals set by the CPUC, as shown

in Figure ES-1. The 2013-2015 energy efficiency program portfolio saved 5,070 gigawatt-hours of electricity,

954 megawatts of demand, and 100 million therms of natural gas, exclusive of the savings attributed to the

codes & standards and low-income programs. These savings are equivalent to avoiding the annual electricity

consumption of over 790,000 average California residences and the annual natural gas consumption of over

323,000 average California homes.

The Commercial customer sector surpassed the Residential sector as the largest share of electric savings,

compared to the 2010-2012 energy efficiency portfolio. This shift is mostly due to the successful market

adoption of efficient lighting in the Residential sector. As market adoption grows, the available savings for

lighting measures in the Residential sector decrease.

Energy Efficiency Report | 11

Figure ES-1: 2013-2015 Energy Efficiency Goal Attainment by IOU

For the 2013-2015 program cycle, the CPUC allowed PAs to include low-Income program savings in the

goal attainment calculation. The above chart is based on evaluated gross savings includes REN and CCA

savings within their respective IOU counterpart count and low-income savings. Codes and Standards

savings are not included in this chart.

Natural gas savings achieved 88 percent of their CPUC-set savings goals for the portfolio. In keeping with

past trends, the industrial customer sector contributed the largest share of natural gas savings throughout the

program cycle.

The program administrators exceeded their program savings goals for electric savings and peak demand

savings (120 percent and 121 percent, respectively), and came close to the natural gas savings goal (88

percent).

2

Codes and Standards savings greatly exceeded goals. Electric codes and standards savings achieved

223 percent of the gigawatt-hour savings goal and 237 percent of the peak demand savings goal, while natural

gas savings were 186 percent of the codes and standards savings goal. Codes and Standards savings are shown

in Table ES-2.

In addition to determining the total savings achieved, evaluation studies also calculate how much of these

savings can be directly attributed to program interventions, rather than other factors such as normal market

adoption. Evaluations of the 2013-2015 program cycle determined that CPUC energy efficiency programs

were the driving force behind California’s energy savings. Two-thirds of the energy savings achieved during

the 2013-2015 period can be tied directly to the energy efficiency programs implemented by program

administrators.

3

2

See Appendix A for further information on Goal Attainment calculations and a breakdown of goals and savings by program

administrator.

3

This calculation is known as the net-to-gross ratio and is explained further in the glossary.

123%

141%

111%

122%

112%

103%

97%

48%

72%

120%

121%

88%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

GWh

MW

MM Therms

GWh

MW

MM Therms

GWh

MW

MM Therms

GWh

MW

MM Therms

GWh

MW

MM Therms

PGE SCE SDGE SCG Portfolio

2013-2015 Energy Efficiency Portfolio Percent Savings

Programs Goal Attainment

Energy Efficiency Report | 12

The evaluated Energy Efficiency Portfolio was not cost-effective for the 2013-2015 program cycle

In addition to energy savings goals, the portfolio is evaluated for its cost-effectiveness. The cost effectiveness

of the portfolio is evaluated using two different cost-effectiveness tests: the Total Resource Cost (TRC) and

Program Administrator Cost (PAC) tests (together, the “the dual test”).The TRC equation divides the dollars

saved from energy efficiency by the costs incurred by both the PA (IOU, REN, or CCA) and the program

participants (customers), combined. Generally, activities that pass the TRC test will pass the PAC test, making

TRC the de facto test of portfolio cost effectiveness.

The combined portfolio for all program administrators, excluding Codes & Standards, as measured by Total

Resource Cost test (TRC), was 1.17 in 2013, 0.99 in 2014, and 0.78 in 2015, as shown in Table ES-3.

4

The

evaluated portfolio TRC for the three year (2013-2015) period was 0.87. Some reduction in cost –

effectiveness was expected in 2015 as the program administrators began preparing for the new Rolling

Portfolio framework that is currently in the process of being implemented. As program administrators

transition to this new framework, it is expected to see positive cost-effectiveness impacts.

Table ES-3: Total Resource Cost by Year

Cost-effectiveness (Total Resource Cost)

2013-2015 Energy Efficiency Programs

2013

2014

2015

13-15 Program

Cycle

Evaluated Portfolio TRC

1.17

0.99

0.78

0.87

As noted previously, the CPUC does not include codes and standards savings or costs when determining

portfolio cost-effectiveness. Cost-effectiveness is calculated separately for the C&S programs and is

consistently very high. As noted in the guidance decision for this program cycle, the CPUC separated C&S

from the other programs in order to, “avoid the risk of overemphasis on codes and standards advocacy at the

expense of the utility programs that are needed to ensure technologies and building practices are available and

affordable as they become required by code.”

5

4

An evaluated TRC score of 1.0 or higher indicates a portfolio is cost effective, while a score lower than 1.0 indicates a portfolio is

not cost effective.

5

“Goals Proposal,” Attachment A of 2013-2014 Energy Efficiency Goals Ruling at 9.

Energy Efficiency Report | 13

Introduction

Scope of this Report

The CPUC’s Energy Efficiency Portfolio Report summarizes the achievements of the CPUC’s 2013-2015

energy efficiency programs, based on evaluation studies fielded during and after the three-year program cycle.

These programs help California become more energy efficient by reducing electricity and natural gas

consumption while, collectively, resulting in significant reductions in California’s greenhouse gas emissions.

The CPUC’s energy efficiency programs span a variety of economic sectors, encompassing residential homes

and commercial buildings, large and small appliances, lighting and HVAC end uses, industrial customers,

manufacturers, and agriculture. Within those sectors, efficiency programs achieve energy savings using a

number of different tools: financial incentives and rebates, research and development for energy efficiency

technologies, financing mechanisms, building codes and appliance standards development, and education and

public outreach.

The original guiding document for these programs is known as the California Long Term Energy Efficiency

Strategic Plan. This comprehensive plan is the state’s integrated framework of goals and strategies for saving

energy, covering government, utility, and private sector actions, and holds energy efficiency to its role as the

highest priority resource in meeting California’s energy needs.

6

Program administrators (PA) operate the energy efficiency programs ordered by the CPUC. PAs include the

IOU, regional energy networks (REN), and community choice aggregators (CCA).

7

The PAs are responsible

for implementing energy efficiency programs while the CPUC is responsible for guiding, overseeing, and

evaluating these activities to inform future policy direction, improve program design, and refine savings

estimates.

Specific guidance for the implementation of the 2013-2015 portfolio was administered to program

administrators through several CPUC decisions:

 D.12-05-015, “Decision Providing Guidance on 2013-2014 Energy Efficiency Portfolios and 2012

Marketing, Education, and Outreach” (Proceeding R.09-11-014);

 D. 12-11-015, “Approving 2013-2014 Energy Efficiency Programs and Budgets” (Proceeding

A1207001; A1207002; A1207003; A1207004);

 D.14-10-046, “Decision Establishing Energy Efficiency Savings Goals and Approving 2015 Energy

Efficiency Programs and Budgets” (Proceeding R.13-11-005)

The Energy Efficiency Portfolio Report complies with Public Utilities Code section 913.5.

8

The CPUC issued

the last iteration of the Energy Efficiency Portfolio Report on March 2015 and summarized the 2010 – 2012

portfolio cycle. This report is based on the studies from the 2013-2015 portfolio cycle.

6

The California Long Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan can be accessed here: http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/General.aspx?id=4125

7

While the investor-owned utilities implement the bulk of energy efficiency programs statewide, the 2013-2015 portfolio cycle saw the

introduction of two new types of program administrators: regional energy networks and community choice aggregators.

8

Public Utilities Code 913.5: The CPUC shall submit a report to the Legislature by July 15, 2009, and triennially thereafter, on the

energy efficiency and conservation programs it oversees. The report shall include information regarding authorized utility budgets and

Energy Efficiency Report | 14

This report synthesizes and highlights the results from more than 100 evaluation studies conducted across a

set of more than 400 programs that constituted the 2013-2015 energy efficiency program portfolio. These

evaluation activities reviewed 65 percent of reported savings. Given the summary nature of this report,

readers are encouraged to return to the original source documents for a more comprehensive treatment of the

material summarized here, if interested in a particular sector or program area. The report provides references

to the original research described within and a list of impact evaluations is included in the appendices.

Organization of this Report

The report is organized into chapters that focus either on a customer sector (residential, commercial,

industrial, and agriculture) or on a crosscutting topic area (e.g. Codes and Standards, Lighting, HVAC) that

comprises an important program area. The inclusion of crosscutting topics as distinct chapters means that it

would be incorrect to sum the energy savings listed in each chapter to get the total portfolio savings. Each

chapter is simply a different view of a subset of the evaluation data. For instance, lighting programs’ energy

savings are addressed in their own chapter, although the savings from these end uses are included in relevant

customer sectors to show the contribution to lighting savings in that customer group. For synthesis of how

various sectors and end-uses affected the portfolio-level savings, please refer to the Overview sections below

or the Appendices.

The appendices to this report provide the detailed summaries of accomplishments by program administrator,

program, sector, and measure group. Detailed data on cost-effectiveness and emissions reductions impacts

are also provided in these appendices.

Evaluation Methodology and Terminology

The five evaluation, measurement, and verification (EM&V) research objectives for the portfolio are:

1. Savings Measurement and Verification

2. Program Evaluation

3. Market Assessment

4. Policy and Planning Support

5. Financial and Management Audits

These objectives are accomplished through three types of evaluation studies:

 Impact Evaluations measure program impacts, estimating net changes in electricity usage, electricity

demand, usage of natural gas, and/or behavioral impacts that are expected to produce changes in

energy use.

9

 Process Evaluations are systematic assessments of energy efficiency programs, products or services

for the purposes of identifying and recommending improvements that can be made to the program.

10

expenditures and projected and actual energy savings over the program cycle. (Added by renumbering Section 913.7 by Stats. 2016,

Ch. 842, Sec. 26. Effective January 1, 2017.)

9

California Public Utilities Commission, California Energy Efficiency Evaluation Protocols: Technical, Methodological, and Reporting Requirements

for Evaluation Professionals, April 2006 p.19

10

op. cit. note 9, p. 131

Energy Efficiency Report | 15

 Market Studies gauge current market situations that inform savings baselines, identify and track

appropriate baseline metrics of market change, measure progress toward achieving long-term

Strategic Plan objectives, and inform estimates of remaining potential for energy efficiency.

Savings reported by the program administrators are evaluated and verified. Evaluated savings may differ from

reported savings because of a number of different factors including, the energy efficiency measure not being

installed properly, the use of incorrect hours of operation, or the use of incorrect baseline assumptions for

the reported values. In the 2013-2015 portfolio cycle, 69 percent of reported gross electricity savings and 68

percent of gross natural gas savings received some form of field evaluation. For the reported savings that are

not evaluated, the reported savings may be determined to be pass-through values using IOU-reported

savings.

11

Savings are reported as both gross savings and net savings. Gross savings are the savings, in total, that

occurred in a sector, program area, or portfolio. Net savings are the savings that are directly applicable to

program interventions, as in they would not have occurred if the program had not been implemented. The

difference between net and gross is attributed to free ridership, which describes savings that would have

occurred without program intervention.

A Note on the Numbers:

This report contains data on both the reported and evaluated, as well as gross and net, savings values. While

the reported savings are contained within tables and the appendices, any portfolio-level analysis in the

following chapters (e.g. percentage of portfolio calculations) is based on evaluated net savings values, except

where explicitly stated. The discussion of savings at the portfolio level focuses on evaluated gross savings

because the 2013-2015 portfolio goals were set for evaluated gross savings. Therefore, Staff compares

evaluated gross savings at the portfolio level to the evaluated gross savings goals. In individual sector or

program chapters, however, the default savings values discussed are evaluated net savings, in order to focus

the discussion on the savings that occurred as a direct result of program impacts.

Additionally, all savings data in tables or figures are first-year savings, inclusive of REN and CCA savings and

exclusive of codes and standards savings, except where explicitly stated. First-year savings are the savings that

a measure accrues in the first year after installation, as opposed to lifecycle savings that accrue over the entire

lifetime of the equipment or measure that was installed. Lifecycle savings are used in cost effectiveness

calculations.

All savings and expenditures data are sourced from the 2013-2015 evaluation data, prepared by Itron and

based on the results from all program evaluations.

11

Claimed savings may not be evaluated as they are determined to be pass through values, or accepted claims that do not fall within

the frame of an impact evaluation or may not evaluated due to resource or time constraints on evaluators.

Energy Efficiency Report | 16

2013-2015 Portfolio Overview

Goals and Overview of 2013-2015 Portfolio Activities

Based on CPUC direction for the 2013-2015 portfolio, the portfolio is considered successful if it is cost-

effective and meets all of the CPUC’s savings goals. Savings goals are set via CPUC decision, based on the

Energy Efficiency Potential and Goals study.

12

,

13

Goals were set for electric savings (expressed in gigawatt-

hours or GWh), peak megawatt load reductions (also called demand savings and expressed in megawatts or

MW), and natural gas savings (expressed in millions of therms or MM Therms). As previously noted, the

2013-2015 savings goals were set for gross savings, not net savings. Consequently, each IOU’s gross

(evaluated) savings achievements were compared to the CPUC’s goals to determine portfolio success. The

CPUC-adopted 2013-2015 savings goals for each IOU territory are provided in Table 1 below. In Decision

12-05-015, the CPUC directed that codes and standards goals be separated from the program goals. This is a

distinct change from the 2010-12 program cycle in which IOUs could credit codes and standards advocacy

savings toward their energy efficiency goals.

14

Table 1: 2013-2015 IOU Program Goals

2013-2015 Goals by Investor-Owned Utility

Electric

(GWh)

Demand

(MW)

Natural Gas (MM

Therms)

PGE

1,889

324

56

SCE

2,030

408

-

SDGE

492

98

7

SCG

-

68

Total Portfolio

4,410

830

130

In addition to achieving the savings goals, each IOU must reach their savings goals in a cost-effective manner.

As clarified in D.09-09-047, the cost effectiveness of the portfolio is evaluated using two different cost-

effectiveness tests: the Total Resource Cost (TRC) and Program Administrator Cost (PAC) tests (together,

the “the dual test”).The TRC equation divides the dollar benefits gained from energy efficiency by the costs

incurred by both the PAs and the program participants, combined.

15

Generally, activities that pass the TRC

test will pass the PAC test, making TRC the de facto test of portfolio cost effectiveness. Cost-effectiveness

12

D.12-05-015, “Decision Providing Guidance on 2013-2014 Energy Efficiency Portfolios and 2012 Marketing, Education, and

Outreach” Date of Issuance: 18 May 2012, p.95;

D.14-10-046, “Decision Establishing Energy Efficiency Savings Goals and Approving 2015 Energy Efficiency Programs and

Budgets,” Date of Issuance: 24 October 2014, p.10

13

Navigant Consulting, Inc. Analysis to Update Energy Efficiency Potential, Goals, and Targets for 2013 and Beyond. 19 March 2012. Available

at: http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/General.aspx?id=6442452622

14

Decision 12-11-015, “Decision Providing Guidance on 2013-2014 Energy Efficiency Portfolios and 2012 Marketing, Education,

and Outreach” Date of Issuance: 18 May 2012, p.87

15

Since incentives are paid by Program Administrators to participants, participant incentive payments net to zero in the TRC, while

the PAC test includes all Program Administrator costs (including all incentive payments) but excludes customer costs (i.e., any out of

pocket costs beyond the incentive for more expensive efficiency equipment)

Energy Efficiency Report | 17

calculations use net savings in the numerator, and remove “free rider” incentive payments out of the

denominator, to measure the costs of the program against the estimated impacts of the program.

16

In the guidance for the 2013 and 2014 programs, the CPUC set the requirement that each IOU’s portfolio

needed to achieve a TRC ratio of at least 1.25, independent of the costs and benefits of the REN, spillover

effects, and Codes and Standards program costs and benefits. In D.14-10-046, which established guidance for

the 2015 energy efficiency programs, the CPUC modified the cost-effectiveness threshold to 1.0 for the PAC

and TRC for 2015, in order to accommodate a transition period into a new regulatory framework for energy

efficiency programs, known as the Rolling Portfolio.

The IOUs are accountable for achieving the total portfolio goals defined by the CPUC in Decision 12-05-015

and for ensuring that the portfolio is cost-effective, according to the guidance in Decision 12-11-015.

However, the IOUs’ success is measured at the portfolio level, giving the program administrators the

flexibility at the sector or program level to include activities that may not, by themselves, be cost-effective.

In addition to programs and activities that directly generate energy savings, the IOUs support complementary

programs that address long-term market transformation. Known as non-resource programs, these programs

represent energy efficiency activities that do not focus on displacement of supply-side resources at the time

they are implemented, but may lead to displacement over the longer-term or may enhance program

participation overall. Non-resource programs do not provide direct energy savings, but do add costs to the

portfolio, making them not cost-effective on their own. However, non-resource programs frequently provide

necessary support to resource programs.

The CPUC authorized $2.7 billion in ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs for the 2013-2015 program

cycle. The PAs spent $2.6 billion of that authorized amount over the three-year cycle.

17

Impacts of the 2013-2015 Energy Efficiency Portfolio

The impact of the energy efficiency portfolio is measured via four distinct metrics (corresponding units in

parentheses):

 energy savings (electricity in GWh and natural gas in MM Therms)

 peak electricity demand savings (MW)

 emissions savings (tons of CO2 and tons of NOx)

 cost-effectiveness (total resource cost)

16

California Standard Practice Manual: Economic Analysis of Demand-Side Programs and Projects. October 2001, p. 18. TRC equals the net

present value of the avoided costs of the supply-side resources avoided divided by the net present value of the net costs to

participants for installed measures over the measure life, plus all costs incurred by the program administrator. The net benefits and net

participant costs excluded the benefits derived from and costs paid by free-rider participants.

17

Unspent funds are allocated to subsequent program cycle funding requirements. See D.12-11-015, section 6.1 “Treatment of

Unspent Funds from Prior Portfolio Cycles” for details.

Energy Efficiency Report | 18

Table 2: Savings, Emissions, and Cost-Effectiveness of 2013-2015 Portfolio

Energy and Emission Savings from 2013-2015 Energy Efficiency Programs

(1)

Energy Savings

Emissions

(2)

Cost

Effectiveness

Electric

(GWh)

Demand

(MW)

Natural

Gas

(MM

Therms)

CO

2

(Million

Tons)

NOx

(1000

Pounds)

TRC

Goals

Gross

4,410

830

130

Reported

Gross

5,430

1,007

132

Net

3,877

719

89

1.15

Evaluated

Gross

5,070

954

100

7,053

2,607

Net

3,230

624

67

4,102

1,568

0.87

Table Notes: (1) First-Year Savings. Includes RENs and CCAs savings, Codes & Standards advocacy savings, and

low-income program savings. (3) Program savings do not include low-income savings or Codes & Standards

savings, but do include RENs and CCA savings. Program savings are used to calculate cost-effectiveness and to

calculate emissions savings. (2) Emissions are not calculated for low-income programs or Codes and Standards

savings.

At the statewide portfolio level, the 2013-2015 energy efficiency portfolio saved 5,070 gigawatt-hours of

electricity, 954 megawatts of demand, and 100 million therms of natural gas, exclusive of the savings

attributed to the codes & standards program and low-income programs, as shown in Table 2.

18

These savings

are equivalent to avoiding the annual electricity consumption of over 790,000 average California residences

and the annual natural gas consumption of over 323,000 average California homes.

19

When considering just these program impacts, the energy efficiency portfolio already exceeded most of its

savings goals. The 5,070 gigawatt-hours of savings exceeded the electricity savings goal for the statewide

portfolio by 20 percent. Peak demand savings for the statewide portfolio also exceeded its goals, achieving

954 MW saved or 9 percent above the statewide goal. The evaluated gross natural gas savings achieved 88

percent of the statewide goals, however, delivering 100 MM therms out of a goal of 130 MM therms of

savings.

18

Codes & Standards savings are tracked separately from the customer-targeted programs savings and goals. Codes & Standards have

their own set of goals, for which further detail can be found in the Codes & Standards chapter.

19

Equivalent homes were calculated using data from the U.S Energy Information Administration. Average California household

electricity consumption for 2015 equals 6,684 kwh. Total annual residential natural gas consumption in California in 2015 equaled

401,172 million cubic feet of gas while the Census Bureau reports California had 12,700,000 households in 2015.

Avg. Electricity Consumption: https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=97&t=3

Natural Gas Consumption: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_cons_sum_dcu_sca_a.htm

Number of Households: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/CA

Energy Efficiency Report | 19

Figure 1: 2013-2015 Energy Efficiency Goal Attainment by IOU

For the 2013-2015 program cycle, the CPUC allowed PAs to include low-Income program savings in the

goal attainment calculation. The above chart is based on evaluated gross savings includes REN and

CCA savings within their respective IOU counterpart count and low-income savings. Codes and

Standards savings are not included in this chart.

For the 2013-2015 portfolio, however, the CPUC allowed program administrators to include low-income

program savings in their goal attainment numbers. When inclusive of these program savings, the goal

attainment percentages reach 120 percent, 121 percent, and 88 percent for electric savings, demand savings,

and natural gas savings, respectively. Figure 1 shows the percent goal attainment by IOU while Table 3 below

shows the goals values.

Table 3: Goals for the 2013-2015 Portfolio

2013-2015 Energy Efficiency Portfolio Goals

Electric

(GWh)

Demand

(MW)

Natural

Gas

(MM

Therms)

Program Goals

Gross

4,410

830

130

Codes and Standards Goals

1,756

243

7

Combined Goals

6,166

1,073

137

Excluding Codes & Standards costs and benefits, the statewide portfolio’s evaluated savings fell short of its

cost-effectiveness goal of a 1.25 TRC in 2013 and 2014 and its goal of a 1.0 TRC in 2015.

2 below shows the annual cost-effectiveness ratios of each IOU portfolio. The only year in which any of the

IOUs met their cost-effectiveness goals was 2013. PG&E and SCG both managed to meet or exceed the 1.25

TRC threshold in in 2013, but then fell below 1.25 in 2014 and below 1.0 TRC in 2015. SCG and SDG&E

123%

141%

111%

122%

112%

103%

97%

48%

72%

120%

121%

88%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

GWh

MW

MM Therms

GWh

MW

MM Therms

GWh

MW

MM Therms

GWh

MW

MM Therms

GWh

MW

MM Therms

PGE SCE SDGE SCG Portfolio

2013-2015 Energy Efficiency Portfolio Percent Savings

Programs Goal Attainment

Energy Efficiency Report | 20

came in below the TRC thresholds in each year. One factor that contributes to lower cost-effectiveness is

accounting for energy efficiency activities that would have occurred absent program intervention.

Figure 2: Annual IOU Portfolio Cost Effectiveness Ratios (2013-2015)

The blue dotted lines in the chart above show the TRC threshold of 1.25 (2013 and 2014) and 1.0 (2015)

that were set by the CPUC via decision. Program savings used for this calculation do not include

Codes & Standards savings.

Cost-effectiveness of the entire portfolio increases, however, if one considers the costs and benefits of the

Codes & Standards programs combined with the above portfolio cost-effectiveness. The Codes & Standards

program has been discussed in past decisions as a potential hedge against failure to meet savings goals or

cost-effectiveness targets given that C&S advocacy reliably produces savings year over year in a significantly

cost-effective manner. While the decision to separate C&S savings and program savings is discussed at length

in D.12-05-015 (page 87), the impact of C&S savings on portfolio cost-effectiveness is discussed below for

illustrative purposes.

Codes & Standards Savings

The Codes and Standards (C&S) program saves energy by influencing continuous improvements in energy

efficiency regulations, improving compliance with existing codes and standards, and working with local

governments to develop ordinances that exceed statewide minimum requirements. Both the C&S program

advocacy and compliance improvement activities extend to virtually all buildings and potentially all appliances

in California. C&S savings result from the IOUs advocacy to the California Energy Commission (CEC) and

the federal Department of Energy for stricter building codes and appliance standards.

The savings from C&S programs are treated differently than the customer-oriented program savings. C&S

programs have their own savings goals, distinct from the portfolio goals described previously. Codes and

Standards savings greatly exceeded all of the separate Codes and Standards goals. Electric codes and

1.53

1.17

0.73

1.07

0.83

0.65

0.85

0.89

0.90

1.25

0.98

0.70

1.17

0.99

0.78

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2013 2014 2015

TRC

Total Resource Cost by IOU and Year (2013-2015)

PG&E SDG&E SCE SCG Portfolio

Energy Efficiency Report | 21

standards savings achieved 223 percent of the gigawatt-hour savings goal, while codes and standards achieved

237 percent of its peak demand savings goal and 186 percent of its natural gas savings goal.

With inclusion of savings from C&S programs, portfolio-wide evaluated net savings increase to 7,037 GWh

(51 percent of total combined electricity savings); 1,212 MW (45 percent of total combined demand savings);

and 105 MM Therms (37 percent of total combined natural gas savings).

As shown below in Error! Reference source not found., including C&S in the TRC calculation increases

the cost-effectiveness of the portfolio significantly. As discussed above, previous CPUC decisions have

explored the idea of using C&S savings as a hedge against the IOUs failing to meet their savings goals or cost-

effectiveness targets. In the 2013-2015 program cycle, C&S savings were not allowable as a hedging tactic for

meeting performance goals, but the decision adopting separate goals is silent on whether cost-effectiveness

should be estimated separately or on a portfolio basis. The concept of codes & standards providing a hedge

for cost-effectiveness is illustrated in Figure 3 by the fact that in each of the program years, incorporating

C&S into cost-effectiveness results in cost-effective portfolios.

20

Figure 3: Portfolio Cost-Effectiveness Ratios, Including Codes & Standards

The blue dotted lines in the chart above show the TRC threshold of 1.25 (2013 and 2014) and 1.0

(2015) that were set by the CPUC via decision.

More information on Codes & Standards programs and savings can be found in Chapter 7: Codes &

Standards.

20

The calculation methodology of the Codes & Standards TRC is not entirely identical to the TRC methodology used for program

TRC ratios and is one of the reasons that the CPUC does not explicitly count codes & standards as a hedge for cost-effectiveness.

However, codes & standards do provide benefits to customers that may not apparent by looking at the portfolio cost-effectiveness

results in isolation. As such, the explanation and illustrative chart are provided above.

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.0

2013 2014 2015

TRC

Portfolio Total Resource Cost (2013-2015)

TRC w/ C&S

TRC w/o C&S

Energy Efficiency Report | 22

Portfolio Savings by Program Administrator

Each of the four IOUs develops and executes a portfolio of energy efficiency programs. The savings accrue

to their customers and are an opportunity to offset future procurement in their service territories. As stated

above, savings goals for electricity, gas, and peak demand are set for the total portfolio, as well as each IOU.

Figure 1 above shows the performance of each IOU compared to their goals for the 2013-2015 portfolio.

The IOUs exceeded their electricity and peak demand savings goals, but SDG&E and SCG did not meet their

natural gas savings targets.

While IOUs are required by statute to procure all cost-effective energy efficiency, neither statute nor the

CPUC sets a specific penalty for not meeting the CPUC-adopted goals. However, IOUs do receive

shareholder incentives for achieving energy savings and lower savings equate to lower levels of shareholder

rewards. This shareholder incentive framework is known as the Efficiency Savings and Performance

Incentive (ESPI). The ESPI awards the IOUs for performance in both non-resource and resource activities.

Thus, while SDG&E and SCG are not levied a specific penalty for missing the natural gas savings goals, their

shareholder incentive levels will be lower commensurate with the lower savings achieved. Regional Energy

Networks (RENs) and Community Choice Aggregators (CCAs) also contribute savings to the portfolio.

However, the CPUC does not set savings goals for these entities. Savings from RENs activities are counted

within their respective associated investor-owned utility savings count. CCAs are not fully under the purview

of the CPUC and therefore are not prescribed savings goals for their energy efficiency activities.

Portfolio Savings by Customer Sector

The residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural sectors are the four primary customer segments in the

state. Electricity savings for the 2013-2015 cycle were driven mainly by the commercial sector, which

comprised 48 percent of total evaluated electricity savings. Comparatively, the residential sector accounted for

38 percent while the industrial and agriculture sectors contributed a combined 14 percent. This breakdown

reflects a shift from the 2010-2012 cycle, in which the residential sector accounted for the majority, 55

percent, of the electricity savings. This shift from residential savings to commercial savings was driven by the

residential upstream lighting program, which had successfully supported market adoption for Compact

Fluorescent Lights (CFLs) by the end of the 2010-2012 portfolio cycle. As such, installations began to

decrease in 2013 and thus reduced the residential savings proportion with respect to commercial savings.

Natural gas savings are driven mainly by the industrial sector, which accounted for 52 percent of the natural

gas savings in the 2013-2015 portfolio. The commercial sector contributed 40 percent of gas savings while the

residential sector has a much smaller impact, contributing 8 percent to the portfolio. It is worth noting that

natural gas savings in the commercial and residential sectors are impacted by the interactive effects of certain

other energy efficiency measures (mainly efficient lighting). These interactive effects are described in more

depth in the next section, “Portfolio Savings by End Use.”

Portfolio Savings by End Use

The end uses that drive electricity savings vary by customer segment or sector. However, lighting and HVAC

measures contribute large amounts of savings across the portfolio. As shown in Figure 4 below, HVAC and

lighting measures combined account for 67 percent of electricity savings in the 2013-2015 portfolio, with

lighting contributing 54 percent alone.

21

However, as a percentage of the portfolio, lighting savings fell from

21

This includes both indoor and outdoor lighting.

Energy Efficiency Report | 23

64 percent of the 2010-2012 portfolio savings to 54 percent in 2013-2015, while HVAC savings increased

from 8 percent to 13 percent of the portfolio electricity savings. Savings from whole building measures

increased from 3.2 percent in the 2010-2012 cycle to 9.3 percent of statewide energy savings in 2013-2015.

Figure 4: Percentage of Electricity Savings by End Use

Natural gas savings are mostly achieved in the industrial sector through process improvements in industrial

processes. Whole building measures, HVAC, and water heating accounted for the majority of additional

savings beyond process improvements. The remaining natural gas savings by end use are displayed in Figure 5

below.

Indoor Lighting

47.8%

HVAC

13.0%

Process

10.5%

Whole Building

9.3%

Outdoor Lighting

5.4%

Refrigeration

4.8%

Appliance

4.7%

Other

3.5%

Plug Loads

0.9%

Food Service

0.1%

Water Heating

0.1%

Percentage of 2013-2015 Electricity Savings by End Use

*Evaluated Gross Savings, excludes Codes & Standards

Energy Efficiency Report | 24

Figure 5: Percentage of Natural Gas Savings by End Use

One anomaly in natural gas savings is the negative impact that indoor lighting measures have on natural gas

savings. High efficiency lighting measures transform a larger share of their energy usage into light, emitting

substantially less heat than inefficient lighting measures. The decline in heat emitted from high efficiency

lighting measures may lead to an increase in the heating requirements and/or a decrease in the building’s

cooling requirements. In the 2013-2015 cycle, indoor lighting reduced natural gas savings by 17 percent. Plug

load measures contributed a small negative impact on natural gas savings, reducing gas savings by 0.1 percent.

Emissions Savings

A key benefit of the energy efficiency programs is the reduction in emissions of Carbon Dioxide (CO2),

Nitrogen Oxide (NOx), and particulate emissions that would have otherwise occurred due to energy

production and consumption. While the CPUC does not set specific emissions goals for the IOUs, the

emissions are estimated based on the energy saved per portfolio cycle. The calculation methodology is

embedded in the cost effectiveness tool that Energy Division uses to estimate portfolio impacts. Note that

these estimated emissions reductions represent the annual impact of the installed and operating energy

efficiency technologies. The emissions reductions from the entire useful life of the installed technology,

known as lifecycle emissions, will be significantly higher, but are not calculated here.

During the 2013-2015 portfolio cycle, energy efficiency activities reduced emissions by an estimated 3.3

million tons of CO

2

and 1.6 million tons of NOx

,

based on evaluated gross savings.

The estimated emissions

savings from Codes & Standards programs account for an additional reduction of 4.0 million tons of CO2

HVAC

13.2%

Process

43.0%

Whole Building

17.0%

Refrigeration

1.5%

Appliance

1.1%

Other

7.0%

Food Service

5.3%

Water

Heating

12.0%

Percentage of 2013-2015 Natural Gas Savings by End Use

*Evaluated Gross Savings, excludes Codes & Standards

Energy Efficiency Report | 25

and 1.2 million tons of NOx. The emissions savings from both customer programs and Codes & Standards

programs was the equivalent of removing 1.3 million cars from California’s roads.

22

Common Challenges across the Portfolio

The following chapters will highlight sector or program-area specific challenges identified through the

evaluation studies. Each evaluation study includes recommendations for solving the identified challenges at

the program-specific level. However, one common challenge was present across the portfolio, based on

evaluation study recommendations, and is worth mentioning here.

Improvement in data collection is a common recurrence among recommendations across sectors and

program areas. As energy efficiency activities expand to reach disadvantaged and hard-to-reach segments,

such as small businesses, more data is required from existing programs and future studies in order to

accurately target programs at these populations. However, improvements in data collection are not only

necessary in new areas of activity. Existing programs, such as those in the commercial sector, would benefit

from increased understanding of conversion rates from audits while non-resource programs, such as

workforce education & training programs, could improve upon their understanding of target audiences. The

balance of collecting necessary data with the expense of obtaining this data is always a consideration, but

based on the prevalence of this recommendation across multiple sectors, it is apparent that improved data

collection will be a necessary step as efficiency activities move beyond the “low-hanging fruit” of energy

efficiency opportunities.

22

From D05-09-043: The calculation for this statistic is x metric tons CO2 / (0.014418 metric tons CO2/day/vehicle) / 365 days per

year = # vehicles taken off the roads each year due to savings that year. The data on average emissions of Bay Area vehicles was

provided by the California Air Resources Board using Emfac2002 V2.2 Sept. 23, 2002; personal communication with Jeff Long,

CARV, March 24, 2003. (Cited in D. Bachrach, M. Ardeman, and A. Leupp, Energy Efficiency Leadership in California: Preventing

the Next Crisis. April 2003.)

Energy Efficiency Report | 26

Residential

Overview

With over 14 million single- and multi-family homes that house more than 39 million Californians, the

residential sector accounts for 17 percent of the state’s energy usage.

23

To address the needs and

opportunities for savings in this sector, the 2013-2015 energy efficiency portfolio included a comprehensive

suite of traditional activities (e.g., appliance rebates and lighting) for California households within the program

administrators’ service territories.

24

However, with an eye towards advancing the Strategic Plan’s goals of

moving from individual technology-based to more comprehensive approaches, the 2013-2015 portfolio

continued augmenting “whole house” approaches to achieve deeper energy savings per participant. These

new comprehensive programs complement the legacy whole house programs, which were started in the 2010-

2012 programs. The 2013-2015 program cycle also included an expanded set of PAs, with two Regional

Energy Networks and one Community Choice Aggregator launching their respective suites of residential

energy efficiency programs.

25

Overall, the CPUC and IOU staff oversaw 17 energy efficiency program impact

evaluations as well as five efficiency program process evaluations.

Estimated Savings

Table 4: Residential Sector Savings Snapshot

Energy Savings

Emissions

Cost-

Effectiveness

Electric

(GWh)

Demand

(MW)

Natural

Gas (MM

Therms)

CO

2

(Million

Tons)

NOx

(1000

pounds)

TRC

Reported

Gross

1,869

377

11

1,028

336

Net

1,316

273

11

746

272

0.9

Evaluated

Gross

2,015

395

9

1,088

334

Net

1,320

272

12

748

278

0.8

% Portfolio*

Gross

40%

41%

9%

15%

13%

Net

41%

44%

18%

*represents Residential sector’s percent contribution to overall evaluated portfolio savings, excluding Codes &

Standards savings.

Note that this table includes savings for lighting and HVAC measures in the Residential Sector that are also

included in the savings tables provided in the separate chapters for these cross-cutting measures.

23

Census State and County Quick Facts, https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/CA; California State Profile and Energy Estimates,

Available at:

https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA#tabs-2

. Accessed 08/11/2017

24

At the same time, the Energy Savings Assistance (ESA) program provided (and continues to provide) complementary energy

efficiency measures to low income households in California, including energy efficient appliances and weatherization measures

25

The Bay Area Regional Energy Network, Southern California Regional Energy Network, and Marin Clean Energy, respectively. See

Chapter 13 on RENs/CCAs for more information.

Energy Efficiency Report | 27

As of the end of the 2013-2015 program cycle, residential energy efficiency programs achieved evaluated net

savings of 1,320 GWh, 272 MW, and 12 million therms. These savings were achieved through a

complementary suite of long-running, “traditional” programs as well as those introduced in the 2010-2012

program cycle and expanded in 2013-2015.

With the inclusion of lighting measures, the $783 million spent on residential energy efficiency programs for

2013-2015 were 30 percent of total portfolio expenditures; 22 percent of the 2013-2015 program cycle

expenditures were for non-lighting residential energy efficiency programs.

26

At the end of the 2013-2015

program cycle, the PAs spent 115 percent of the initial residential sector budget.

Forty-eight percent of evaluated net energy savings in the residential sector come from lighting measures. Of

the remaining savings attributable to non-lighting measures, evaluated net residential sector savings for 2013-

2015 come from Home Energy Reports, pool pumps, various HVAC measures, whole home retrofits, and

residential new construction.

Residential Energy Efficiency Programs

The 2013-2015 statewide programs were designed by PAs to achieve energy savings through the adoption of

energy efficient products, whole house retrofits, and behavior change using rebates, incentives, contractor

training, and education. The Energy Advisor Program

27

and the Home Energy Reports program were

responsible for 60 percent of residential sector savings (excluding lighting measures). In addition, all PAs

implemented some form of a home upgrade program that targeted either single-family or multi-family

properties or both during the 2013-2015 program cycle.

The Home Energy Efficiency Rebate program from 2010-2012 was transitioned into the IOUs’ statewide

Plug Load and Appliances program. In addition to the Appliance Recycling subprogram that provided

incentives to recycle old and inefficient refrigerators and freezers, the Plug Load and Appliances program

continued to offer rebates to customers for certain high efficiency residential appliances, consumer

electronics, water heaters, pool pumps, insulation, and other high efficiency technologies. By the end of 2015,

the Appliance Recycling Program had closed, due to a several factors, including decreased energy savings for

recycled units, as newer and more efficient units were being recycled under the program and displacing pre-

2001 units that dominated the program’s focus in its early years; a nearly non-existent desire in the used

appliance market for older refrigerator units, as 10-year old units represent the cutoff in the used market; and

closure of one of the program’s recycling contractors.

28

Highlights

Residential programs were responsible for 20 percent of total evaluated net portfolio savings (41 percent with

lighting included).

26

Energy savings from lighting programs are discussed in detail in the Lighting Chapter of this report

27

The Energy Advisor Program is an overarching program that includes the IOUs’ online customer energy information tools

28

Ten-year old units represent the cut-off in the used market ,meaning that customers are not looking for units older than 10 years of

age. See Appliance Recycling Impact Evaluation Vol. 1 Report (2010-2012) at www.calmac.org; and CPUC DEER 2016 update at

www.deeresources.com. Additionally, between 90 and 100 percent of units sold on major used appliance sites such as Craigslist and

Pennysaver, respectively, are less than 8 years old. See Evaluation Study of the 2004-2005 Statewide Residential Appliance Recycling Program at

www.calmac.org .Lastly, new and used appliance dealers in California only sell units that are 10 years old or less; units that are older

are destroyed. See Residential Retrofit High Impact Measure Evaluation (2006-2008) at www.calmac.org .

Energy Efficiency Report | 28

PG&E’s Home Energy Report program, initiated in 2011 as a pilot with 50,000 customers receiving reports

as part of a Beta testing phase, grew over 2013-2015 into a program that delivers reports to over 1 million

customers and is responsible for almost 52 percent of residential sector evaluated net savings (excluding

lighting).

29

Over the course of 2013-2015, these reports provided detailed comparative energy usage

information to customers and delivered net energy savings of 352 GWh and natural gas savings of 11 million

therms. Southern California Edison (SCE), San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E), and Marin Clean Energy

(MCE) also implemented Home Energy Report programs, although evaluated net savings were significantly

less than those from PG&E’s program due to the size difference between PG&E’s program (i.e. number of

report recipients in the treatment group) and those of the other PAs in the 2013-2015 program cycle

30

.

PG&E’s Retail Plug-load Portfolio (RPP) Phase I Pilot ran from late 2013 through 2014. The RPP was a

market transformation initiative that offered incentives to a participating retailer for the sale of specific

qualified and efficient consumer electronics and appliances. Although results were mixed due to the limited

duration of the pilot, the pilot allowed PG&E to establish a framework with which a larger programmatic

effort could proceed. Consequently, at the end of 2015, PG&E had developed a Phase II Retail Products

Platform pilot in partnership with the EPA and a number of other utilities and efficiency organizations. The

Phase II pilot launched in early 2016 and the CPUC expects to present preliminary results in late 2018.

31

Findings

Evaluations and data from the residential sector for the 2013-2015 program cycle have identified some

significant challenges. Evaluation results state that:

Home Energy Reports

Home Energy Reports were first delivered to customers by PG&E in a 2011 pilot. By the end of 2015, these

reports constitute the largest single residential measure based on kilowatt-hours saved and were being sent

out by PG&E, SCE, SDG&E, and Marin Clean Energy.

32

Although the size of the program, in terms of the

number of customers who receive the reports and recipient groupings (i.e. fuel type, geography, usage), vary

by program administrator, the average 2013-2015 net savings per household ranged from less than 1 percent

of typical household energy use on the low end to 3 percent on the high end.

33

29

PG&E’s Home Energy Report is the largest single measure, based on evaluated net savings and including lighting, in the residential

sector.

30

While the much larger treatment group in PG&E’s Home Energy Report program leads to the PG&E program having the most

total savings on a kWh basis, the average savings per household across programs are relatively consistent, depending on the treatment

group(s).

31

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Retail Plug-Load Portfolio (RPP) Trial: Evaluation Report, April 2015. Available at http://www.etcc-

ca.com/reports/pacific-gas-and-electric-company-retail-plug-load-portfolio-rpp-trial?dl=1499887695 .

32

MCE’s version is the “Home Utility Report”

33

While one wave of MCE’s Home Utility Report program had savings in 2015, the remaining three waves did not. SDG&E’s 2015

savings were 2.4%. 2013-2015 savings ranged from 2.4% to 2.8% SCE savings for 2014-2015 were 1%. PG&E’s 2015 savings were

between one-half percent and 2.5 percent, depending on recipient wave, while historic savings (2011-2012) were approximately 1-

1.5%. See “Impact Evaluation of 2015 San Diego Gas and Electric Home Energy Reports and Manage-Act-Save Programs (Final

Report)”, May 2017; “Review and Validation of 2015 Southern California Edison Home Energy Reports Program Impacts (Final

Report)”, May 2017; “Review and Validation of 2015 Pacific Gas and Electric Home Energy Reports Program Impacts (Final

Report)”, May 2017; and “Impact Evaluation of 2015 Marin Clean Energy Home Utility Report Program (Final Report), May 2017, all

available at www.calmac.org .

Energy Efficiency Report | 29

Home Upgrade Impact Evaluations

Single Family

By the end of 2015, six PAs were offering either the Home Upgrade or Advanced Home Upgrade program

or both. The 2015 Home Upgrade Program impact evaluation estimated gross and net energy savings at the

household level for both sub-programs and compared those results to prior evaluations from the 2010-2012

program cycle and 2014.

34

All three evaluations reported similar average differences in household energy usage after program

participation. The percent of electric savings for each cycle has consistently been under 5 percent, with a few

instances of negative savings (i.e. an increase in usage after upgrades).

35

Although free-ridership is low, the

broader program has long struggled with accurate predictions of energy savings that would result from an

upgrade, and high project costs remain a participation barrier. Realization rates, or the percentage of

estimated savings that actually materialize after an upgrade, are expected to improve over time as a program

matures. However, realization rates for Home Upgrade and Advanced Home Upgrade Program electric

savings were, with few exceptions, consistently at or under 50 percent in 2014, and then dropped to 11

percent in 2015.

36

This drop in realization rates may be the result of program redesigns implemented over

the years, learning curves experienced by BayREN and SoCalREN, which only started to implement the

program in 2014, or a combination of these and other factors.

37

For gas savings, realization rates in 2013-2014 ranged from 50 percent to 185 percent depending on program

administrator, with a statewide average rate of 123 percent.

38

In 2015, gas savings realization rates for each of

the two programs were reported; the statewide average for the Home Upgrade Program was 91 percent, while

the statewide average for the Advanced Home Upgrade Program was 11 percent. Natural gas savings

realization rates by program administrator for the prescriptive Home Upgrade Program ranged from 27

percent to almost 100 percent, with average household gas savings of 44 therms. In comparison, realization

rates for the custom Advanced Home Upgrade Program were at 20 percent or less for all PAs, with average

household gas savings of just 16 therms. Consistent overestimation of savings is likely attributable to the

savings estimation model used by PAs. Additionally, building vintage is a factor that influences savings (i.e.

newer homes enrolled in the program offer “smaller scale” savings).

Statewide, 2015 evaluated net savings for the Home Upgrade and Advanced Home Upgrade Programs

combined were just 9 percent, 14 percent and 34 percent of PA targets for electric, demand, and gas savings,

respectively.

39

34

The 2010-2012 evaluation study covered both Home Upgrade and Advanced Home Upgrade programs but did not include all

IOUs due to data limitations. The 2014 evaluation study focused only on Home Upgrade. Advanced Home Upgrade was offered

only by the IOUs.

35

DNV-GL, Final Report: 2015 Home Upgrade Program Impact Evaluation, June 2017. Available at www.calmac.org

36

All PAs, except SCE in 2011, had realization rates at or under 20 percent for the Advanced Home Upgrade Program. For the

Home Upgrade Program, realization rates over time fluctuated wildly, with SCE seeing a 278 percent realization rate in 2011, which

dropped to 42 percent in 2012. Other PAs were under 50 percent. See “Final Report: 2015 Home Upgrade Program Impact

Evaluation”, June 2017. Available at www.calmac.org

37

ibid

38

In 2013-2014, program activity was not broken out for each of the two upgrade programs.

39

CPUC and DNV-GL, Final Report: 2015 Home Upgrade Program Impact Evaluation, June 2017. Available at www.calmac.org

Energy Efficiency Report | 30

Multi-family

Beginning in 2013, the IOUs and two Regional Energy Networks implemented a multi-family sector whole

building program intended to assist property owners who wish to pursue larger multiple-measure building

retrofit projects. By the end of 2015, the program had grown substantially, with an almost 500 percent

increase in reported savings in 2015 compared to 2013-2014 savings, and the CPUC evaluated the program in

both 2013-2014 and 2015. Although program performance over the three-year period varied to some degree

by program administrator and did show improvement over that timeframe, with few exceptions, the program

did not meet its energy savings goals.

40

The more recent IOU process evaluation found that although some

improvements were made, the program continued to face challenges stemming from determination of an

accurate baseline for program participants, data collection, savings modeling, split incentives, and free

ridership, all of which contributed to low evaluated net savings and realization rates of 10 percent, 5 percent

and 33 percent for kWh, kW, and therms, respectively. While the RENs’ multifamily program faced similar

challenges in terms of data collection and free ridership, realization rates of 60 percent, 65 percent and 54

percent for kWh, kW, and therms, respectively, were superior to those for IOU multifamily programs.

41

Multi-Family Energy Efficiency Rebate Program (MFEER)

The Multi-family Energy Efficiency Rebate Program implemented by the IOUs offered rebates to multi-

family property owners who purchased a qualified energy efficiency product for installation at their property.

Rebated measures include pool pumps, appliances, lighting measures, space and water heating, windows and

insulation. Lighting measures (discussed in detail later in the document in a stand-alone chapter) comprised

the majority of electric savings for 2013-2015, while domestic hot water measures were responsible for the

majority of gas savings.

42

Path to Statewide Goals

As part of new Rolling Portfolio Cycle established by CPUC Decision in 2015, the program administrators

filed Business Plans in January 2017. These plans describe, at a high level, the PAs’ programmatic focuses

through 2025. Although specific interventions vary by administrator, the Business Plans overwhelmingly

articulate an intention to “drive deeper savings” in the residential sector through a mix of existing programs,

including home retrofits and behavior. The Business Plans also indicate future efforts that may leverage

Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) data to facilitate widespread adoption of energy management

technologies (EMT), per AB793 and recent CPUC direction.

Certain programs, such as the Home Upgrade Program, have struggled in recent years to achieve savings

goals, due to challenges with energy savings modeling, low realization rates, and getting “the right”

participants (e.g., older vintage homes, less temperate climate zones,, customers not already planning these

upgrades before any program touch occurs). Corrective action in response to evaluation recommendations

40

In 2013-2014, energy savings reported by the PAs were 28 percent, 11 percent, and 35 percent of goals for kWh, kW and therms,

respectively. For 2015, although the program showed improvement, reported savings were 48 percent, 31 percent and 46 percent of

goals for kWh, kW and therms. See CPUC and DNV-GL, 2013-2014 Residential Roadmap Multifamily Focused Impact Evaluation, February

2016; CPUC and DNV-GL, 2013-2015 Residential Roadmap Multifamily Focused Impact Evaluation, June 2017; 2013-2015 Regional Energy

Networks Multifamily Programs Impact Evaluation Final Report, June 2017, at www.calmac.org.

41

CPUC and Itron, Inc. 2013-2015 Regional Energy Networks Multifamily Programs Impact Evaluation Report, June 2017, at www.calmac.org

. The majority of savings are attributable to BayREN projects. SoCalREN’s MF program was limited in the 2013-2015 timeframe

and contributes to the lower overall realization rates estimates.

42

SCE lighting measures contributed 90 percent of all electric savings for the program, across all IOUs, in 2013-2015.

Energy Efficiency Report | 31

may facilitate deeper energy savings from the existing residential building stock and result in increased savings

in the sector. While expanded behavior program participation, via greater distribution of Home Energy

Reports, for example, may contribute to a doubling of energy savings, it is still unclear how long-lasting

these savings are and whether they persist in the absence of the program intervention.

43

A potential opportunity to improve and expand savings in the residential sector may exist in the recent

addition of Pay for Performance (P4P) programs to the suite of options available to program administrators.

PG&E launched a Residential PP4P program in 2016. Program implementers bid on a specific program

opportunity offered by the IOUs and in turn stand to earn financial incentives based on estimated savings

measured at the customer meter. Pay for Performance opportunities may not only expand and improve

current retrofit programs, but also drive increased savings from operations- and behavior-based solutions,

including smart thermostats, home energy management systems, and other tailored program designs.

Additionally, the application of CalEnviroScreen in order to identify and target underserved and

environmentally “at-risk” communities may offer opportunities to expand the reach of existing and future

energy efficiency programs as they are woven into the larger work envisioned by SB 535 (Leon).

43

Cadmus Group, Long-Run Savings and Cost-Effectiveness of Home Energy Report Programs, at http://www.cadmusgroup.com/papers-

reports/long-run-savings-cost-effectiveness-home-energy-report-programs/

Energy Efficiency Report | 32

Commercial

Overview

The California commercial sector represents over 6 billion square feet of highly diverse building space, which

includes retail stores, grocery, restaurants, offices, warehouses, schools, for the entire state. This building

stock has emerged as a dynamic sector and will continue to be upgraded in the future based on new California

legislation that will further penetrate commercial building markets. The commercial sector consumes 43

percent of California’s electricity.

44

Given the significant portion of energy usage from this sector,

commercial buildings can transform the energy efficiency market with savings and are often the focus of state

policies and PA programs crafted to reduce energy consumption. In fact, throughout the 2013-2015 program

period, the commercial sector represented 48 percent of electricity savings and 31 percent of natural gas

savings for the entire portfolio. These savings were realized through a wide variety of end uses within those

buildings, including lighting, HVAC, refrigeration, and plug loads. Evaluation studies for the commercial

sector in the 2013-2015 program period included nine impact studies, four process studies, and one program

assessment analysis.

Table 5 lists the business types and square footage from the Commercial Saturation Study (CSS) of all

buildings served by the program administrators. The CSS building types are sorted by square footage. The

total electricity usage across all PAs by business type is also included along with the percentage of electricity

used by each business type. Square footage and electricity consumption in the commercial sector do not

always align as the energy intensity or energy consumption per square foot of space can vary substantially by

and within business types.

Table 5: Commercial Building Types by Square Footage

45

46

CSS Business Type

Total Square

Footage

Average Square

Footage

Median Square

Footage

Total Usage

(GWh)

% of

Electricity

Warehouse

1,996,311

28,817

10,000

4,140

6%

Office

1,438,655

9,930

1,580

9,595

14%

Miscellaneous

1,320,860

5,982

2,130

11,509

17%

Retail

825,124

6,877

2,246

7,878

12%

School

711,206

47,712

33,600

3,392

5%

Health/Medical – Clinic

254,814

4,812

1,980

3,881

6%

Restaurant

197,856

2,646

1,920

6,179

9%

Food/Liquor

135,296

6,172

2,500

6,297

9%

Non-CSS Commercial Business

College

1,817

3%

Hospital

1,925

3%

Property Managers

8,026

12%

Unknown

3,377

5%

44

California Energy Commission, California Energy Demand 2016-2026, Revised Electricity Forecast, Volume 1: Statewide Electricity Demand

and Energy Efficiency. January 2016.

45

Does not include the square footage in universities, hospitals, and hotels/motels.

46

Itron, California Commercial Saturation Survey, prepared for the California Public Utilities Commission, 26 August 2014

Energy Efficiency Report | 33

Estimated Savings

Table 6: Commercial Sector Savings Snapshot

Energy Savings

Emissions

Cost-

Effectiveness

Electric

(GWh)

Demand

(MW)

Natural

Gas (MM

Therms)

CO

2

(Million

Tons)

NOx

(1000

pounds)

TRC

Reported

Gross

2,709

482

48

1,653

782

Net

1,964

345

31

1,175

531

1.32

Evaluated

Gross

2,459

457

39

1,519

676

Net

1,558

292

21

985

426

1.14

% Portfolio*

Gross

49%

48%

39%

22%

26%

Net

48%

47%

31%

24%

27%

*represents the Commercial sector’s (or program area’s) percent contribution to overall evaluated net portfolio

savings, excluding Codes & Standards savings

Note that this table includes savings for lighting and HVAC measures in the Industrial and Agriculture Sectors that

are also included in the savings tables provided in the separate chapters for these crosscutting measures.

PAs spent $1.2 billion on commercial energy efficiency programs and produced 1,558 GWhs of electricity

savings during the 2013-2015 program cycle. While commercial programs accounted for 44 percent of total

portfolio expenditures on energy efficiency programs, they accounted for 48 percent of portfolio electricity

savings, 47 percent of peak demand savings, and 31 percent of natural gas savings, net of free ridership.

Compared to the total portfolio savings in the 2010-2012 program cycle, savings in this sector increased 10

percent for electricity, 22 percent for demand, and decreased 9 percent for natural gas. While expenditures in

the commercial sector also increased from the 2010-2012 portfolio, to $1.2 billion from $970 million, the

success of the commercial programs are indicated by the attendant increase in cost-effectiveness between the

two portfolio cycles. Cost-effectiveness of the commercial sector improved from 0.87 TRC in the 2010-2012

cycle to 1.14 TRC in the 2013-2015 cycle.

Lighting measures, which are discussed in detail in a stand-alone chapter later in this report, were the largest

spenders and savers, accounting for 42 percent of commercial sector expenditures and delivering 61 percent

of electricity savings for commercial buildings. Consistent with the overall portfolio trends, HVAC measures

were the second largest electricity savings measures and largest natural gas savings measures for the sector,

accounting for 21 percent of electricity savings and 31 percent of natural gas savings in the sector.

Besides Lighting and HVAC measures, refrigeration efficiency measures and whole building efficiency

approaches contributed the largest shares of commercial sector electricity savings, 9 percent and 4 percent,

respectively. For natural gas savings, measures focused on the food service sector and process measures

contributed large shares, at 19 percent and 22 percent of commercial sector gas savings, respectively.

Commercial Programs

The 2013-2015 energy efficiency portfolio includes over 80 programs that target small, medium, and large

(non-custom projects) commercial customers. The programs are organized into four general program types:

Energy Efficiency Report | 34

 Deemed – These programs offer fixed incentive amounts for pre-approved measures (non-custom)

that have a pre-determined energy savings estimate, based on rigorous engineering analyses and

repeated study.

 Direct Install – These programs provide free and discounted pre-approved measures that are

installed via an approved contractor.

 Third Party – These programs are designed to target hard-to-reach populations. Employing a third-

party implementer allows PAs to offer new technologies with a more hands-on service approach or

high level of service for that particular program.

 State and Institutional Partnerships – programs offered for state and federal government customers.

47

These programs, under the four general types, offer a set menu of pre-determined measures and rebates or

incentives at low or no cost to customers. Some programs have nominal co-payments for a customer project.

These programs usually target a specific market in an effort to reach not only different types of segments of

customers but to ensure that the varieties of buildings are included in the state’s effort to reduce building

energy consumption.

Direct install programs are broadly defined as those programs that facilitate the installation of no- or low-cost

energy efficiency measures (i.e., a turnkey service) for eligible commercial customers. These programs

traditionally targeted hard-to-reach customers, such as small businesses, that had not participated in energy

efficiency programs. However, direct install programs have expanded in California to reach medium and large

commercial customers. Direct install programs can be administered in three ways: by a third party, through a

local government partnership, or by a program administrator directly.

In 2013 and 2014, 19 programs either offered direct install as the primary implementation approach or

offered a direct install component in concert with other implementation approaches. Eligible customer size

for some programs has doubled from under 100 kW to 200 kW, and in some cases, there is no size

restriction. Government buildings and non-profits are also eligible in some jurisdictions. Installation of

program measures (e.g. lighting, HVAC, refrigeration) is facilitated through program contractors, qualified

local contractors, or by assisting customers in putting forth a request for proposal to find qualified installers.

Across all IOU service territories, many commercial businesses participated in at least one IOU energy

efficiency program during the 2013-2015 program cycle. Business segments with the highest share of

participation include food and liquor stores, hotels, and schools. Businesses with the lowest share of

participation include offices, warehouses, and non-hospital health care. In addition, a larger share of

businesses with higher electricity consumption participated in IOU energy efficiency programs than

businesses with smaller electricity consumption.

Highlights

Commercial energy efficiency programs replaced residential program as the largest sector contributor to

electricity savings in the 2013-2015 portfolio, as compared to the 2010-2012 program cycle. While part of this

shift could be attributed to the decline in lighting savings in the residential sector, credit is also due to the

success of numerous Commercial sector programs. As described above, Commercial programs saw an

increase in total electricity and demand savings from the previous program cycle.

47

These programs are grouped with the Commercial sector for reporting proposes and are detailed separately in the following

chapter.

Energy Efficiency Report | 35

The Commercial portfolio not only increased total electricity savings, but also managed to do so in a cost-

effective manner. The third party commercial programs, in aggregate, were cost-effective, a notable

achievement as many of these programs focused on hard-to-reach markets where program implementation

can be more costly than in “core” markets.

48

 SDG&E’s and SCE’s Direct Install Commercial programs achieved 114 percent and 203 percent of

their program electricity savings goals, respectively. SDG&E had high demand from customers and

was able to reduce transaction costs through regional concentration of efforts. In 2015, SDG&E

added a third implementer to focus exclusively on food service customers, often considered a hard-

to-reach customer segment. SCE’s program found success in partnership with local governments and

through no-cost measures. In 2015, SCE began offering new plug load measures through its

program.

49

 PG&E’s third party program, EnergySmart Grocer, achieved the highest combined electric and gas

savings of the third party commercial programs, meeting 103 percent of its forecasted electricity

savings and 87 percent of its forecasted gas savings. The program was highly cost-effective with a

TRC of 2.8. This program provides no-cost audits to grocery stores, a hard-to-reach market.

Feedback from customers was positive as well, with 95 percent of customers recommending the

program.

50

Findings

Third Party Programs

Commercial third party programs across the state included 53 resource and non-resource programs. Third

party commercial programs focused on hard-to-reach markets, regional needs, or innovative technologies. A

case study completed in 2014 focused on 38 of these programs, which consisted of a mix of custom measure

and deemed measure programs. Researchers also selected ten of these programs for more detailed case study

analysis. These third-party programs contributed 14 percent of the reported electric savings and 13 percent of

the reported gas savings from all Commercial programs in 2013 and 2014.

51

A particular finding of note from this study was the results of the cost-benefit analysis of direct install

programs. The customers that selected their own contractor for custom measures were the least cost-

effective. Those third-party programs with existing program contractors offered the most cost-effective direct

install and deemed measures for customers. For customers in the grocery sector, case study findings show

that both incentives and technical assistance were critical to the adoption of more energy efficient

refrigeration and lighting.

Direct Install Process Evaluation

CPUC staff studied the direct install programs that reached commercial customers in the 2013-2015 portfolio.

52

The major finding of this process study was that direct install programs are installing measures and

equipment with short paybacks, as opposed to undertaking deeper retrofits that have longer payback times.

48

Opinion Dynamics. PY2013-2014 Third Party Commercial Program Value and Effectiveness Study Report, Volume I of II, 20 July 2016, p. 55

49

Opinion Dynamics. 2013-2015 Commercial Direct Install Process Evaluation: Phase 1, 3 October 2016

50

Opinion Dynamics. PY2013-2014 Third Party Commercial Program Value and Effectiveness Study Report, Volume I of II, 20 July 2016

51

Opinion Dynamics. PY2013-2014 Third Party Commercial Program Value and Effectiveness Study Report, Volume I of II, 20 July 2016

52

Opinion Dynamics. 2013-2015 Commercial Direct Install Process Evaluation: Phase 1 and 2, 25 April 2017

Energy Efficiency Report | 36

Deep retrofits are projects that attempt to realize larger amounts of energy savings through whole building

retrofits and integration of multiple energy savings measures into one project. Naturally, these approaches

may cost more and have longer payback periods than a single equipment upgrade.

The direct install study found that these remaining energy savings are not realized due to factors such as

program design, customer willingness to participate, and cost. The bulk of direct install program savings to

date have been from lighting, but lighting savings may begin to decline as efficient lighting technologies

become more saturated in the market.

Small Business

The CPUC is encouraging new strategies to reach small business customers and achieve energy savings from

this often overlooked customer class. The savings for these very small (micro) and small businesses are low

but require a different approach that includes education and guidance from the PAs.

Another challenge is that many small businesses rent the commercial space and therefore face what is known

as the “split incentives issue.” Split incentives occur when a tenant pays a utility bill but may not have the

capital or incentive to make significant, long-term investments in a property, whereas the building owner does

not pay the utility bill and therefore has little or no incentive to make energy efficiency improvements to the

building.

Yet another challenge results from the fact that many small businesses only qualify for “widget” -based

programs that install one specific measure instead of the whole-building approach. Traditionally, these

programs aimed at small businesses have offered lighting measures for quick paybacks. A more focused

market penetration approach could be used in the future to engage more of these types of businesses in

energy conservation.

Path to Statewide Goals

Major legislation aimed at energy efficiency passed in 2015, including AB 802, which mandates the disclosure

of whole building energy data and benchmarking for commercial and multifamily buildings. In addition, SB

350 mandates the doubling of energy efficiency statewide.

The CPUC High Opportunity Program and Projects (HOPP) Ruling in 2015 authorized the IOUs to

implement programs that offer incentives and technical assistance to customers to bring existing buildings

into conformance with, and to exceed, the requirements of Title 24.

53

The HOPPs Ruling was an effort to

expedite the authorization of programs newly permissible under AB 802. AB 802 authorized the use of an

existing conditions baseline; particularly where energy savings were measured using normalizing techniques

and metered energy consumption data, termed “normalized metered energy consumption.

One example of a HOPPs program is Southern California Gas Company’s Commercial Restaurant Retrofit

program called Restaurant Refresh. The Commercial Restaurant Retrofit program aims to increase the energy

efficiency of existing food service buildings, since restaurants within SCE/SCG’s territory make up 31

53

California Public Utilities Commission, Assigned Commissioner and Administrative Law Judge’s Ruling Regarding High Opportunity Energy

Efficiency Programs or Projects, 30 December 2015

Energy Efficiency Report | 37

percent of commercial gas consumption and 10 percent of commercial electricity consumption, while only 5

percent of eligible restaurants in SCG territory have participated in other SCG energy efficiency programs.

54

The Restaurant Refresh program encourages customers to replace existing equipment with higher efficiency

models and to upgrade the energy performance of their building. Customer incentives and program energy

savings reflect all energy savings, measured from the pre-existing condition of building energy usage, using a

normalized metered energy consumption approach.

54

California Energy Commission, California Commercial End-Use Survey. 1 August 2006. Available at http://www.energy.ca.gov/ceus/

Energy Efficiency Report | 38

Institutional Partnerships

Overview

Institutional Partnerships are long-standing energy efficiency programs provided by the IOUs for state and

federal government customers. These programs are a subset of the commercial programs, and their savings

are included in the commercial sector savings totals. However, given the distinct challenges and opportunities

faced by public sector buildings, and the unique program offerings, the Institutional Partnership programs are

being highlighted in this report with their own chapter.

Institutional Partnership programs traditionally serve state and federal office buildings, military bases, prisons,

and universities, as well as community colleges. The partnerships face unique challenges regarding aging

facilities, limited funding resources, and diverse stakeholder interests, all of which may hamper investment in

energy efficiency. Conversely, these government customers, more than typical commercial entities, have a

longer planning horizon and are more willing to undertake projects with longer returns on investment.

Given the recent interest in the efficiency of public buildings resulting largely from the Governor’s Executive

Order B-18-12 and the establishment of a discrete public sector in the Rolling Portfolio business plans, this

report has provided this chapter focused on these commercial subset programs.

55

,

56

In the Rolling Portfolio

framework, Institutional Partnerships will constitute a large portion of the public sector.

Estimated Savings

The Institutional Partnerships contributed 71 GWh of electricity savings, 13 MW of electricity demand

savings, and 2 MM therms of natural gas savings to the commercial sector’s evaluated net savings. The

combined electricity and gas savings resulted in 49 tons of CO

2

and 28 tons of NOx

emissions savings.

Institutional Partnerships spent a total of $38 Million on resource programs and an additional $4.3 Million on

non-resource programs.

The following table summarizes the calculated gross and net resource savings for the Institutional

Partnerships.

55

Executive Order B-18-12: https://www.gov.ca.gov/2012/04/25/news17508/

56

Information about the Rolling Portfolio and the Energy Efficiency Business Plans: https://www.caeecc.org/

Energy Efficiency Report | 39

Table 7: Institutional Partnerships Programs Savings Snapshot

Energy Savings

Emissions

Cost-

Effectiveness

Electric

(GWh)

Demand

(MW)

Natural

Gas (MM

Therms)

CO

2

(Million

Tons)

NOx

(1000

pounds)

TRC

Reported

Gross

129

21

3

88

49

see

Commercial

TRC above

Net

100

17

3

67

37

Evaluated

Gross

111

19

3

75

42

Net

71

13

2

49

28

% Portfolio*

Gross

2%

3%

1%

2%

Net

2%

3%

1%

2%

*represents sector’s (or program area’s) percent contribution to overall evaluated net portfolio savings, excluding

Codes & Standards savings

Institutional Partnership Programs

For Institutional Partnership programs, PG&E and SCE administer resource programs throughout the state,

while SCG and SDG&E run non-resource Market Education and Outreach programs. Additionally, SCE

coordinates with SCG for resource programs involving natural gas projects. SDG&E serves its institutional

customers through broader commercial programs. Table 8 below summarizes PG&E and SCE partnerships,

excluding non-resource programs (federal government partnerships were inactive in the 2013-15 program

cycle).

Table 8: Institutional Partnerships - Resource Partnerships

Customer

PG&E Program

SCE Program

Community Colleges

PGE2110011 – California Community

Colleges

SCE-13-L-003A – California

Community Colleges Energy

Efficiency Partnership

University of California and

California State University

PGE2110012 – University of

California/California State University

SCE-13-L-003G – UC/CSU

Energy Efficiency Partnership

California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation

PGE2110014 – Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation

SCE-13-L-003B – California Dept.

of Corrections and Rehabilitation

EE Partnership

State Agencies

PGE2110013 – State of California

SCE-13-L-003F – State of

California Energy Efficiency

Partnership

Table 9 below summarizes SCG and SDG&E’s non-resource programs.

Energy Efficiency Report | 40

Table 9: Institutional Partnerships - Non-Resource Partnerships

Customer

SCG Program

SDG&E Program

Community Colleges

SCG3739-LInstP – California

Community College Partnership

SDGE3267-LInstP – California

Community College Partnership

University of California and

California State University

SCG3740-LInstP – UC/CSU/IOU

Partnership

SDGE3268-LInstP –

UC/CSU/IOU Partnership

California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation

SCG3738-LInstP – CA Department

of Corrections Partnership

SDGE3266-LInstP – CA

Department of Corrections

Partnership

State Agencies

SCG3741-LInstP – State of

CA/IOU Partnership

SDGE3269-LInstP – State of

California /IOU

Colleges and universities account for the majority of the savings among the Institutional Partnerships,

contributing 82 percent of the evaluated net electricity savings, 73 percent of the electric demand savings, and

80 percent of the natural gas savings. College and university energy savings from these programs resulted in

82 percent of the CO

2

savings from Institutional Partnerships.

Highlights

Institutional Partnerships focused heavily on lighting and HVAC measures, which accounted for 49 percent

and 32 percent all evaluated net savings, respectively. New construction whole building measures contributed

an additional 15 percent of the savings. In total, 96 percent of all savings through Institutional Partnerships

was attributable to whole building, HVAC, or lighting measures. The remaining 4 percent of savings largely

came from custom projects and miscellaneous measures.

New construction whole building and HVAC measures also contributed significantly to natural gas savings,

providing 35 percent and 45 percent of the total savings, respectively, while pool covers contributed an

additional 11 percent of the natural gas savings. The remaining 9 percent of natural gas savings resulted

almost entirely from custom projects and water heating measures.

Findings

Many of the findings for the broader commercial sector programs are applicable to the smaller partnerships.

This is especially true with the State Agencies partnerships, which focus primarily on office buildings.

Custom projects at universities outperformed many other sectors. Colleges and universities exhibited some of

the highest program influence of all commercial and industrial sector programs, with net-to-gross ratios of 0.8

or higher. Two retrocommissioning projects at universities in 2014 reflected especially high net-to-gross ratios

of 0.85, though other university retrocommissioning projects exhibited much lower net-to-gross ratios that

were below 0.43 (IALC 2014, p.5-7).

Energy Efficiency Report | 41

Industrial and Agriculture

Overview

Two of California’s biggest economic contributors are also two of California’s biggest energy consumers,

with the industrial and agriculture sectors accounting for 18 percent and 7 percent of the state’s

electricity consumption, respectively, in 2015.

57

The industrial sector also accounts for a quarter of the

gas consumption in the state.

58

Consequently, improving the efficiency of industrial and agricultural

processes presents a significant energy savings opportunity. The industrial and agriculture programs also

support Strategic Plan’s vision to support the long-term economic environmental success of California

agriculture.”

59

The CPUC and PAs undertook eight impact studies, two market studies, and one process study in the

industrial and agriculture sectors in the 2013-2015 program cycle.

Estimated Savings

Table 10: Industrial and Agriculture Sector Savings Snapshot*

Energy Savings

Emissions

Cost-

Effectiveness

Electric

(GWh)

Demand

(MW)

Natural

Gas (MM

Therms)

CO

2

(Million

Tons)

NOx

(1000

pounds)

TRC

Reported

Gross

880

160

62

806

675

Net

614

110

39

539

434

1.8

Evaluated

Gross

623

114

41

653

544

Net

370

67

26

401

330

1.4

% Portfolio

Gross

12%

41%

9%

21%

Net

11%

39%

10%

21%

*represents the Industrial and Agriculture sector’s (or program area’s) percent contribution to overall evaluated net

portfolio savings, excluding Codes & Standards savings

*Note that this table includes savings for lighting and HVAC measures in the Industrial and Agriculture Sectors that are

also included in the savings tables provided in the separate chapters for these cross-cutting measures.

57

Email from California Energy Commission dated August 7, 2017.

58

The industrial sector accounted for 25 percent of the natural gas demand in California. California Energy Commission, Supply and

Demand of Natural Gas in California, Accessed at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/naturalgas_data/overview.html.

59

See CPUC Decision D.09-09-047 (Sections 5.5 Statewide Industrial Programs and 5.6 Agricultural Programs).

http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/Published/Graphics/107829.pdf

Energy Efficiency Report | 42

The IOUs spent $359 million in the 2013-2015 program cycle – roughly 14 percent of total portfolio

expenditures – on industrial and agriculture efficiency programs. Industrial and agricultural programs

generated evaluated net savings of 370 GWh and 67 MW, which represented 11 percent of both portfolio

electric and peak demand savings.

60

Fifty-nine percent of the gross electric and peak demand industrial and

agricultural sector savings, respectively, were directly attributable to program interventions.

Evaluated gross natural gas savings were 41 million therms for these two sectors, with 63 percent of the

industrial and agriculture gas savings being directly attributable to program interventions. The resulting net

natural gas savings for the industrial and agriculture sectors comprised 39 percent of the entire portfolio’s net

natural gas savings for 2013-2015. Of the industrial and agriculture sectors’ natural gas savings, 90 percent of

them came from process measures within the sector. Industrial and agriculture process measures are

efficiency measures targeted at improving specific parts of a company’s operations. For example, installing

heat recovery processes in an industrial facility and using that waste heat for energy in another facility

operation can cut down on the amount of primary fuel needed to run that facility. Process improvements

such as this therefore contribute significantly to the overall natural gas savings.

Lighting and HVAC measures, which are also discussed in separate cross-cutting chapters later in this report,

were less dominant in the industrial and agriculture sectors than in other sectors. However, lighting and

HVAC measures still provided, respectively, the second and third most savings in the industrial and

agriculture sectors (after process improvements). Twenty percent of the evaluated net electric savings in the

industrial and agriculture sectors came from lighting measures and 11 percent of electricity savings came from

HVAC. For natural gas savings, HVAC makes up about five percent of evaluated net savings in both sectors

combined.

Industrial & Agricultural Programs

There were 38 industrial programs and 21 agricultural programs implemented by the IOUs or by third party

implementers in the 2013-2015 portfolio. Some programs focused on specific market segments, such as

refineries, wastewater treatment facilities, or dairies, while others focused on specific technologies, such as

boilers or air compressors. Energy efficiency projects in the industrial and agriculture sectors generally focus

on manufacturing process improvements or retrofitting opportunities, but also include standardized and new

construction projects. For a majority of projects, energy savings were calculated on a “custom” basis, which

means that incentives were calculated based the energy saved for each specific project.

In addition, in 2015 the IOUs and CPUC, with the assistance of consultants, began to develop a Strategic

Energy Management program. Strategic Energy Management is a holistic program that supports industrial

facilities in making energy management part of their business culture. Strategic Energy Management is a long-

term approach that provides training, technical support and incentives to industrial customers to improve the

efficiency of their facilities and operations and assist them in maintaining that efficiency. Implementation of

the program will begin early in 2018.

60

The estimates in Table 10 include savings from lighting and HVAC projects, as well as deemed savings from projects in those

sectors, all of which are discussed in other chapters in this report. The discussions of evaluated savings in the remainder of this

chapter are based on industrial, agriculture and large commercial ex post evaluation results, which include only custom calculated

projects.

Energy Efficiency Report | 43

Highlights

Based on evaluated savings results, the industrial and agriculture programs achieved nearly one third of the

natural gas savings goal established for the entire portfolio. Evaluated net electricity savings were 60 percent

of the originally reported net savings, yet the programs were cost effective.

To help resolve the issues causing differences between IOU reported data and evaluated results, the IOUs

and CPUC staff have been engaging in a collaborative process to review and approve project savings

estimates prior to implementing projects.

61

This process is known as the ex-ante review process. The intent of

the early review process is to reduce the gap between PA-reported savings and evaluated savings and to

provide immediate feedback to the utilities with respect to savings calculation methodologies and program

influence metrics. The collaborative early review process proved useful in resolving project-specific questions

in the 2013-2015 portfolio period. However, the early or “ex ante” review process has proved difficult to

implement due to delays in obtaining data and performing analyses on the part of the implementers, IOUs,

and ex ante reviewers. The project specific results and other direction provided by the review team have

generally not resulted in more accurate savings estimates for projects that do not undergo early review. To

address these issues, a stakeholder working group comprised of IOU and CPUC staff and stakeholders

including program implementers developed different approaches to the early review process through a

collaborative effort that may reduce delays and result in wider dissemination of information going forward.

62

Findings

Impact Evaluation

Custom Impact Evaluations: Beginning in 2013, custom program impact evaluations were completed on an

annual basis; the impact evaluations included industrial, agriculture, large commercial, and nonresidential new

construction custom projects to verify energy savings reported by the IOUs. For 2013-2015, the studies

included a comprehensive suite of field-based evaluations, as well as a qualitative project practices assessment,

to discern possible changes in ex-ante savings development practices.

The combined results from 2013-2015 showed a significant variation in the IOU evaluated results versus the

reported savings.

63

The combined evaluation results were based on a sample of 513 projects and found that

the IOUs achieved from 44 to 80 percent of their reported gross savings, depending on the IOU and fuel

type. The percentage of savings that were a direct result of program intervention was similar in magnitude to

the results from the past few evaluation cycles.

A novel element incorporated in the 2013-2015 evaluations was a qualitative Project Practices Assessment

carried out for all 513 impact sample points. Practice Assessments are designed to yield results that can be

used to target improvement in program administrator treatment of important gross impact parameters,

methods and procedures that are common across applications. Practice Assessment findings also identify

critical weaknesses in documentation and reporting. The Practice Assessment form and procedure was

61

Decision 11-07-030, Attachment B: Custom Review Process; and, Decision 12-05-015 Providing Guidance on 2013-2014 Energy Efficiency

Portfolios and 2012 Marketing, Education, and Outreach, 18 May 2012, p. 344

62

Track 2 Working Group documents are available at http://t2wg.cadmusweb.com/.

63

The 2015 results are available at. https://pda.energydataweb.com/#/ Click on the “advanced search” link and on the “From Work

Order” drop-down list select (ED_I_IAL_5-Itron) 1315 IALC Impact.

Energy Efficiency Report | 44

designed to document both the PA and evaluator conclusions and to ensure that results could be analyzed

objectively to assess conformance with policy guidelines, best practices and program rules.

Key findings from the impact evaluation include:

 Documentation for many of the sample projects was insufficient to initiate an appropriate

independent analysis and investigation.

 PA-reported gross savings differ from evaluated savings for three primary reasons: (1) observed

changes in operating conditions, (2) baseline specifications (i.e., determination of the "status quo"

baseline energy use from which the additional energy savings were measured), (3) IOU calculation

methods. Other reasons for differences included incorrect equipment specifications, ineligible

equipment, and incorrect measure counts.

 Customer interviews representing 575 installed projects were conducted to understand the role of the

program and other market factors in their decision to take an energy efficiency action. The

information obtained through these interviews was converted into a net to gross ratio. The general

conclusions drawn from the results of this large sample were that free ridership remains high for

custom programs.

Nonresidential Whole Building Impact Evaluation: In addition, a Nonresidential Whole Building Impact

Evaluation was conducted in 2013. The evaluation addressed non-residential new construction whole building

projects that received incentives under the statewide Savings by Design program. The evaluation estimated

gross impacts for 25 projects across all PAs, conducted professional telephone surveys supporting net-to-

gross estimation for the 25 gross sample points, and provided engineering reviews of the 25 gross sample

points to support the qualitative project practices assessment. Case weights were used to extrapolate the

evaluation results to the population. With all the sample points included, the mean statewide realization rates

were 0.92 for kWh, 0.79 for kW and 0.57 for therms. Although the kWh gross realization rates (GRRs) for

the sampled projects ranged from -0.46 to 2.28, the resulting overall kWh GRR of 0.92 was slightly above the

0.9 default ex ante GRR adjustments for the SBD program. However, the overall program natural gas GRR

of 0.57 was significantly below the default 0.9 ex ante GRR adjustments for the SBD program.

The difference in the savings between the ex ante estimate and the ex post results were primarily due to the

differences in modeling assumptions, calculation methods and baseline assumptions. The four principal

reasons that reported gross impacts differed from evaluated results were (1) differences in operating

conditions, where the field visit revealed differences in the building’s operational conditions that warranted

adjustment to the building energy models, (2) differing baselines, where the evaluation team determined a

different baseline than the one used by the PA was more appropriate, (3) differing calculation methods, where

the evaluator used a different modeling approach, and (4) model calibration, where models were adjusted to

calibrate model energy using billing-meter or end-use data. On a statewide basis, the net-to-gross ratio for the

whole building program was estimated at 0.53 for kWh and 0.51 for therms and 0.53 based on source

MMBTU (one million British thermal units) which was the basis of sample design.

64

Water-Energy Nexus: CPUC evaluators also conducted a study that centered on calculating changes in water

utilities’ electricity consumption coincident with the 2015 statewide urban water reduction mandate.

65

The

64

DNV-GL, NRNC Whole Building Impact Evaluation Report PY-2013, 20 July 2015. Available at https://pda.energydataweb.com/#/.

65

Water agency customers are served by both industrial and agriculture programs.

Energy Efficiency Report | 45

study used billing data to calculate changes in water-related electricity consumption for a selection of 32 water

agencies throughout the state. The dataset focused on electric accounts associated with groundwater

pumping, water transport, and potable water treatment, upstream of end users and therefore exclusive of

energy inputs directly from end users or wastewater treatment. Based on the analysis, the evaluation team

developed data-driven recommendations for adjustments to the CPUC water-energy calculator.

66

In part, the

study found that embedded energy use reductions underwent a downward trajectory in two parts, one from

2013 to 2014 and one from 2014 to 2015, with an especially large reduction 2013 to 2014 for groundwater-

reliant water agencies. Based on limited data, the energy intensity of groundwater production and distribution

appeared to have increased over the 2013-2015 period, coincident with increasing drought conditions.

Path to Statewide Goals

The 2015 Potential and Goals study reflected ongoing potential for cost-effective energy efficiency in the

industrial sector. With the filing of the Energy Efficiency business plans for the new Rolling Portfolio Cycle

framework, industrial and agriculture programs will be updated to reflect these remaining savings

opportunities.

While the industrial and agricultural savings opportunities vary by service territory demographics, there are a

handful of overarching new approaches to note. Pay for performance strategies and increased use of data

analytics to target specific customer needs at industrial and agriculture facilities will combine to create a more

incentivized, targeted customer segment. In addition, strategic energy management approaches are designed

to promote persistent operational, organizational, and behavioral changes that yield greater efficiency gains.

Strategic Energy Management is a key strategy of the U.S. Department of Energy’s industrial energy efficiency

strategy. Overall, with support from the CPUC, California IOUs have opted to make substantial changes to

the former Continuous Energy Improvement program and transition to a resource-acquisition program

adopting major design components and M&V protocols from successful programs implemented by

Northwest utilities in the U.S. and Canada.

66

The CPUC, working with stakeholders and PAs, developed a calculator to determine energy savings from and the cost effectiveness

of cold water conservation projects carried out jointly by the CPUC and water entities. See Water/Energy Cost-Effectiveness Analysis,

Navigant Consulting, April 2015. http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=5356.

Energy Efficiency Report | 46

Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning

Overview

The high demand for air conditioning in California has made heating, ventilation and air conditioning

(HVAC) is one of the largest energy end uses and the single largest contributor to peak demand. The CEC

estimates that cooling buildings comprises up to 30 percent of total demand in the hot summer months, and

that poor installation and maintenance may result in potential energy losses of 20 to 30 percent.

67

As the use

of space cooling and heating has increased, the state has struggled to encourage the market to adopt higher

efficiency units and develop a sustainable, quality-focused HVAC industry.

To address these issues, the Strategic Plan called for a “transformation” of the industry to ensure that HVAC

technology, equipment, installation, and maintenance are of the highest quality to promote energy efficiency

and peak load reductions. To meet these objectives, the PAs have designed and implemented a variety of

HVAC programs to transform the industry by encouraging the purchase of highly efficient HVAC units,

encouraging high-quality HVAC system installations, and demonstrating to property owners that quality

installation and proper maintenance of HVAC systems leads to increased savings, greater comfort, and

improved indoor air quality.

During the 2013-2015 energy efficiency program cycle, CPUC staff carried out ten HVAC studies. The key

takeaways from the two most prominent HVAC impact evaluations, the Upstream HVAC Study and the

Quality Maintenance Study, are:

 The Upstream HVAC Commercial Installation program achieved the greatest amount of evaluated

savings, with an overall gross realization rate of 79 percent for small packaged HVAC units, which

represent the majority of the equipment served by the program ( as noted earlier, realization rate is a

comparison of the savings reported by an IOU to the savings determined through evaluation

studies).

 The evaluated savings results for the Commercial and Residential Quality Maintenance programs

have been disappointing. Evaluation study results recommended enhancing the programs by

including improved fault detection diagnostics to reduce the need for maintenance activities that do

not deliver savings, such as small refrigerant charge adjustments.

67

California Energy Commission, Strategic Plan to Reduce the Energy Impact of Air Conditioners (June 2008), Available:

http://www.energy.ca.gov/2008publications/CEC-400-2008-010/CEC-400-2008-010.PDF

Energy Efficiency Report | 47

Estimated Savings

Table 11: HVAC Program Savings Snapshot*

Energy Savings

Emissions

Cost-

Effectiveness

Electric

(GWh)

Demand

(MW)

Natural Gas

(MM Therms)

CO

2

(Million

Tons)

NOx

(1000

pounds)

TRC

Reported

Gross

840

199

21

558

296

Net

627

151

15

414

217

1.1

Evaluated

Gross

627

178

14

449

230

Net

422

129

9

314

158

0.9

%

Portfolio**

Gross

12%

19%

14%

6%

9%

Net

13%

21%

13%

8%

10%

* These savings are also reported in the respective sector summary tables in earlier chapters.

** Represents HVAC’s percent contribution to overall evaluated net portfolio savings, excluding Codes & Standards

savings.

The PAs spent $543 million on core HVAC efficiency programs in the 2013-2015 program cycle, resulting in

evaluated savings of 422 net electric GWh and 129 net demand MW. Sixty-seven percent of electric savings

and 72 percent of demand savings were directly attributable to the program interventions. Realization rates

were high with programs returning a 67 percent net realization rate on electricity savings, a 85 percent net

realization rate on demand savings, and 60 percent net realization rate on gas savings.

It should be noted that other programs not explicitly directed at HVAC systems include measures that

improve HVAC system efficiencies (e.g., residential whole house and commercial building

retrocommissioning programs), so the HVAC-specific programs do not account for all HVAC-related energy

savings achieved in the portfolio. Savings from HVAC measures achieved in various sectors are also included

in the sector-focused chapters.

HVAC Energy Efficiency Programs

The IOUs’ HVAC portfolio consists of four core HVAC energy efficiency subprograms:

 Upstream Commercial Distributor

 Commercial Quality Maintenance

 Residential Quality Maintenance

 Residential Quality Installation

Since the 2010-12 program cycle, there have been no fundamental changes in the nature of these programs.

However, program design changes have been implemented to improve energy savings and cost

effectiveness. In addition to these core programs, PG&E and SDG&E are implementing Commercial tune-

up programs delivered by third-party contractors.

Energy Efficiency Report | 48

Highlights

HVAC programs have more promise when accompanied by a more active solicitation of new energy

efficiency program customers. This effort differs from program to program and depends on PAs providing

companies and homes with a clear view of how an HVAC program can help them, how it provides rebates,

and how the program saves them money over time.

Communication and coordination are important in terms of learning about best practices on the part of other

IOUs and sharing constructive information informally. This can be done through workshops, forums, and a

focus cost effectiveness. What has also proven effective is training implementers to engage in quality

workmanship and hiring competent technicians to do professional grade installation and maintenance. New

technologies can also improve HVAC programs increasingly over time, depending on cost and applicability.

The best example of success has been the Commercial Upstream Rebate Program, which continues to

provide the majority of the commercial sector HVAC savings. As mentioned previously, the Upstream

Commercial HVAC program has achieved the greatest amount of evaluated savings, with an overall gross

realization rate of 79 percent for small packaged HVAC units, which represent the majority of the equipment

served by the program.

Findings

HVAC evaluations for the 2013-2015 cycle focused on the subset of the HVAC programs providing the

largest contribution to statewide savings – namely, Upstream HVAC and Commercial Quality Maintenance

programs, with a 2015 study of Residential Quality Maintenance.

HVAC 1: Commercial Upstream Rebate Program

The evaluation of the HVAC Commercial Upstream Rebate Program (HVAC-1) verified that upstream

programs continue to provide the majority of the commercial sector HVAC savings. These programs focus

on equipment ranging from small packaged and split HVAC units to large rooftop units and chillers. The

study, like the program, was designed to look at the efficiency of the incented equipment. The findings for

the Upstream HVAC Program Impact Evaluation are summarized below:

 Chiller and Large Unit efficiency. Actual efficiencies of the installed equipment were lower than

ex ante estimates of assumed efficiency levels. The resulting low savings levels were most prevalent

for air-cooled chillers and large unitary systems, which had ex-post gross savings realization rates of

11 percent and 15 percent, respectively. Savings estimates reported by the IOUs did not pass basic

quality control checks.

 Small and Medium Package HVAC equipment efficiency. Program savings for small and

medium packaged HVAC units (up to 20 tons) evaluated in 2015 improved in comparison to 2013-

14. This impact evaluation returned lower than expected savings for the smallest size units (under

5.5 ton) but found good realization rates for units 5.5–20 ton. The primary driver of the low

realization rates was that, on average, the full-load efficiencies of the installed equipment were lower

than the program assumptions.

The evaluation team believes that the primary reason for the improvements in packaged HVAC units

between 5.5 and 20 tons was the code update and updated version of DEER for 2015. The 2013-

2014 programs had to utilize different baselines within the calendar year, while the 2013 Title 24

Energy Efficiency Report | 49

Building Efficiency Standards (effective July 1 2014) were fully in force during the 2015 program

year. The field-testing of 5.5-20 ton units showed that performance was in alignment with current

DEER assumptions.

 Economizers. The evaluation team found that a considerable savings potential is not realized

because many economizers for unitary systems installed through the program are not functioning

properly. One-quarter of the economizers were found to be not working. Further tests uncovered

errors such as improperly wired sensors, indicating that the economizer was not installed correctly

and never functioned as designed. The economizer failure rate of 25 percent is a great improvement

over earlier impact evaluations, but additional savings can be obtained by improving the reliability of

economizers installed in the equipment covered under the Upstream HVAC program.

 Net to Gross Ratio (NTGR). DNV-GL’s data collection and NTGR expansion analysis resulted in

an overall NTGR score of 64 percent for the upstream program. The ex-ante NTGR assumption was

85 percent for most programs and measures.

HVAC 3: Commercial Quality Maintenance

The Commercial Quality Maintenance (HVAC-3) study gathered field observations on installation rates and

contractor maintenance practices, and observed several challenges with program implementation. Gross

savings for commercial maintenance measures have improved since the 2010-12 evaluation cycle, partially

because implementers have focused on enrolling contractors that deliver higher quality work. Findings for

the five main measure groups in the programs were:

 Economizer repair: A statewide installation rate was calculated as the number of properly

functioning economizers divided by the number of economizers tested. The site-level results were

combined across all IOUs, which resulted in a statewide installation rate of 61 percent.

 Thermostats: Evaluations noted many thermostats that did not meet the program requirements for

set-back (cooling) or set-up (heating) temperatures during unoccupied building periods. The

Statewide realization rate was 89 percent, indicating energy savings were obtained even though

program requirements were not met.

 Coil cleaning: Coil cleaning results have been stable over the 2013-15 evaluation cycle. Applying

the revised simulation savings across all measure variations resulted in average gross realization rates

of 108 percent for electric energy (kWh) savings and 112 percent for electric demand reduction (kW).

 Supply fan controls: The installation rate of the supply-fan adjustment was 47 percent for

programs offering this measure, which was much lower than anticipated.

 QM measure group: Unlike the other IOUs, which reported savings on a measure-by-measure

basis, SCE reported savings for a single quality maintenance measure group. This measure group

represents unitary HVAC repair and maintenance initiatives under the SCE’s Commercial QM

program. The overall realization rate for the QM measure group was 90 percent primarily due to

high realization rates for coil cleaning, economizer repair, and supply fan control measures.

 Net to Gross Ratio (NTGR). The net savings analysis consisted of a series of phone interviews

with participating contractors. DNV-GL’s data collection and NTGR expansion analysis resulted in

an overall NTGR ratio score for kWh savings of 31 percent for the IOU core quality maintenance

programs, and a NTGR score for kWh savings of 41 percent for third party tune-up programs. Ex-

ante assumptions for NTGR were between 73 percent and 85 percent, depending on the program.

Although there were large variations in responses across the surveyed contractors, the low mean

Energy Efficiency Report | 50

scores indicate a potential high level of free-ridership among the current pool of participating

contractors.

For the Residential Quality Maintenance programs covered by the HVAC-3 report, a billing analysis was

conducted on customers in the PG&E and SDG&E service territories. Although gross savings realization

rates were high, net savings obtained from a non-participant comparison group analysis were disappointing.

SDG&E’s residential QM program had no net energy savings and PG&E’s had a net realization rate of 26

percent in 2015. The billing analysis conducted for the residential quality maintenance program shows wide

swings from gross savings to net savings. These results foreshadow some of the difficulties in applying a

billing analysis to this type of program.

HVAC 5: Laboratory Test

The Laboratory Test (HVAC-5) study evaluated economizer performance and system faults for common

commercial rooftop HVAC systems. Results of the packaged roof top unit tests provided the following

findings:

 Economizers.

The impact of economizers on system efficiency is significant and unexpected due to

higher than anticipated economizer leakage. For units tested with economizers, average outdoor

airflow with the economizer damper completely closed exceeded code specified minimum outdoor

air ventilation requirements for common commercial buildings.

Excess ventilation loads (over code-

required minimums) can have a significant negative impact on cooling energy consumption.

For

economizers that were fully open, the average outdoor airflow less than 100 percent, limiting the

amount of free cooling supplied.

 Out of the Box Efficiency.

The units as delivered from the manufacturer (out-of-the-box, or

OOTB) did not consistently perform at the rated efficiency. Small (3 ton) units tested within the

published Air Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) efficiency and capacity

values, but larger (7.5 ton) units had efficiency below the rated values. Units failing the OOTB test

required modifications in the lab to achieve the published efficiency and capacity ratings.

 Impact of Field Conditions. Optimal efficiency was achieved at airflow rates lower than the value

used in standard AHRI tests due to higher duct system resistances commonly observed in the field.

The additional fan power required to increase the airflow rate to the AHRI test value at field

observed duct resistance overshadowed any efficiency gains.

 Refrigerant Charge Fault. Undercharge conditions had a much greater (negative) impact on

capacity and efficiency than overcharge conditions. The optimal refrigerant charge for a unit may

slightly exceed the factory charge under extreme conditions.

 Coil Cleaning. Condenser coil blockage has a greater negative effect on system efficiency than on

evaporator coil blockage.

 HVAC Fault Diagnosis.

The diagnosis and adjustment of refrigerant charge is difficult to conduct

in the field. Most fault detection diagnostic protocols are based on conditions, which are nearly

impossible to measure in the field with standard contractor maintenance equipment.

Troubleshooting multiple faults through a logical fault detection diagnosis protocol will reduce or

eliminate false alarms, misdetection, and misdiagnosis. Cleaning coils, changing filters, and checking

airflow are important first steps before attempting additional fault detection diagnosis on the unit.

 Refrigerant Gauge Attachments. Tests of the effects of attaching and detaching refrigerant hoses

showed a decrease in both efficiency and capacity as the number of attachments increased. The loss

Energy Efficiency Report | 51

of efficiency due to this routine service action underscores the need to avoid unnecessary refrigerant

charge checks and adjustments.

 Instrumentation Accuracy.

The least accurate temperature sensors tested recorded a 10 ºF

temperature error at typical hot day test conditions. Such errors can result in misdiagnosed or

undiagnosed faults.

HVAC 6: HVAC Permit and Code Compliance Market Assessment

The HVAC Permit and Code Compliance Market Assessment (HVAC-6) study examined residential single-family

central HVAC replacements. At a high level, findings from the study suggest that:

 Permitting rates are low, with the estimate of the true permitting rate somewhere between 8

percent and 29 percent. Under current market and enforcement conditions, permitting does not lead

to increased energy efficiency of HVAC change outs. The energy efficiency levels for both permitted

and non-permitted sites were similar and did not meet the Title 24 requirements.

 There were documentation gaps for permitted installations. Three-quarters of permitted

installations had the required Home Energy Rating System (HERS) compliance forms. Performance

tests found some systems were out of compliance even though the documentation indicated that

these units were in compliance.

 There is a lack of knowledge among homeowners and contractors of the Title 24 requirements.

 There is inconsistency in enforcement across building departments, and inconsistency in

enforcement across inspectors within a single building department.

 Contractors drive the decisions about permitting, even though homeowners bear the

responsibility.

Path to Statewide Savings

The Upstream HVAC program represented the largest reported savings and had an overall gross

realization rate of 79 percent for small packaged HVAC units, which represent the majority of the

equipment served by the program. Net to gross ratios were 64 percent, down somewhat from the 80

percent net to gross ratios in the 2010-2012 program cycle. Upstream HVAC programs are expected to

continue to deliver cost effective savings for the HVAC portfolio in the future. As the market

penetration of new HVAC technologies continues to grow, piloting evaluation methods for these new

technologies is necessary in order to improve the reliability of savings estimates for these systems.

The results for the Commercial and Residential Quality Maintenance programs have been disappointing.

Evaluations of the quality maintenance programs since the 2006-2008 evaluation have returned low gross

realization rates. Gross realization rates have improved for some measures during the current evaluation

cycle, but a drop in the net to gross ratios has dampened these improvements. Maintenance programs need

to be re-designed before they can be counted on to deliver significant savings into the future. Continued

support for and improvement of workplace education and training is also required to supply the industry with

an expanded pool of qualified HVAC installation and maintenance technicians.

Energy Efficiency Report | 52

Lighting

Overview

Lighting represents over one quarter of residential and commercial electricity use in California and has

historically represented at least half of total portfolio-level savings.

68

,

69

The Strategic Plan cites energy

efficient lighting as a critical element of its zero net energy vision and envisions a 60 to 80 percent reduction

in California’s electric lighting energy consumption by 2020 (over a 2010 baseline). California Assembly Bill

1109 (Huffman, 2007), known as the California Lighting Efficiency and Toxics Reduction Act, supports this

goal by phasing out some traditional, low efficiency incandescent lamps by 2018.

70

For this reason, the CPUC

directed program administrators to start shifting energy efficiency program support away from basic spiral

compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) and toward more efficient lamps (e.g., light-emitting diode [LED] lamps)

and other advanced lighting technologies starting with the 2010-2012 program period.

71

This guidance

continued into the 2013-2015 program period.

When manufacturers first introduced CFLs into the market in large quantities during the 1990s, consumers

had poor opinions of the products, and many products were of inferior quality and had higher costs than

traditional bulbs. These issues may have contributed to the slow CFL uptake by California consumers. To

help avoid similar challenges with early LED lamps, the CPUC issued a new lighting program requirement

during the 2013-2015 period to ensure that program-discounted LED lamps were of high quality. In

December 2012, the CEC published a California-specific quality standard for LED lamps known as “the

CEC specification” or the “California quality specification.”

72

Around the same time, the CPUC issued a

decision that required the California IOUs to provide energy efficiency program incentives only for LED

lamps that meet the CEC specification within one year of the standard’s adoption by the CEC.

73

During the

“transition period”—until January 2014—the CPUC allowed the IOUs to continue to provide incentives for

LED lamps that met the ENERGY STAR standards. Starting in 2014, compliance with the CEC

specification for LED lamps became the mandatory quality standard for LED lamps included in the IOUs’

incentive programs.

68

California Energy Commission, 2011. 2011 Integrated Energy Policy Report. Publication Number: CEC-100-201-001-CMF.

69

In the 2006-2008 program cycle, indoor lighting accounted for 58 percent of the evaluated electric savings.

70

California State Assembly, 2007. Assembly Bill 1109, Ch. 534, Article 10.02. Lighting Toxics Reduction.

71

California Public Utilities Commission, 2009. D.09-09-047: Decision Approving 2010 to 2012 Energy Efficiency Portfolios and

Budgets. Page 7. October 2009.

72

California Energy Commission, 2012. Voluntary California Quality Light-Emitting Diode (LED) Lamp Specification: A Voluntary

Minimum Specification for “California Quality” LED Lamps (Final Staff Report). CEC Publication number CEC-400-2012-016-SF.

December 2012.

73

CPUC, 2012. D.12‐ 11‐ 015. Decision Approving 2013-14 Energy Efficiency Programs and Budgets.

Energy Efficiency Report | 53

Agricultu

re, 2%

Industrial

, 3%

Residenti

al

36%

Commer

cial, 59%

Figure 6: Percent of 2013-2015 Evaluated Net

Energy Savings from Lighting Measures by Sector

Estimated Savings

Table 12: Lighting Savings Snapshot

Energy Savings

Emissions

Cost-

Effectiveness

Electric

(GWh)

Demand

(MW)

Natural

Gas

(MM

Therms)

CO

2

(Million

Tons)

NOx

(1000

pounds)

TRC

Reported

Gross

2,722

406

-23

1,243

131

Net

1,892

284

-15

867

99

1.4

Evaluated

Gross

2,863

430

-26

1,297

121

Net

1,739

268

-15

790

83

1.3

% Portfolio

(Evaluated)

Gross

56%

45%

18%

5%

Net

54%

43%

19%

5%

Across all programs in the 2013-2015 portfolios,

lighting measures accounted for 54 percent of the

net electricity savings (1,739 GWh). Of this, SCE

achieved 57 percent, PG&E 33 percent, SDG&E

10 percent, and MCE achieved the remainder (less

than one-tenth of one percent of evaluated net

electricity savings). Expenditures associated with

these savings totaled $783 million, exceeding

the$626 million budget for lighting programs by 25

percent. The lighting category accounts for just

below 30 percent of the total $2.64 billion of

expenditures for the 2013-15 portfolio.

Figure 2 shows the percent of evaluated net energy

savings from lighting measures in the 2013-2015

portfolios across all programs and program

administrators by sector. As shown, the

commercial sector accounted for the largest share

of evaluated net electricity savings from lighting measures at 59 percent, followed by residential at 36 percent.

Lighting Programs

The Primary Lighting program provides incentives to manufacturers to produce energy efficiency lighting

measures. Key measures included CFLs, LED lamps and fixtures, and dimmable fluorescent ballasts, as well

as other efficient lighting technologies. The Primary Lighting program was responsible for the largest share of

savings from lighting measures, accounting for 46 percent of evaluated net electricity savings from lighting

measures in the 2013-2015 portfolio.

Energy Efficiency Report | 54

The CPUC directed the IOUs to begin phasing out incentives for basic CFLs during the 2010-2012 program

period.

74

The Primary Lighting Program’s budget across the three IOUs decreased from $168 million during

the 2010-2012 period ($56 million per year) to $70 million in 2013-2014 ($35 million per year).

75

Most of this

budget reduction was related to IOUs ramping down their incentive support for basic CFLs. The IOUs began

introducing LED lamps into the Primary Lighting program in relatively small quantities during 2013 and in

somewhat greater quantities in 2014 and 2015.

76

Nonetheless, CFLs still accounted for the largest share of

evaluated net energy savings from lighting measures in the 2013-2015 portfolios across all programs and

program administrators by lighting measure group at 38 percent (see 14), while LED lamps accounted for 18

percent.

The Statewide Commercial Deemed Savings program

accounted for the second largest share of evaluated

net energy savings from lighting measures included in

the 2013-2015 portfolio (12 percent).

77

The purpose

of the 2013-2015 Commercial Deemed Savings

program, a component of the Statewide Commercial

program, was to encourage installation of energy-

efficient equipment and systems in retrofit and new

installations by reducing the initial investment costs

associated with these measures. The program also

aimed to offer a simple application process to reduce

participation costs. The 2013-2015 program included

measures such as energy-efficient linear fluorescent

fixtures, retrofit kits, and lamps; metal halide lamps;

induction fixtures; LED fixtures and retrofit kits; and

other energy-efficient lighting measures.

Findings

The CPUC and energy efficiency program administrators conducted seven impact evaluations, eleven process

studies, and two market studies for lighting, based on the 2013-2015 program period. These studies provided

substantial information regarding lighting measures. Some of the key findings from these studies are

highlighted below. Since LED lamps began to increase in significance to the portfolio during this period,

many of the findings focus on LED measures. Below are findings regarding pilot and trial programs, LED

quality and pricing, and the effects of the IOUs’ upstream lighting programs on California’s market for

residential replacement lamps.

Pilot and trial programs:

Key findings regarding 2013-2015 pilot programs focused on lighting measures include:

74

Page 7. Decision Approving 2010 to 2012 Energy Efficiency Portfolios and Budgets, CPUC ED, October 2009.

75

Page 18. California Residential Replacement Lamp Market Status Report: Upstream Lighting Program and Market Activities in

California through 2015, DNV GL, November 2016.

76

Page 11. Impact Evaluation of 2015 Upstream and Residential Downstream Lighting Programs, DNV GL, April 2017.

77

All other programs in the 2013-2015 portfolio accounted for less than 10 percent of evaluated net energy savings from lighting

measures.

38%

18%

13%

9%

3%

11%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percent of Evaluated Net Energy Savings (GWh)

from 2013-2015 Lighting Measures

All other lighting

High bay flourescent

LED street lights

LED fixture

Linear fluorescent

LED lamp

CFL

Figure 7: Percent of Energy Savings by Lighting Measure

Energy Efficiency Report | 55

 PG&E and SCE offered a Midstream LED incentive program during the 2013-2015 period that

provided incentives to distributor-level suppliers for sales of LED lamps and fixtures to commercial

customers with the goal of increasing adoption rates for these technologies in this sector. PG&E’s

trial program offered incentives for lamps only, while SCE’s pilot program offered incentives for

lamps and fixtures. The suppliers typically passed most or all the incentives along to customers.

Evaluations indicate that these pilots were successful, that the trials appear to have motivated

customers to undertake the projects, and that these projects generated higher energy savings than

anticipated.

78

,

79

 SCE offered another pilot program to support training for lighting controls installers through the

California Advanced Lighting Controls Training Program (CALCTP). Evaluation results show that

the CALCTP Installer Technical Course is well designed, well executed, and fills a gap in available

training for lighting controls installers. However, the evaluation also concluded that there is room for

improvement in the training, and was not able to decisively measure if the training was having a

meaningful impact on the skills and knowledge of the individuals who participated in the training.

80

LED quality and pricing:

Key findings regarding LED quality and pricing during the 2013-2015 period include the following:

 A large-scale laboratory test subjected screw-based LED lamps to common stress conditions

associated with typical household installations. The study exposed more than 600 LED lamps to high

temperatures (from operating in enclosed fixtures and recessed downlights) and thermal cycling (the

heating up and cooling down of LED lamps associated with switching them on and off). Draft study

results suggest that one-fifth of LED lamps rated to last 25,000 hours failed after just 4,000 hours of

operation (20 percent), with many of the failures concentrated in a small number of lamp models.

81

 Lamp manufacturers’ representatives suggest that the upstream component of the IOUs’ Statewide

Primary Lighting program was their main motivation for producing LED lamps that met the CEC’s

California quality specification for LED lamps in 2015.

82

Without the requirement that LED lamps

must adhere to the specifications to obtain program incentives, manufacturers largely would not have

produced lamps with these characteristics.

 Among the IOUs’ residential electric customers who purchased LED lamps during 2015 and 2016,

satisfaction was high. However, because LED lamps that meet the California quality specification

comprised such a small share of LED lamp stock among California retailers (13 percent, as of winter

2015-2016), it is unlikely that the specification is the primary driver of customer satisfaction.

83

 Results from two studies suggest that prices for screw-based and linear fluorescent LED lamps

continue to decline, including lamps used in both residential and nonresidential applications. One

suggested that in the near term average LED lamp prices will decrease by 21 percent per year and

78

Evaluation of the Southern California Edison Commercial Midstream LED Lighting Distributor Pilot Program Final Report,

Evergreen Economics, May 2015

79

Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Lighting Innovation Midstream Trial Evaluation Final Report, Evergreen Economics, October

13, 2015

80

Final Report: Lighting Controls Training Assessment, ASWB Engineering and Opinion Dynamics Corporation, April 2016

81

2013 -2014 Work Order ED_I_Ltg_1: LED Lab Test Study Interim Results Memo, Itron and Erik Page & Associates, August 2016

82

Impact Evaluation of 2015 Upstream and Residential Downstream Lighting Programs, DNV GL, April 2017

83

Ibid.

Energy Efficiency Report | 56

luminaires (fixtures and lamps sold together) by 20 percent per year.

84

Another suggested not only

that price has declined in California retail stores, but that the availability of screw-based LED lamps

in these stores has increased over time.

85

Other effects of the upstream lighting program on the residential lighting market:

One additional key finding regarding the upstream component of the IOUs’ 2013-2015 Statewide Primary

Lighting program relates to the program’s effects on California’s market for residential replacement lamps.

An impact evaluation of the IOUs’ 2015 upstream lighting program concluded that without the program’s

support significantly fewer customers would have purchased energy efficient lamps in discount, drug, grocery,

and hardware channels. In absence of the program, customers would have purchased comparatively

inefficient lamps in these channels. This finding was not the case in big-box channels like do-it-yourself

stores, mass merchandise stores, and wholesale clubs, in which the retailers likely would have offered similarly

efficient lamps without the program.

86

Thus, the upstream lighting program seems to have the greatest

influence on retail sales in the non-big box channels.

Path to Statewide Goals

Lighting comprises one-fourth of California’s electricity use and efficient lighting will continue to play a

critical role in achieving state energy efficiency goals. While considerable strides have been made in lighting

efficiency as the market moves toward LED adoption, efficiency opportunities will remain in the integrated

demand side management and behavioral spaces. Given the changes in markets under Energy Independence

and Security Act (EISA), continuous rapid price declines for LEDs, increased customer familiarity with

LEDs, removal of most CFL incentives, and the increased market share of halogens, ongoing assessment of

lighting program decisions is important.

87

Program opportunities for lighting controls include CPUC

programs to maintain savings over time through these technologies. Research into these described areas will

potentially be conducted in the next round of EM&V studies.

Additional program opportunities for lighting will become apparent once the new EISA code takes effect on

January 1, 2018. The EM&V Plan, which outlines upcoming studies for the new portfolio cycle, aims to study

these emerging program opportunities in depth.

84

California LED Workpaper Update Study: Final Report, Navigant Consulting, Inc., August 2015

85

California Residential Replacement Lamp Market Status Report: Upstream Lighting Program and Market Activities in

California through 2015, DNV GL, November 2016

86

Impact Evaluation of 2015 Upstream and Residential Downstream Lighting Programs, DNV GL, April 2017

87

EISA refers to the Energy Independence and Security Act. EISA sets efficiency standards for general service lamps, which currently

include the following light bulbs: general service incandescent lamps, compact fluorescent lamps, and general service light-emitting

diode (LED) and organic light emitting diode (OLED) lamps

Energy Efficiency Report | 57

Zero Net Energy / New Construction

Overview

Commercial and residential new construction programs offer incentives, design assistance and training, and

operate pilot projects aimed at advancing California’s Zero Net Energy building goals. Zero Net Energy can

be defined in multiple ways, but the definition proposed in the California Energy Commission’ s 2013

Integrated Energy Policy Report, is the following:

“A ZNE Code Building is one where the net of the amount of energy produced by on-site renewable energy resources is equal to

the value of the energy consumed annually by the building, at the level of a single “project” seeking development entitlements and

building code permits, measured using the California Energy Commission’s Time Dependent Valuation (TDV) metric. A

ZNE Code Building meets an Energy Use Intensity value designated in the Building Energy Efficiency Standards by building

type and climate zone that reflect best practices for highly efficient buildings.”

88

Despite the proposed definition above, there is still some discrepancy in ZNE definitions used by

policymakers and industry, necessitating further discussion and research.

In 2012, Governor Brown issued Executive Order B-18-12, which established the following Zero Net Energy

targets for California’s state buildings. In conjunction with the ZNE goals set for the residential and

commercial building sectors set in the California Long-Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan, the ZNE goals

for California include the following:

 All new residential construction and all new commercial construction in California will be zero net

energy by 2020 and 2030, respectively

 50 percent of existing commercial buildings will be retrofit to ZNE by 2030

 All new state buildings and major renovations shall be ZNE beginning in 2025

 50 percent of existing state-owned building area by 2025 shall be ZNE

In addition to continued policy support and building codes from the CPUC, the IOUs currently have seven

active programs within the ZNE/NC program area. These new construction programs coordinate closely

with Codes & Standards, Emerging Technologies, and Workforce Education & Training programs.

The CPUC and PAs completed five evaluation studies in the ZNE program area for the 2013-2015 program

cycle. The findings of these market and process studies are synthesized below.

88

California Energy Commission, 2013 Integrated Energy Policy Report, 20 February 2014; p.36

Energy Efficiency Report | 58

Estimated Savings

Table 13: Zero Net Energy Programs Savings Snapshot

Energy Savings

Emissions

Cost-

Effectiveness

Electric

(GWh)

Demand

(MW)

Natural

Gas (MM

Therms)

CO

2

(Million

Tons)

NOx

(1000

pounds)

TRC

Reported

Gross

279

90

8

194

109

Net

197

61

5

135

75

1.9

Evaluated

Gross

231

80

7

161

92

Net

142

50

4

98

55

1.4

% Portfolio*

Gross

5%

8%

7%

2%

4%

Net

4%

8%

6%

2%

4%

*represents sector’s (or program area’s) percent contribution to overall evaluated net portfolio savings, excluding Codes &

Standards savings

The estimated savings for new construction and ZNE programs in 2013-2015 for residential and commercial

buildings are included in the respective sector chapters. The portion of these savings that resulted from

programs dedicated to new construction is also presented in this chapter.

PAs spent $149 million on new construction programs in the 2013-2015 program cycle, or 6 percent of

portfolio expenditures. New construction programs saw a 16 percent increase in expenditures compared with

the 2010-2012 portfolio, which reflects the increasing focus on ZNE goals and approaches.

Evaluated net savings, or those savings directly attributable to program intervention, were 142 GWh, 50MW,

and 4 million therms. These savings accounted for 4 percent of electricity portfolio savings, 8 percent of

demand savings, and 6 percent of natural gas savings. Approximately 60 percent of the total new construction

electric and gas savings were attributable to program intervention, a 20 percent increase in program influence

over the 2010-2012 programs.

The commercial and residential sectors accounted for 73 and 15 percent of the new construction electricity

savings, respectively. However, the residential sector accounted for the majority of natural gas savings in the

new construction sector, contributing nearly 60 percent of the therms savings for the program area.

Zero Net Energy / New Construction Programs

Efforts to promote ZNE growth in the construction market exist throughout IOU programs, including

Codes & Standards and sector-specific activities. A handful of IOU customer-oriented programs focus on

achieving ZNE market growth through new construction activities. PG&E, SCE, and SCG all implement a

Residential New Construction program. In 2014, the IOUs launched a new incentive design for their

residential new construction program, the California Advanced Homes Program (CAHP).

For non-residential buildings, PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E run the Savings by Design program. Savings by

Design offers financial incentives to support integrated design or whole buildings, encourages green building

initiatives, and provides technical design and energy modeling assistance.

Energy Efficiency Report | 59

The CPUC and IOUs have also enacted various activities to plan the market growth of ZNE buildings,

including holding ZNE Commercial Action Plan stakeholder meetings between 2010 and 2014, as well as

ZNE and Sustainable Communities Pilots that support financial, technical, and design assistance to such

projects.

CPUC and IOUs also initiated planning for a 2015-planned California Advanced Homes Program element to

support a targeted set of advanced builders to incorporate high performance walls and attics into their

business models in advance of the expected inclusion of these measures in the 2016 Title 24 standards

update. CPUC staff launched a ZNE Residential Action Plan and related stakeholder process in 2015. A

ZNE Residential Stakeholder Group was formed and has since participated in several workshops addressing

Community-scale ZNE solutions and the labeling of ZNE buildings and homes.

Highlights

IOUs report contributing financial, technical, design and other resources to 75 out of 81 known ZNE or

ultra-low energy use commercial buildings in California between 2008 and 2014. Most of these buildings are

publicly owned and operated and include schools, libraries, and local government buildings. An increasing

number are large, private facilities exceeding 50,000 ft

2

in size.

89

Findings

Residential ZNE Market Characterization

The PG&E Residential ZNE Market Characterization study completed in 2014 provided a deep dive into

aspects of the ZNE market from owners’ perceptions of ZNE homes to the financial and lending

community’s barriers and solutions to financing ZNE homes. The study found almost one thousand near-

ZNE homes (i.e. highly efficient with distributed generation), representing one percent of the residential

construction market. The prevalence of near-ZNE homes, and the comparative scarcity of full ZNE homes,

indicated that the market might be more ready to embrace near-ZNE construction rather than full-ZNE

construction in the short-term.

90

The study also found that while full-ZNE homes are technically feasible,

the largest barrier to ZNE homes is the incremental cost. Based on interviews with building professionals, the

incremental cost of a ZNE home is 5-15 percent more than the cost to build a home to existing building

codes (lifecycle energy savings are not factored into the incremental building cost).

91

Miscellaneous Energy Loads Study

Phase I Study

The series of Miscellaneous Energy Loads (MEL) studies sought to understand the relative confidence in

MEL energy use estimates to better inform ZNE planning and modeling efforts. Energy consumption from

Miscellaneous Energy Loads (MELs) in residential buildings is growing faster than any other end use

category, yet it has been difficult to develop precise estimates of energy use in this category. If MEL use in

homes is modeled incorrectly, ZNE designs may not perform as expected when constructed. Phase I found

that existing MEL energy estimates have a high degree of uncertainty. The study found that televisions, set

89

Energy Division data request to IOUs, self-reported IOU data, August 2014

90

TRC Energy Services, Residential ZNE Market Characterization, 27 February 2015; p.15

91

The incremental cost difference here will inevitably change with changes to the building code in subsequent years.

Energy Efficiency Report | 60

top boxes (STBs), and desktop computers comprise 65 percent of annual energy consumption for MELs.

However, given trends in consumer electronics, it is expected this distribution will change as MEL energy use

becomes more widely distributed in the home. The study concluded with an initial identification of the issues

to tackle in order to improve MEL modeling for ZNE purposes.

Phase II Study

To further understand the impacts of MELs on the ZNE space, Phase II reviewed methods used and current

predictive models of residential energy use, focusing on demographics and home attributes related to both

individual and aggregate plug loads. The study found that verification of compliance is becoming more

challenging and that there are still significant gaps in the data and documentation available to ZNE

evaluators. The study concluded with recommendations on how to improve evaluation of MELs.

Savings by Design Market Potential, Characterization and Best Practices Enhanced Program Participation

Study

As described above, Savings by Design is an IOU program focused on improving the efficiency of non-

residential new construction. This market potential study found that renovations comprised a large portion of

the non-residential construction market, especially as existing facilities are repurposed for different industries,

presenting an opportunity to target existing facility renovations for energy efficiency improvements.

Barriers to Savings by Design participation included the cost of energy efficiency measures, the need for

participant education, and difficulties in serving the needs of accelerated design processes. To address these

barriers, the study found that market actors such as designers and general contractors are the primary drivers

of whether or not a project enrolls in the Savings by Design program. These market actors tended to respond

favorably to educational opportunities while building owners are motivated to participate in energy savings

programs by awards and green certifications.

92

ZNE Compliance Options for Distributed Energy Resources:

The ZNE Compliance Options for Distributed Energy Resources: Phase I study explored the potential for distributed

energy resources (DER) in ZNE-type homes and buildings. The study found there were no programs that

combined incentives for distributed generation and energy efficiency programs, which presented a challenge

to customers seeking simple financing options. As the definition of ZNE adopted in the 2013 IEPR includes

the stipulation for on-site energy generation, the lack of integrated generation and efficiency incentives

presented a hurdle for ZNE adoption.

Path to Statewide Goals

Achieving Zero Net Energy goals still requires additional market development. Increasing ZNE prevalence in

the building market will require additional support through increased demand for efficient buildings, as well

as a trained and educated workforce capable of supplying increased demand for ZNE construction. In

addition, understanding of how ZNE buildings fit into the wider energy efficiency programs and grid

operations context needs further development.

92

Navigant Consulting, Inc., prepared for SCE, PG&E, and SDG&E. Savings By Design Market Potentials, Characterization and Best

Practices Enhanced Program Participation Study. CALMAC ID: SCE0357.01. February 7, 2014.

Energy Efficiency Report | 61

ZNE goals support increased coordination and improvement among numerous existing energy efficiency

programs. As more ZNE design elements move into building codes and become standard across the

construction industry, California will see enhanced efficiency benefits.

Energy Efficiency Report | 62

Codes and Standards

Overview

The Codes and Standards Program conducts research and advocacy to support adoption of energy efficiency

technologies and practices in California’s Building Energy Standards (Title 24), Appliance Standards (Title

20), and the Federal Department of Energy Appliance Standards. The program also supports compliance

enhancement and other code support activities. The research aspects of the Codes and Standards program

provide vital technical and market research on the market readiness and cost-effectiveness of measures that

are under consideration for code adoption. Supporting the transition of a new product or practice into a

code-appropriate industry standard reduces the overall cost of energy efficiency and spurs additional

innovation, as practitioners seek the most cost-effective means to comply with the new code element.

For the 2013-2015 program cycle, the CPUC set separate goals for the IOUs’ Codes and Standards

programs.

93

The 2013-2015 Codes and Standards program goals are provided in Table 13.

Table 14: 2013-2015 Codes and Standards Portfolio Goals

2013-2015 Codes and Standards Goals by Investor-Owned

Electric

(GWh)

Demand

(MW)

Natural Gas (MM

Therms)

PGE

776

107

2

SCE

800

111

-

SDGE

181

25

0.2

SCG

-

5

Total

1,756

243

7

Savings from Codes and Standards are consistently the most cost-effective savings available to IOU efficiency

programs, since these programs impact all new buildings constructed and appliances purchased in the state.

93

D.12-11-015: Decision Approving 2013-2014 Energy Efficiency Programs and Budgets. 15 November 2012

Energy Efficiency Report | 63

Estimated Savings

Table 15: Table 14: 2013-2015 Codes and Standards Savings Snapshot

94

Energy Savings

Electric (GWh)

Demand (MW)

Natural Gas (MM

Therms)

Reported

Gross

11,002

2,311

66.9

Net

3,385

610

33.3

Evaluated

Gross

12,282

2,267

92.5

Net

3,597

546

38.6

Table Notes:

 Gross Savings are IOU territory potential savings, adjusted for the Energy Savings Adjustment

Factor, which accounts for not all buildings being 100% in compliance with the building code and

less than 100% of appliances sold complying with current minimum appliance standards.

 Program Net are IOU territory Gross Savings adjusted for Naturally Occurring Market Adoption

(NOMAD) and attribution of activities to the program.

 Gas savings are reported without taking into account interactive effects of efficient lighting

measures (see description of interaction effects in the Executive Summary).

IOU Codes and Standards Programs spent $49 million in the 2013-15 program cycle, or three percent of the

total energy efficiency portfolio expenditures, and accounted for approximately 53 percent of the evaluated

net electricity portfolio (combined Codes and Standards and incentive programs) savings. Nearly all of IOU

Codes and Standards reported savings come from the buildings and appliances advocacy subprograms.

Consequently, the impact evaluation focused on the activities of these two subprograms. The Compliance

Enhancement subprogram is a non-resource program and, as such, does not have savings attributed to it.

Based on evaluated savings, Codes and Standards subprograms are cost-effective with TRCs of 8.8 for federal

appliance standards, 12.5 for California appliance standards (T-20), and 5.0 for California building codes (T-

24), respectively. This is in part due to the low program costs but also because the program has influence over

all customers who purchase new buildings or appliances in the state, not just entities who opt to participate in

voluntary efficiency programs.

Codes and Standards Programs

The Codes and Standards advocacy programs generate savings from two broad categories of efficiency

regulations: appliance standards and building codes.

The Codes and Standards Program engages with code-setting bodies, such as the CEC and the U.S.

Department of Energy, to directly influence the development of codes and standards that strengthen energy

94

DNV-GL, Cadmus Group, California Statewide Codes and Standards Program Impact Evaluation Report Phase Two, Volume One: Appliance

Standards (CALMAC Study ID: CPU0169.01). 23 May 2017.

CALMAC Study ID: CPU0170.01 California Statewide Codes and Standards Program Impact Evaluation Phase Two, Volume Two: 2013 Title 24

Energy Efficiency Report | 64

efficiency regulations.

95

This activity is largely achieved by conducting research for specific code changes,

known as Codes and Standards Enhancement (CASE) studies, some of which are used by the CEC to set

new standards. The program supports federal standards by engaging in both administrative and legislative

processes together with other stakeholders. The process chart in Figure 3 below shows the steps in

determining the energy savings due to codes and standards advocacy programs.

Figure 8: Codes and Standards Advocacy Program Evaluation Protocol

In addition to advocacy, the Codes and Standards program also engages in compliance improvement activities for

California standards by providing education and training that targets building departments, architects and

other industry actors responsible for enforcing or complying with Building Energy Code and Appliance

Standards requirements.

Finally, the Codes and Standards Program also supports local jurisdictions in the development and

implementation of reach codes, which exceed minimum statewide code requirements. The CPUC defines reach

codes as codes that must be adopted formally by an enforcement jurisdiction. The Code must be legally

enforceable and enforced by the jurisdiction.

96

Highlights

Even though 63 percent of the evaluated electricity savings for Codes and Standards resulted from appliance

standards advocacy – both state and federal – much attention is paid to building codes (Title 24) evaluated

savings and most specifically determining the amount of compliance. The determination of compliance

adjustments for Title 24 is resource intensive, involving field audits of buildings and modeling analysis.

Changes from previous evaluations included capping building code compliance at 100 percent.

97

This

approach modifies the previous evaluation method to avoid giving credit to IOUs for savings due to

buildings implementing measures that result in energy savings that surpass what is required just to meet code.

This was accomplished by limiting the potential credit to no more 100 percent of new code requirements.

95

Program and subprogram descriptions can be found in the Codes and Standards Program Implementation Plans, 01/03/2011. See

www.eestats.cpuc.ca.gov .

96

D.10-04-029 Decision Determining Evaluation, Measurement, and Verification Processes for 2010 Through 2012 Energy Efficiency Portfolios. 21

July 2008; p.46

97

Energy savings were bounded between 0% and 100% of potential savings.

Energy Efficiency Report | 65

Advocacy

The IOUs advocate for higher efficiency codes and standards by supporting research and analysis on

potential new building codes and appliance, lighting and equipment standards. These studies include the

potential energy savings due to a specific new code or standard. In Tables 14-17 below, the number of

completed studies is in the “Research and Analysis” column. Of these, those studies that actually made it into

the CEC docket for Codes and Standards rulemaking are shown in the column labeled “Docketed”. The

number of docketed energy savings measures (either new codes or standards) is shown in the “Adopted”

column.

“Nonresidential” is essentially commercial building codes and commercial appliances, lighting or equipment,

while residential includes buildings up to three stories and “cross cutting” are codes and standards that can be

applied to either category.

Tables 17-20 (below) show Title 20 appliance standards, federal appliance standards, and Title 24 building

standards work for 2013-2015. Table 17, summarizes work in all three Codes and Standards advocacy areas.

Table 16: Title 20 Standards

Title 20 - 2013-2015

Sectors

Research and

Analysis

Docketed

Adopted

Nonresidential

1

0

Residential

1

0

Crosscutting

13

4

Total

15

14

4

Table 17: Federal Standards

Federal Standards - 2013-2015

Sectors

Research and

Analysis

Docketed*

Adopted

Nonresidential

51

Residential

28

Crosscutting

64

Total

0

143

0

* Docketed Comment Letters for Federal Standards

Energy Efficiency Report | 66

Table 18: Title 24 Standards

Title 24 - 2013-2015

Sectors

Research and

Analysis

Docketed

Adopted

Nonresidential

11

Residential

6

Total

17

The majority of Codes and Standards Enhancement study preparation for the 2016 building standard was

also conducted during the 2013-2015 timeframe. Work on twenty-two 2016 building code measures was

undertaken during the 2013-2015 timeframe, but not included in the total shown above or in the table

showing totals across advocacy efforts below.

Table 19: Codes and Standards

All Codes and Standards - 2013-2015

Sectors

Research and

Analysis

Docketed

Adopted

Nonresidential

12

62

11

Residential

7

35

6

Crosscutting

13

77

4

Total

32

174

21

Compliance Improvement

In the 2013 – 2015 period, the training format for the Compliance Improvement subprogram was expanded

from classroom training to include webinars, live online (real time) courses, and online self-study courses. The

statewide team completed over 600 classroom sessions and developed and delivered 15 different online

courses and webinars and five online self-study trainings. In Table 21, the row labeled “decoding” refers to

courses that specifically involved interpreting the revised building code. Code training was also provided in a

webinar format to provide easier access for interested parties who preferred a web-based training as opposed

to in-person training.

Energy Efficiency Report | 67

Table 20: Compliance Improvement Training Classes

Type

Research and Analysis

Classroom

629

Decoding (webinar)

12

Virtual (live online)

13

Online Self Study

5 courses/ 429 users

In addition to training, Compliance Improvement developed Fact Sheets and Trigger Sheets that address

various topics; tools such as the Forms Ace and Reference Ace; and other resources including checklists and

guides to facilitate compliance and enforcement.

Reach Codes

The IOUs worked with local jurisdictions to prepare the way for adoption of codes that exceed 2016 Title 24

as part of the normal three-year cycle of local jurisdiction adoption of California Uniform codes. A key part

of that effort was the program administrators’ initiation of cost effectiveness studies to support the adoption

of Cool Roof Reach Code ordinances by the City of Los Angeles, City of Pasadena, and County of Los

Angeles, respectively. The studies address product cost, energy savings, cost-effectiveness and GHG

reductions to support reach code requirements for residential and nonresidential Cool Roofs in all 16 climate

zones.

Program Administrator work with the CEC was instrumental in the development of the CALGreen ZNE

Tier. The CALGreen ZNE Tier is the basis of 2016 Reach Codes including ZNE. Key to the ZNE tier is the

Energy Design Rating, which calculates the Time Dependent Valuation of all energy consumed or exported

by the building. The Energy Design Rating is an extension of the Title 24 performance method simulation

software, CBECC-res. The Codes and Standards statewide team has been gathering supporting information

and participating in algorithm development for this simulation tool.

Findings

Appliance Standards

Within appliance standards, battery chargers accounted for 58 percent of appliance standard electricity savings

and televisions accounted for 32 percent of electricity savings. The top gas energy savings came from new

federal standards for top loading clothes washers (37 percent) and gas water heaters (31 percent).

Compliance was high for all measures except for small motors.

Building Codes

Capping building code compliance at 100 percent reduced the net program evaluated savings by 34 percent.

The largest reduction to energy savings from this methodological change was for non-residential alterations,

which saw a 37 percent reduction in evaluated energy savings. Non-residential new construction evaluated

savings were reduced by 21 percent. Residential evaluated savings were reduced by 1 percent.

Energy Efficiency Report | 68

Residential savings suffered a much smaller reduction in evaluated savings because there are more residential

buildings that are not up to code. The compliance for residential building codes was much lower than in the

previous evaluations. One recurring issue was hot water recirculation pumps running longer than they should

because they were not connected to an on-demand control system as required by code. In one instance, the

building did not even meet the 2008 code requirements.

The evaluation team had difficulty in recruiting enough non-residential buildings to visit and evaluate. The

usual statistical analysis had to be replaced by a Monte Carlo analysis because the sample size was too small.

Another change in the methodology was to use a whole building approach for evaluating building code

energy savings, where possible, in order to account for interactions between efficiency upgrades. In this

approach, building data collected at actual site visits was entered into a building simulation program. The

simulation modeled interactions between the different energy savings measures. Previously, the energy usage

of individual measures were numerically added and did not take into account how different measures might

interact within building to offset other upgrades’ impacts.

Path to Statewide Goals

PG&E, as the Codes and Standards statewide lead, is ramping up a “Code Readiness” program that will make

data needed to implement new codes and standards available to the CEC in an effort to accelerate adoption

of new measures into the code. The IOUs have set adequate metrics in their business plans to continue to

advocate for codes and standards and ensure compliance.

Energy Efficiency Report | 69

Integrated Demand-Side Management

Overview

The Integrated Demand Side Management (IDSM) statewide program is a strategic planning program

implemented by all four of California’s IOUs. The program aims to ensure that the IOUs work together and

pool their actions, lessons learned, and resources to develop and promote programs and strategies that

provide integrated demand side energy solutions to customers in all market segments (residential, commercial,

agriculture, and industrial). As a statewide program, the IDSM program has a dedicated budget, as well as

specific objectives and goals.

The CPUC first directed the IOUs to promote IDSM for customers in the Energy Efficiency, Demand

Response, Distributed Generation, and Low Income Energy Efficiency proceedings in 2007. However, in late

2014, the CPUC initiated a stand-alone rulemaking, R. 14-10-003 to:

…consider the development and adoption of a regulatory framework to provide policy

consistency for the direction and review of demand-side resource programs

In September 2015, the scope of this rulemaking was expanded to include not only integrated demand-side

management topics, but integration of distributed energy resources as well. The resulting Integrated

Distributed Energy Resources (IDER) rulemaking (R.14-10-003) was scoped to determine how distributed

energy resources could meet system needs as an alternative to traditional grid investments, so IDSM-specific

evaluation activities were put on hold. The following chapter describes the evaluation studies completed for

the 2013-2014 program years.

Estimated Savings

IDSM is classified as a non-resource program; consequently, there are not any energy savings attributed to or

reported for this program.

IDSM Programs

The IDSM budget supported the core collaborative and coordination functions of the IOUs while other

IDSM activities were funded via other programs throughout the IOU portfolio. The statewide IDSM

program budget for the 2013-2015 program cycle was $11 million, of which $8 million (72 percent) was

spent.

98

The activities of the IDSM statewide program during the 2013-2015 program cycle focused on four different

areas of activity in support of the core tasks established in D.09-09-047:

98

IDSM activities are funded with energy efficiency funds, as well as funds from demand response programs. While the IDSM

budgets are authorized through the energy efficiency funding application proceedings, only the energy efficiency funds are discussed

in this report.

Energy Efficiency Report | 70

 Technology tracking – The IDSM Task Force continued to track emerging technologies that have

a combination of energy-efficiency, demand response, and/or distributed generation capabilities.

 Integrated Audits – Each IOU continued to enhance their integrated audits offerings, including

solar-related functionality.

 Pilots – The IDSM program continued to support various pilot projects, including many Zero Net

Energy projects.

 Integrated Marketing – The IDSM program continued to support marketing and outreach efforts

that combine marketing for energy efficiency, demand response, and distributed generation programs

into combined or single stream marketing efforts.

Highlights

IDSM activities in the 2013-2015 program cycle were driven by the increasing focus on zero net energy

buildings. In the 2010-2012 program cycle, the IDSM program developed an online integrated assessment

tool and a unified project inspection process. These activities were aimed at streamlining project applications,

reimbursement, and inspection processes for customers.

Given the ZNE policy drivers, IDSM activity focused on supporting ZNE pilot projects and emerging

integration technologies. In accordance with CPUC direction, the IOUs participated in an IDSM Task Force

that identified and promoted integration opportunities and tracked projects where there were integrated

efforts underway in order to identify and develop best practices. Additionally, the IDSM program continued

to fund improvements to the integrated audit tools developed in the previous program cycle.

Findings

IDSM evaluations for the 2013-2014 program years consisted of three market studies. The first two studies

focused on the residential and small commercial sectors, while the third study summarized findings from

three non-residential IDSM project case studies.

The residential and small commercial studies identified customer profiles of those customers that adopted

integrated solutions. These studies found that direct sales efforts by distributed generation contractors were a

main driver behind adoption of integrated energy efficiency and distributed generation.

99

Among small commercial customers, there were different rates of uptake for integrated solutions across

business types. Schools were much more likely than any other business type to adopt IDSM solutions,

particularly those including distributed generation. Adoptions that combined demand response and energy

efficiency (but not distributed generation) were most common among food/liquor establishments. Offices,

restaurants, and managed properties had the lowest propensity to adopt IDSM projects. Other drivers of

IDSM solutions included technology advancements that support integration (energy management systems,

smart thermostats and HAN/in-home displays) and public policy, such as zero net energy goals.

100

99

Evergreen Economics, IDSM: A Study of Preferences and Patterns of IDSM Uptake in California’s Residential and Small commercial Markets.

October 2015

100

Evergreen Economics. Integrated Demand Side Management Market Characterization Study, Residential and Small Commercial Markets.

August 2014.

Energy Efficiency Report | 71

An additional lesson learned and documented in the IDSM case studies were that IDSM offerings are not

delivered via programs that combine resources, but by human resources that support the intelligent

combining of programs. As such, further consideration is needed on how external non-utility market actors

and funding sources drive customer behavior and to what extent utility rates provide incentives to encourage

IDSM in line with California loading order and climate goals.

101

Path to Statewide Goals

The Integrated Distributed Energy Resources proceeding continues to evolve, with a current focus on

implementing the IDER Competitive Solicitations Framework, which seeks to develop a framework for all-

resource solicitations. These all-resource solicitations aim to facilitate the deployment of distributed energy

resources to displace or defer the need for capital expenditures on traditional distribution infrastructure.

Integrated offerings have the potential to be particularly useful in this regard by the very nature of providing

multiple grid or customer services in one package. As such, the IOUs’ IDSM programs continue to promote

integration of programs and technology for customers in energy efficiency, demand response, and distributed

generation. Integration of demand-side technologies will continue to be driven through the CPUC’s

continued push of zero net energy policies in the residential and commercial sectors and custom projects in

the industrial sector.

101

Evergreen Economics. Integrated Demand Side Management Case Study Report. May 2016

Energy Efficiency Report | 72

Workforce Education & Training

Overview

The Workforce Education and Training (WE&T) Program represents a portfolio of education and training

activities aimed at supporting the achievement of IOU energy savings targets, as well as the workforce

objectives set forth in the California Long-Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan (Strategic Plan). As noted in

the Strategic Plan, the vision for the workforce is that, by 2020, “California’s workforce is trained and fully

engaged to provide the human capital necessary to achieve California’s economic energy efficiency and

demand-side management potential.”

102

The CPUC first provided guidance to the IOUs regarding Workforce Education and Training activities in the

2010-2012 program cycle. In 2013, at the direction of the CPUC, the statewide WE&T program team hired

the Donald Vial Center for Labor in the Green Economy to develop a comprehensive approach to WE&T

for the EE programs, in line with the goals in the Strategic Plan and the Needs Assessment

recommendations.

103

On May 2, 2014, the Donald Vial Center finalized its recommendations in the

document Workforce Issues and Energy Efficiency Programs: A Plan for California’s Utilities (Guidance Plan). In June

2015, the CPUC approved a joint IOU Program Implementation Plan Addendum, describing which of the

Guidance Plan recommendations would be initiated in 2015. These guidance documents and decisions

influenced the topics evaluated and studied in the 2013-2015 program cycle.

The WE&T program completed two process evaluations and five market/indirect impact evaluation studies

for the 2013-2015 portfolio. These seven studies generated 30 recommendations for program improvement.

Estimated Savings

Workforce Education & Training is a primarily non-resource program, so energy savings are not attributed

nor measured for WE&T.

The one exception is the LivingWise sub-program under SCE’s Connections program.

104

LivingWise

program savings are provided for the 2013-2015 program cycle, although the program was discontinued in

June 2016.

WE&T Programs

In 2013-2015, IOUs spent their entire $96 million budget on WE&T activities, or 6 percent of total portfolio

program expenditures. The WE&T program has a similar overall structure across the IOUs which has

remained mostly unchanged since the 2010-2012 cycle. However, the program focus has evolved due to

implementation of the California Workforce Education & Training Needs Assessment findings, sector

102

California Public Utilities Commission, California Long-Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan. September 2008; p. 74

103

Zabin, Carol and Chapple, Karen. California Workforce Education and Training Needs Assessment. Donald Vial Center on Employment

in the Green Economy, University of California, Berkeley. 17 March 2011

104

The LivingWise program was a sub-program within WE&T Connections. LivingWise was an education program which focused on

elementary students. By participating in the program, students would receive an energy efficiency kit containing various electric, gas,

and water measures - the savings claimed were a result of the number of kits provided.

Energy Efficiency Report | 73

strategies, and further CPUC guidance. The statewide program is organized into three subprograms:

Centergies, Connections, and Planning.

The Centergies subprogram receives the majority of WE&T program funding, accounting for 72 percent of

total program expenditures in the 2013-2015 program cycle. Centergies organizes training around technology

categories (e.g. advanced lighting and HVAC), building type (e.g. commercial, residential) and focuses on

facilitating education and training in energy efficiency and integrated demand-side management. These

education and training services are primarily delivered through the IOUs statewide energy centers and via the

Internet. The subprogram also facilitates and organizes trainings at dozens of locations throughout California.

Depending on the IOU, an energy center may offer anywhere between 30 and 300 unique courses throughout

the year.

The Connections sub-program focuses on forging collaborations with external education institutions to

promote coordinated energy-related careers and training activities. In accordance with the Strategic Plan goal

to “establish energy efficiency education and training at all levels of California’s educational systems,” the

Connections subprogram works with primary education institutions, as well as secondary education-level

institutions such as community colleges, community-based organizations, trade organizations, and

universities. In the 2013-2015 program cycle, the Connections subprogram accounted for 25 percent of

program cycle WE&T funds.

The Planning subprogram develops the statewide framework for planning, coordinating, and implementing

WE&T activities, stakeholder engagement meetings, and partnerships. Across the IOUs, the Planning

subprogram accounted for 3 percent of program cycle funds.

Highlights

The IOUs refocused their WE&T programs to respond to CPUC guidance and recommendations in the

WE&T Guidance Plan. The Strategic Planning program completed the Guidance Plan in May 2014 and held

a stakeholder engagement forum on the implementation of the recommendations. In addition, the IOUs

focused on expanding trainings and training materials development in numerous areas including HVAC,

lighting, and building operator capacities.

 Through the statewide HVAC sector strategy, IOUs refocused their HVAC trainings on quality

installation/quality maintenance and energy efficiency sales trainings. Through the Energy Centers,

the IOUS delivered QI/QM training for HVAC technicians, administered certification exams, and

provided online training opportunities for contractors to access sales training and identify skills

deficiencies.

 PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E also co-funded the California Advanced Lighting Controls Training

Program in 2014. California Advanced Lighting Controls Program provides training on proper

installation and testing practices to advance the use and installation of lighting controls in commercial

facilities. In 2014 alone, they trained and certified 2,570 participants.

105

 In 2015, the IOUs expanded collaborations with carpenters, stationary engineers, and sheet metal

workers in order to enhance the energy efficiency components of these trades’ training programs.

105

Joint IOUs. Joint IOU Workforce Education & Training Annual Report 2014. Available at: https://www.caeecc.org/cross-cutting-

workforce

Energy Efficiency Report | 74

These collaborations focused on WE&T-identified areas of opportunity including HVAC, Building

Envelope, and whole building systems.

106

Findings

Evaluations of the 2013-2015 workforce education & training program focused on studying implementation

challenges associated with the recommendations from the WE&T Needs Assessment and guidance from

CPUC Decisions 12-05-015 and 12-08-044, as well as data needs and collection methodologies for the

WE&T program.

Data Needs and Collection:

Workforce education & training data needs comprised a major focus of the 2013-2015 program evaluation

cycle.

The WE&T Program Theory and Logic Model Update And Critical WE&T Data

Needs study found that Centers

were inconsistent in their data tracking and collection efforts, but also found that much of the data collection

required by CPUC guidance should be performed by the resource programs, not the WE&T teams. The

study also found that program participants’ information collection could be enhanced through course

registration and course feedback surveys and that data tracking at the tool lending libraries is inconsistent.

The Workforce Conditions Data Investigation

investigated the purpose, needs, and options for collecting

workforce condition data from programs that are not in a direct contracting relationship with contractors in

light of recent policy decisions (Decision 12-11-015) that asked for the IOUs to start collecting data on

indirect contractors that could be costly and extensive. In many cases, employers did not have valid

demographic data on their employees or on subcontractors’ employees. Additionally, contractors expressed

concern with providing sensitive wage and demographic data and requested clear and compelling arguments

for why they should provide this data to the state.

The study also found that in order to support effective data collection, standardizing the definition of work

quality across the IOUs and the coding of inspection failures may be necessary. As far as how to collect the

data, the study found that electronic payroll tracking is the most valid and reliable method to acquire the

demographic and wage information requested, but that this investment is not necessarily justifiable for all

energy efficiency programs at this time.

Training Market Characterizations and Assessments:

In addition to data needs, evaluation efforts focused on characterizing the available trainings in the energy

efficiency market.

The WE&T Program Theory and Logic Model Update And Critical WE&T Data Needs adjusted the program logic

model to address new WE&T goals. The study found that the Centergies program allocated 45 percent of its

activities to skills building and 55 percent of activities to market building. However, the study also found that

additional policy and IOU input could be useful in determining the level of focus each of these areas

deserves. The Program Theory study also had findings relevant to the CPUC and other policymakers, stating

106

Joint IOU Workforce Education & Training Annual Report 2015. Available at: https://www.caeecc.org/cross-cutting-workforce

Energy Efficiency Report | 75

that the crosscutting nature of these programs has produced uncertainty on who is supposed to act on policy

decisions related to WE&T.

The Contractor Training Market Characterization study investigated the alignment among resource program

training requirements and WE&T courses, as well as the alignment between contractor training and IOU

resource program requirements. It focused on the market for contractors that could support the following

high-profile IOU resource programs:

 Residential Energy Upgrade California (EUC) Home Upgrade Program,

 Residential HVAC Program,

 Non-Residential Lighting Program.

Overall, the market characterization study found that existing trainings available in the state meet the training

needs of contractors. However, the study also found that contractor awareness of these trainings and

recognition of the value of these trainings is a gap that needs to be addressed.

In addition to the market characterization, an IOU-led Lighting Controls Training Assessment examined lighting

controls installation training offered to installers by major lighting control manufacturers and by the

California Advanced Lighting Controls Training Program. The study evaluated the California Advanced

Lighting Controls Program and found that this training fills an important gap in the lighting controls

installation area. However, the study also suggested the need for improvements in keeping training content

and equipment boards up to date. The study also focused on developing a definition of work quality from

which the impact of training programs can be assessed. This work on definitions could be useful in future

studies, although the program administrators will still require some support to standardize the definition of

work quality for energy efficiency installations.

Path to Statewide Goals

The SB 350 requirement to double energy efficiency will benefit tremendously from efforts to ensure that

California has a qualified and trained energy workforce. Ensuring that energy efficiency measures are

obtaining maximum energy savings through quality installation and that those savings are perpetuated

through quality maintenance programs will support resource programs across the portfolio.

The investigations into data collection needs and limitations completed in the 2013-2015 evaluation cycle

supports the development of efficient training and education programs for the energy workforce. While the

data collection itself may eventually need to happen through the resource programs, the discussion

surrounding workforce program data needs is a critical starting point. These study conclusions are already

being discussed and incorporated into the discussions around how to target and measure progress within the

workforce education & training Rolling Portfolio programs.

Energy Efficiency Report | 76

Marketing, Education, and Outreach

Overview

California has several policy objectives that require the voluntary actions of residents to achieve. Primarily, SB

350, the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015, requires a doubling of energy efficiency savings in

buildings by 2030. Statewide Marketing, Education, and Outreach (ME&O) is a tactic that is essential to

getting customers to take energy savings and management actions. In addition, as the California utilities will

be defaulting their customers to time of use rates in coming years, energy management concepts, and the

message of “when you use energy matters,” become important.

Statewide ME&O

While programs serving all customer segments include marketing as a tactic, the CPUC has focused the

statewide ME&O platform on residential customers; consequently, this chapter is largely devoted to

residential ME&O. The current brand, Energy Upgrade California, is the third brand since 2000, preceded by

Flex Your Power and Engage 360. The program is designed to provide support and lead generation for PA

programs, as well as non-PA activities such as behavior-change tactics (e.g. turning off lights), and substantial

energy upgrades to the home such as solar installation. Evaluation of statewide ME&O, using the Energy

Upgrade California brand name, was the focus of the report, “2013 – 2015 Statewide Marketing, Education, and

Outreach Program: Integration and Verification Study.”

Program Administrator ME&O

While statewide ME&O is a stand-alone program, it is designed to complement the program-level marketing

that the PAs execute. Given that consumers are inundated with marketing messages, the CPUC recognizes

the importance of coordinating the two levels of marketing—statewide and PA—in order to inspire action

and avoid confusion. This is the subject of a second study, “2013-2015 California Statewide Marketing,

Education, and Outreach Program: Cross-Cutting Process Study.”

Estimated Savings

As Statewide ME&O is a non-resource program, there are no savings reported.

Marketing, Education, and Outreach Programs

Energy Upgrade California (EUC): Statewide ME&O was authorized for two years of funding in

CPUC Decision D.13-12-038, and the Center for Sustainable Energy (CSE) was selected as the program

implementer. A subsequent decision authorized a year of bridge funding for 2016. The program budget has

been $23 million per year throughout. The Decision spelled out a unique governance structure wherein the

program is overseen by the CPUC and run by the implementer CSE, but input is given by PAs. EUC was

launched in spring of 2014. Because the authorization for Statewide ME&O comes from a separate

proceeding than the energy efficiency proceeding (A.12-08-007), it is on a different program cycle than the

traditional EE programs.

Energy Efficiency Report | 77

Highlights

Examples of the actions that EUC works to inspire include:

 Installing LED lightbulbs

 Washing clothes in cold water

 Buying energy efficient appliances

 Maintaining HVAC systems

 Unplugging unused devices

 Getting a whole home upgrade

CSE used several channels in its campaigns, including traditional tactics such as paid advertising and earned

media (stories in the news media about energy conservation), as well as social media. In addition, CSE formed

partnerships with community-based organizations in order to have an in-person presence at events. The

creative concept behind EUC included a talking bear, simply named “Bear,” who climbed down from the

California flag to talk about energy conservation.

As part of the CPUC mandate, nine objectives were outlined for Statewide ME&O:

Table 21: Marketing, Education & Outreach Objectives

Marketing, Education, & Outreach Objectives

1. Use the Energy Upgrade California brand to educate consumers about the Home Upgrade programs, why energy

use matters, and how California homes and small businesses use energy, as well as energy efficiency, demand

response, distributed generation, and energy management actions available to them.

2. Encourage consumers to engage with resources and tools to learn more about their energy use.

3. Inform consumers about the benefits of participating in local program opportunities, seasonal opportunities, or

no-/low-cost actions.

4. Provide direction about how consumers can learn more about and enroll in local program opportunities and

time-sensitive opportunities, or how to take no-/low-cost actions.

5. Identify and pilot messaging and message delivery for partners that complements existing IOU partnerships,

including local governments, CBOs, retailers, and realtors.

6. Identify and pilot methods to provide information to small business owners.

7. Work with a marketing firm and use behavior research to develop a social marketing campaign.

8. Coordinate local, regional, and statewide marketing efforts, messaging, and tactics.

9. Develop an evaluation, measurement, and verification (EM&V) roadmap for IOU local marketing and statewide

marketing to understand the impacts of local, IOU-led marketing, and how local and statewide efforts can best

be coordinated and complementary.

Energy Efficiency Report | 78

In conjunction with the objectives outlined for the Statewide ME&O program, the CPUC, CSE, and

stakeholders participated in a process to develop specific metrics by which to judge performance of the

program. The CPUC approved the metrics through the advice letter process, which provided final metrics in

May 2015. Below are the metrics, their associated targets, and underlying rationale.

Figure 9: Summary of SW ME&O Objectives and Associated Objectives

Coordination and Integration with Other Efforts: Statewide ME&O is designed to complement the

program-specific, regional marketing that is being implemented by the PAs. Thus, how EUC coordinates and

integrates with the efforts of the PAs is of concern to Energy Division. PA ME&O efforts are embedded

within existing demand-side management programs and work to support the achievement of program goals.

Program marketing staff typically tailor their ME&O activities to first serve the immediate purpose of raising

awareness of programs, but ultimately seek to encourage participation.

Energy Efficiency Report | 79

To examine the interaction between statewide and PA ME&O, the CPUC’s Energy Division commissioned a

study, “2013-2015 California Statewide Marketing, Education, and Outreach Program: Cross-Cutting Process

Study.” The study was led by Opinion Dynamics Corporation (ODC).

The evaluation team used a range of research activities to assess PA ME&O efforts including interviews with

ME&O administrators and stakeholders, a review of secondary data and documents provided by the PAs, and

quantitative surveys and qualitative focus groups with California consumers to support ODC’s three research

objectives. A brief synopsis of the research performed for each research objective below:

Assess coordination between the Statewide ME&O administrator and the PAs: ODC conducted a series of

in-depth interviews with key stakeholders, and reviewed policy documentation and program materials to

determine how efforts were coordinated across the ME&O administrators. The goals were to explore the

barriers and benefits to developing and implementing a consumer referral process from the statewide website

www.EnergyUpgradeCA.org to PA programs.

Document PA ME&O design and implementation activities: ODC reviewed PA data, conducted interviews

with PA staff, and developed an activities matrix that catalogued all 2013-2014 ME&O activities for the

California Statewide Programs for Residential Energy Efficiency (CALSPREE).

Document how consumers engage with Statewide and PA ME&O: ODC conducted primary data collection

with California consumers including 10 focus groups and quantitative surveys for select ME&O campaigns

conducted in early 2016. The evaluation team worked with the CPUC to select six campaigns out of 31

residential campaigns offered during the period.

Findings

Following are two sets of findings. The first one is from the “Verification and Integrated Effectiveness

Study,” which evaluated the program performance metrics that were set by the CPUC. The second is a cross

cutting evaluation done of the statewide marketing brand and the IOUs marketing, and how they coordinated

and leveraged each other. These summaries are followed by a discussion of future program design

suggestions.

1. Verification and Integrated Effectiveness Study: Overall, the findings from this study provide a

mixed picture of Statewide ME&O effectiveness. In terms of the formal program performance metrics

established for the 2014-2015 period, CSE achieved four of the five metrics for which they are directly

responsible based on data collected through September 2015.

Energy Efficiency Report | 80

Figure 10: SW ME&O Program Performance Against Approved Metrics

Beyond the performance metrics, the evaluation team identified the following key findings around campaign

effectiveness and made associated recommendations for future Statewide ME&O Program implementation:

a. Unaided Brand Awareness: Californians struggle to name any energy-related brands without

prompting, and unaided awareness of Energy Upgrade California remains low. In particular, only

a handful of consumers named Energy Upgrade California when asked what brands, campaigns,

or initiatives they had heard of that encourage Californians to save energy (1 percent in April

2015 and 2 percent in November 2015).

Energy Efficiency Report | 81

b. Brand Familiarity and Knowledge: First, while awareness of the Energy Upgrade California

brand increased by only 3 percentage points since the brand assessment study in January 2013

(17 percent compared to 20 percent), those who are aware of the brand are somewhat more

familiar with it. In particular, the average familiarity rating increased significantly from 3.09 in

January 2013 to 4.11 in November 2015. Second, aided awareness of EnergyUpgradeCA.org

among those aware of the brand increased significantly between April 2015 and November 2015

from 19 percent to 43 percent. These findings suggest a deepening of brand awareness among

consumers as opposed to a broadening of awareness among a greater portion of the population.

c. Energy Self-Efficacy: An objective of the program is to empower Californians to better

manage their energy use. As a result, the ODC evaluation team explored the degree to which

consumers felt they were capable of managing their energy use. The ODC team found that

consumers have moderate levels of energy self-efficacy (average scores of 4.7 to 5.0 on a scale

from 1 to 7), which remained consistent over the course of 2015.

d. Energy Saving Action: In contrast to these advances on key measures of awareness, a deeper

analysis of consumer engagement with and actions taken due to the program suggests that its

effects on behavior are limited. In particular, the team assessed the performance of different

community outreach channels (i.e., CBO, retail, and mobile outreach) at the center of CSE’s

move towards direct, one-on-one in-person engagements. ODC found that there was significant

variation across the one-on-one outreach channels of retail, CBO, and mobile displays. ODC

found that consumers had greater recall of retail and mobile events compared with CBO events

and took a greater number of actions as a result of those engagements than those who engaged

with CBOs.

2. Cross-Cutting Process Study

Research Objective 1: Assess coordination between the Statewide ME&O administrator and the

PAs: Based on interviews with key stakeholders, the evaluation team found that coordination has

improved over time, including increased two-way communication, more collaborative quarterly

stakeholder meetings, and earlier opportunities to provide feedback on creative materials. Stakeholders,

however, continue to identify challenges that need to be overcome moving forward. These include the

separate ME&O planning processes, insufficient time or resources to provide feedback, and uncertainty

about whether feedback is incorporated into Statewide ME&O design. Notably, many of these challenges

may be alleviated by the development of Joint Consumer Action Plans.

Research Objective 2: Document PA ME&O design and implementation activities: PA ME&O

differs from the SW ME&O program because Statewide ME&O focuses exclusively on promotion

whereas PA marketing is rooted in all four elements of marketing (i.e., the Four Ps of product, price, place

and promotion). Because the “action” that PA ME&O efforts seek to encourage is participation in

marketed energy efficiency programs, they are distinct from Statewide ME&O efforts in the following

ways:

 PA marketing reflects one of many strategies, such as rebates, that the PAs deploy to support

program participation. For example, this study covered only PA promotional ME&O budgets,

which reflect only 9 percent of overall CALSPREE 2013-2014 program administration budgets.

 PA marketing efforts are typically program-specific. The majority of PA ME&O funding is

allocated to program-specific marketing efforts as opposed to general awareness or energy

management efforts.

Energy Efficiency Report | 82

 PA marketing staff focus on developing marketing plans for key programs. According to the

PAs, they tend to develop more comprehensive and targeted plans for programs with larger

energy savings or participation goals, and rely on portfolio-wide plans to document strategies for

programs with smaller energy savings or participation goals.

 PA ME&O efforts are regionally focused. The PAs conduct ME&O within their territories to

deliver specific messages targeted toward their customers or constituents. Each PA has their own

specific targeting and segmentation schemes that are tailored to specific programmatic efforts.

Having metrics in place is an essential component of measuring performance. The PAs develop and track

a variety of program- and channel-specific metrics to assess the effectiveness of their activities. However,

while all PAs indicate that they develop marketing plans as a key step in determining what ME&O

activities to conduct, we found that their availability, the timing of their development, and their content

varies across PAs, programs, and program cycles.

Research Objective 3: Document how consumers engage with Statewide and PA ME&O: ODC

conducted six case studies of PA ME&O efforts - one for each PA. The following are overarching

findings from across the case studies:

 Customers who have been exposed to program marketing tend to have moderate to high levels

of program awareness and recall of marketing materials. As expected, levels of program

awareness and recall vary widely across campaigns ranging from 13 percent to 92 percent of

targeted customers.

 Customers generally report that they clearly understand the intended message from the

marketing. However, results vary across the marketing campaigns likely due to the different

messages and different levels of complexity associated with these messages.

 Customers exposed to the marketing campaigns tend to report that they have taken, or plan to

take, intermediate or subsequent steps to participate or engage with the promoted program after

exposure to the marketing.

 Compared to customers who did not recall marketing, those who recalled marketing were

significantly more likely to have recently looked for more information online about the program

(21 percent vs. 6 percent), to have discussed the program with someone in their household (25

percent vs. 14 percent), and to have contacted a contractor to learn more about the program (6

percent vs. 2 percent).

 In addition, customers who remember the marketing state that, on average, it had a moderate

influence in their action taking – 48 percent of the respondents who recall the marketing and

took at least one action in the past month noted that the marketing had some influence on their

action.

 Overall, ODC’s assessment indicates that the PA marketing campaigns appear to be achieving or

on track to achieve their campaign objectives, such as increasing awareness of programs,

providing clear messaging, and motivating energy savings actions.

Future Program Design: Based on the evaluation of 2013-2015 ME&O efforts at the SW and PA levels,

the evaluation team recommends that the CPUC provide different levels of oversight for the SW ME&O

program compared to PA ME&O efforts. The SW ME&O program focuses exclusively on promotion

whereas PA marketing goes beyond promotion to include product, price, and place (i.e., the Four Ps).

Energy Efficiency Report | 83

Given this distinction, it does not make sense for the CPUC to provide oversight of only the promotional

aspect of PA ME&O in isolation from the program(s) it supports. As a result, ODC has a number of

recommendations to the CPUC regarding where, and how, to focus future oversight and guidance in the

area of PA ME&O, listed in the next section.

Path to Statewide Goals

As statewide ME&O is a non-resource program, the energy saved from the program is not tracked. However,

in 2016, the CPUC voted out D.16-03-029, which among other things details how Energy Upgrade California

is expected to contribute to the SB350 goal of doubling building efficiency. The decision explains the role

that Statewide MEO will play:

“To improve longer term planning and coordination, after the utilities file their energy efficiency business

plans in R.13-11-005, all stakeholders in this proceeding should collaborate in a process to develop a five-year

‘ME&O Strategic Roadmap’ that will outline long-term goals, metrics, and strategies, with consideration of

what contribution ME&O will play in complying with Senate Bill (SB) 350. CPUC staff shall lead this

process. The roadmap should incorporate demand response ME&O objectives from R.13-09-011 as well as

the strategic action plan for residential rate reform ME&O developed in R.12-06-013.”

D.16-03-029 also ordered CPUC staff to work with the utilities to run a competitive RFP for a statewide

ME&O implementer, which has been awarded to DDB-San Francisco (DDB). DDB has filed the 5 Year

Strategic Roadmap with strategies that emphasize actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. That plan is

currently being implemented.

Energy Efficiency Report | 84

Emerging Technologies

Overview

The Emerging Technologies Program (ETP) is a non-resource program. The mission of the ETP, as

described in the Program Implementation Plans filed with the CPUC, is to support “increased energy

efficiency market demand and technology supply (the term supply encompassing breadth, depth, and efficacy

of product offerings) by contributing to development, assessment, and introduction of new and under-

utilized energy efficiency (EE) measures (that is, technologies, practices, and tools), and by facilitating their

adoption as measures supporting California’s aggressive energy and demand savings goals.”

107

The 2013-2015 program cycle ETP budget was as follows:

Table 22: Emerging Technologies Program Budget by IOU

IOU

2013-2015 Program

Budget (millions)

PG&E

$11.9

SCE

$21.2

SDG&E

$2.7

SCG

$2.5

TOTAL

$38.3

Three studies were conducted for ETP during the 2013-2015 program cycle: 2013-2014 Targeted

Effectiveness Study, 2013-2014 Study of the California Utility Internal Measure Development Process

(UIMD), and 2013-2014 Statewide Emerging Technologies Program Third Party Introduction Tactic Process

Evaluation. A fourth study, the Technology Development Support Process Evaluation, is still ongoing. A

fifth study, the 2015 Targeted Effectiveness Study, has been delayed until the ETP under the upcoming

Energy Efficiency Rolling Portfolio Business Plans has been implemented long enough to enable meaningful

evaluation.

The 2013-2014 Targeted Effectiveness evaluation results suggest that the IOUs met their Program

Implementation Plan objectives and are contributing to both the EE portfolio and the broader Strategic Plan

goals. However, poor data quality, poor data reporting, and a lack of market barrier support for technologies

were identified as critical ETP issues.

Estimated Savings

The Emerging Technologies Program is a non-resource program, so no energy savings are attributed.

107

The PIPs of each of the individual Investor-Owned Utility (IOU) submissions are virtually identical as this is a statewide program.

The PIPs are located at: http://eestats.cpuc.ca.gov/

Energy Efficiency Report | 85

Emerging Technologies Programs

The Emerging Technologies Program focuses on the following program activities:

 Technology Assessments – Identify technologies suitable for transition into the portfolio by

investigating performance claims. Technologies are evaluated based on their savings potential, cost,

and alignment with statewide goals.

 Technology Development Support – This largely consists of communicating with manufacturers

to encourage them to improve performance and efficiency specifications to produce higher efficiency

products.

 Technology Introduction Support – Pathways for swifter introduction to market are explored,

largely by connecting technology developers to manufacturers, investors, and other market actors.

Demonstration projects are also included in this category.

Highlights

As in the 2010-2012 portfolio cycle, the program provided support to the IOUs’ portfolio and the market in

general. ETP met its program activity objectives while staying under budget. However, current data tracking

systems and poor data quality hampered the ability to quantify savings from emerging technologies assessed

by ETP in the EE portfolio. Despite limited data, the evaluations found that the ETP is contributing to the

EE portfolio. The current suite of mapped measures from ETP projects adopted into the EE portfolio from

2010–2014 provides about 2 percent of the 2013–2014 statewide reported electric savings and slightly less

therm savings.

108

Importantly, evaluations to date measure program success based upon the Program

Performance Metrics and Program Implementation Plan objectives developed by the CPUC and IOUs to

assess program effectiveness. These evaluations do not reflect the important role ETP plays by identifying

technologies that are not appropriate for incorporation into the IOU EE portfolios.

Although ETP has succeeded in supporting workpapers for technologies such as cold storage, high

performance commercial dishwashers, smart thermostats, advanced power strips, and advanced LEDs, the

effectiveness of these technologies in achieving savings in the incentive portfolio has not been tracked. The

2013-2014 Targeted Effectiveness Study attempted to measure the impact of these technologies on portfolio

energy savings. However, the study produced limited results as researchers were only able track about half of

deemed measures installed. This study did prompt an effort to track the complete historical impact of ETP-

originated technologies on the portfolio dating back to 2009, which is currently ongoing. Despite data

limitations, the results from the 2013-2014 Targeted Effectiveness Study indicate that ETP is having at least

some impact on the portfolio.

Findings

2013-2014 Targeted Effectiveness Study

This study took a holistic look at the effectiveness of the ETP, including deeper dives into the ETP database,

ETP activities, and knowledge dissemination efforts, in addition to a separate memo on the difficulties of

tracking savings of technologies that have moved into the IOU portfolio from the ETP. Overall, the ETP

108

The evaluation was unable to map measure IDs to the EE portfolio database in all cases, leading to a likely underestimating of

savings in the EE portfolio from ETP measures.

Energy Efficiency Report | 86

exceeded the activity goals, in terms of number of projects and events, which were set in its Program

Implementation Plans while only spending half of its allocated budget.

In the 2013-2014 timeframe, the ETP was found to have provided technologies that contributed 2 percent of

electricity savings achieved by the IOU portfolio and slightly less than 2 percent of therm savings. These

percentages were calculated by matching ETP-originated projects to the achieved savings of IOU portfolio

measures. However, this methodology encountered significant data quality barriers and, as such, could

represent an underestimation of ETP’s portfolio contributions. Efforts to improve program tracking data aim

to solve this problem on a long-term basis and are currently underway.

The evaluation team found that ETP is a looked-to leader in its approach to assessing emerging technologies.

They use a variety of tactics such as lab and field evaluation, demonstration showcases and test standard

development. These tactics support a technology’s “technical readiness,” or its maturity level concerning its

energy performance and feasibility, and “market readiness,” or its maturity level concerning the marketplace’s

willingness and ability to adopt the technology. For emerging technologies to succeed once moved into the

energy efficiency portfolio, they must be both technically ready as well as being available and acceptable to

the market.

Evaluation results suggest that the ETP focuses on technical readiness. ETP effectively uses program tactics

to support the decision for measure transfer based on “technical readiness” factors, such as technology and

savings maturity. The ETP does an effective job at identifying these criteria and deploying appropriate tactics

within this context.

This evaluation also found that the ETP could benefit from greater strategic focus when choosing tactics.

Although ETP is seen as a leader on many emerging technologies studies, the evidence indicates that ETP

may suffer from a lack of strategic focus when choosing projects to address barriers. The frequent appearance

of “one-off” projects targeting a narrow technology context, the lack of clear relationships among projects

within a technology, and the lack of explicitly sequenced projects all point to a less focused approach. This

evaluation recommends a strategic technology-focused pilot to support a more holistic approach to tactic

selection.

109

2013-2014 Study of the California Utility Internal Measure Development Process (UIMD)

This study examined the technology input, evaluation, and energy efficiency measure output processes of the

ETP. The technology identification and input process incorporates a wide range of coordination with other

Technology Development Actors and technology consortiums. A wide range of IOU staff communicate

internally and externally to identify technologies suitable for ETP evaluation and are actively searching for

new ideas. However, uncertainty about data collection requirements for work papers, the mechanism through

which new measures are accepted into the energy efficiency portfolio and assigned deemed energy savings

values, has resulted in occasional requests by the IOU work paper teams for additional data after the

completion of an ETP project. The ETP was also found to sometimes not produce sufficiently robust data to

support work papers.

110

109

Op.cit.p.82

110

2013-2014 Study of the California Utility Internal Measure Development Process, p.10-11

Energy Efficiency Report | 87

Although the study found ETP often provides insufficient data for workpaper development, ETP must

balance conducting a wide range of shallow, less costly exploratory evaluations of potentially revolutionary,

but risky, technologies with a smaller number of deeper, more costly evaluations of evolutionary technologies

that could support a workpaper. This balance leads to a number of evaluations necessarily incapable of

supporting workpapers without additional investigation by design. Discussions between the IOU ETP leads

and the CPUC Ex-Ante Review team following this study show that there is not a lack of understanding of

workpaper requirements in ETP evaluations, but rather that this balance merely gave that impression.

Additional investigations into the optimal ratio of shallow to deep evaluations and improvements of how

technology transfers between ETP and the portfolio are underway.

2013-2014 Statewide Emerging Technologies Program (ETP) Third Party Introduction

Tactic Process Evaluation

This study examined the effectiveness of the ETP’s Technology Resource Innovation Program (TRIP) and

Innovative Design for Energy Efficiency Activities 365-days a year (IDEEA365) solicitation processes.

These sub-programs provide a wide range of inputs to the ETP and access to third party technology

developers. This study generally found the current processes to be sufficient to facilitate inclusion of third

party technology developers into the ETP process, with minor recommendations for adjustments of the

solicitation processes.

Path to Statewide Goals

Alignment of the ETP with statewide goals requires some programmatic changes to improve and maximize

ETP’s contribution to the portfolio. Without effective metrics that track ETP’s impact on the portfolio, it is

impossible to evaluate how well the program aligns with statewide goals or may contribute to the doubling of

energy efficiency. Energy Divisions staff recommended new metrics, based on the recommendations from

the 2013-2014 Targeted Effectiveness Study, in the Rolling Portfolio proceeding. To improve the market

penetration of these technologies, Energy Division staff also proposed the Targeted Effectiveness Study’s

recommendation to initiate a technology-focused pilot for inclusion in the business plans. Additional efforts

are underway to move the ETP database online in order to improve stakeholder access to ETP historical

efforts, program direction, and program process framework.

Under the new Rolling Portfolio framework for energy efficiency, the ETP will become a statewide program,

with SCE as the electric statewide lead and SCG as the gas statewide lead. This structural change will not

significantly alter the implementation of ETP in practice, as the IOUs have historically coordinated very

closely on ETP. However, statewide technology priority maps (TPMs) will be developed to guide the

program as a whole, which is a significant departure from the previous roadmaps segmented by IOU that

were used in the past to guide direction and coordination. The technology priority maps will identify priority

technologies for assessment and broader program direction.

Energy Efficiency Report | 88

Local Government Partnerships

Overview

Local Government Partnerships (LGPs) have played an important role in promoting energy savings

opportunities to municipal governments and organizations since 2002. Their role was formalized in 2002-

2003 when the CPUC first allowed LGPs to received IOU contracts. Since then, the CPUC expanded

funding of local government energy efficiency efforts across the four IOUs throughout the past three

program cycles. In the 2010-2012 cycle, the CPUC made available significant funding resources for PG&E

and SCE to promote Strategic Plan activities.

111

The 2013-2015 program cycle marked a period of IOU expansion of LGP programs and growth in local

agency capacity to deliver energy efficiency. PG&E increased emphasis on energy savings through small-

medium-business direct install projects by leveraging the connections from its LGPs. SDG&E’s five

partnerships have collaborated closely to put forward a Regional Energy Partnership approach that promotes

knowledge transfer among the local government partners and agencies without formal partnerships.

The four IOUs vary somewhat in how they operate their local government partnerships. PG&E has the most

resource programs, or programs that directly produce energy savings, while SCG and SDG&E offer entirely

non-resource programs, or programs that indirectly drive savings through supporting energy savings activities.

SCE’S efforts have focused on retrofit activity for public buildings as resource programs. All four IOUs have

some non-resource programs that address State Strategic Plan goals. The CPUC Energy Efficiency Policy

Manual states that the LGPs are designed to:

1. Generate energy and demand savings within their own facilities and in their communities (retrofits)

2. Take actions [that] support the Strategic Plan objectives

3. Provide demand-side management outreach in the community

111

California Public Utilities Commission. D.09-09-047 Approving 2010 to 2012 Energy Efficiency Portfolios and Budgets. 09 September

2011.

Energy Efficiency Report | 89

Estimated Savings

Table 23: Local Government Partnerships Savings Snapshot

Energy Savings

Emissions

Cost-

Effectiveness

Electric

(GWh)

Demand

(MW)

Natural

Gas

(MM

Therms)

CO

2

(Million

Tons)

NOx

(1000

pounds)

TRC

Reported

Gross

436

62

3

240

86

Net

324

46

3

179

65

0.9

Evaluated

Gross

396

58

3

216

76

Net

260

39

2

142

51

0.7

% Portfolio*

Gross

8%

6%

3%

Net

8%

6%

3%

*represents sector’s (or program area’s) percent contribution to overall evaluated net portfolio savings, excluding

Codes & Standards savings

The LGPs account for 3 percent of the total energy efficiency savings goals for the entire portfolio for both

electricity (GWh) and peak demand (MW), as well as 2 percent of the gas savings goals. However, the LGPs

have not yet met their estimated savings program goals for either electricity or gas.

LGPs main purpose is to assist local governments in developing and implementing a variety of energy

efficiency strategies that may lead directly or indirectly to energy savings. However, a majority of the

estimated savings from these programs are allocated through the Program Administrators’ activities (i.e. the

IOUs) rather than linked directly to the specific LGP programs. Therefore, the savings attributed to these

programs are estimates based on a larger study focusing on specific measure impacts, rather than from a

stand-alone impact study focusing only on savings from the LGPs. The findings from this measure-level

study are being updated for the next program cycle and will include estimated savings attributed to the LGPs

as well.

Local Government Partnership Programs

The IOUS spent a total of $329 million on local government partnership programs across the 2013-2015

program cycle. These expenditures funded municipal retrofits (resource programs) and Strategic Plan

Projects throughout California. Strategic Plan Projects are non-resource activities that the LGP implementers

conduct to support achieving state goals for local governments. The IOUs’ funding decisions are based on

the Strategic Plan Menu, a list of 20 items approved by the CPUC. The CPUC intended for this funding to go

toward non-resource activities within five categories:

 adopting reach codes

 supporting energy code compliance enforcement

 leading by example by reducing energy use in local government facilities

 supporting innovative programs, and

Energy Efficiency Report | 90

 Building expertise within local governments and communities.

112

Highlights

The main categories of activities undertaken by LGPs can be divided into (1) municipal retrofit activity and

(2) Strategic Plan Projects.

Municipal retrofit projects are often highly visible in local communities and are a point of pride among LGP

representatives.

113

These projects replace old or inefficient equipment in public facilities and high-profile

buildings. LGP representatives noted that these projects saved energy and provided additional community

benefits. For instance, ten out of the 36 LGPs undertook projects to replace high-pressure sodium street

lamps with LED technology. Benefits included saving energy but also improved aesthetics and increased

perceived safety for pedestrians.

114

Of the 36 LGPs, five described two separate and distinct municipal

retrofit projects as their main success, so in total there were 41 municipal retrofit success stories for 36 LGPs.

Strategic Plan Projects ran the gamut of activities, including but not limited to developing Climate Action

Plans, conducting GHG inventories and code compliance training, and piloting water-energy programs. The

Chula Vista LGP provides a clear example of successful Strategic Plan efforts. Chula Vista, with support from

the LGP, designed and implemented a range of energy efficiency building codes and other reach codes that

have pushed building stock in Chula Vista to an efficiency level beyond state building code and, in turn,

helped advance stronger state codes. The Chula Vista LGP has developed and implemented code training

efforts and produced resources such as the Code Coach to implement industry best practices in permitting,

tracking, and building inspection.

115

While the LGP programs had notable successes, evaluation studies also noted that local governments faced

challenges in acquiring data, specifically to update greenhouse gas inventories.

116

Communication between

IOUs and LGPs could also be improved, notably when updates to Title 24 could affect IOU rebate programs

and other programmatic changes.

117

Findings

Three specific EM&V studies were conducted to explore the status of operations of LGPs in selected areas.

These studies were:

 PY2013-2014 Local Government Partnerships Value and Effectiveness Study, prepared by Opinion Dynamics

Corporation, October 29, 2015 and managed by the CPUC Energy Division;

 Targeted Process Evaluation of the Local Government Partnership Program, prepared by Research into Action,

September 30, 2016 and managed by the California IOUs; and

112

Opinion Dynamics Corporation, PY2013-2014 Local Government Partnerships Value and Effectiveness Study Final Report.

October 29, 2015; p.1

113

Targeted Process Evaluation of the Local Government Partnership Program, prepared by Research into Action, September 30,

2016; p.46

114

ibid

115

Process Evaluation of the Chula Vista Local Government Program, prepared by Evergreen Economics, July 5, 2017; p.3

116

Process Evaluation of the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments Energy Watch (AMBAG) Local Government

Partnership Program, September 17, 2017, prepared by Evergreen Economics (AMBAG Evaluation).

117

Process Evaluation of the Chula Vista Local Partnership Program, CALMAC ID: SCG0218.01, July 5, 2017, prepared by

Evergreen Economics; and San Mateo Evaluation.

Energy Efficiency Report | 91

 Process Evaluation of the Chula Vista Local Government Program, prepared by Evergreen Economics, July 5,

2017 and managed by the California IOUs.

The Local Government Partnerships Value and Effectiveness Study focused on one specific program offering: the

value and effectiveness of Strategic Plan Projects. Strategic Plans enable local governments to set long-range

energy goals for their communities and chart a course to achieve them. This is a crucial element to support

the overall Strategic Plan objectives.

The second process evaluation, the Targeted Process Evaluation of the Local Government Partnership Program,

examined the Strategic Plan support and municipal retrofit components of the LGP program and was

managed by the California IOUs.

The third process evaluation report provided an in-depth examination of the Chula Vista’s LGP. The Chula

Vista LGP serves Chula Vista, a city with a long history of leadership in energy efficiency and conservation.

Historically, the Chula Vista LGP has been a highly successful regional leader in promoting energy efficiency

activities that indirectly contribute to SDG&E’s energy efficiency Core Programs.

118

The process evaluation

found numerous examples of the ways in which this LGP is effectively assisting the IOU on completing

energy efficiency retrofits for municipal buildings.

Strategic Plan Projects

As of July 2015, evaluation results of activities from 2013 and 2014 found that 33 percent of all projects were

successfully completed. Many others (46 percent of all projects) are still in progress with completion likely.

Completed project efforts include workshops, trainings, and engagement of local government decision

makers, code inspectors, and plan checkers. Strategic Plan Projects have not fully met their Strategic Plan

goals, but much of the effort is still in progress.

119

The Value and Effectiveness Study also confirmed that the majority (83 percent) of LGPs conduct Strategic Plan

Projects. However, the projects and funding levels are highest in southern California and along the coast,

reflecting the state’s population density patterns.

120

From 2010-2014, there have been 389 Strategic Plan

Projects. The study found that these projects are providing high value to California. The funding for the

projects provides the means (i.e., people, knowledge, and tools) to the LGs to develop policies that align with

and support Strategic Plan goals. However, while all projects align with broad Strategic Plan goals, the study

found that 15 percent do not meet the guidelines for Strategic Plan Projects.

121

Municipal Retrofits

Local Government Partnerships exhibited a variety of municipal retrofit activities. In one example, the Chula

Vista LGP exceeded its Climate Action Plan goals for energy efficiency improvements in municipal buildings.

Municipal retrofits encouraged through Chula Vista’s LGP resulted in a reported reduction in energy

118

Process Evaluation of the Chula Vista Local Government Program, prepared by Evergreen Economics, July 5, 2017; pp. 3-6

119

PY2013-2014 Local Government Partnerships Value and Effectiveness Study Final Report, Opinion Dynamics Corporation,

October 29, 2015; p.2

120

PY2013-2014 Local Government Partnerships Value and Effectiveness Study Final Report, Opinion Dynamics Corporation,

October 29, 2015; p.3

121

PY2013-2014 Local Government Partnerships Value and Effectiveness Study Final Report, Opinion Dynamics Corporation,

October 29, 2015; p.1

Energy Efficiency Report | 92

consumption of over 29 percent compared with 2010 consumption levels. This exceeds the goal of a 20

percent reduction by 2020 from 2010 levels as set in the Chula Vista Climate Action Plan.

122



Another example found that these municipal retrofits have also led to both energy savings and non-energy

benefits. One LGP representative from an urban partnership found that the municipal retrofit conversion

from high-pressure sodium streetlights to LED streetlights did more than save energy. The LGP received

police department feedback that the new LED lighting was improving working conditions for its officers

because the new lamps better lit the sidewalks, creating greater visibility for police officers walking the

neighborhoods at night and contributing to a greater sense of safety. The LGP representative also noted that

crime had dropped in the neighborhoods with the new streetlights, perhaps due to increased foot patrols by

police.

123

Program Operations

The IOUs take different approaches to LGP programs. PG&E’s implementation model emphasizes the

Direct Install activities, SCE and SCG’s program model emphasizes municipal retrofits, while SDG&E

focuses on regional planning among its partnerships. Additionally, PG&E’s Strategic Energy Resources

funding component allows greater flexibility in the partnership’s choice of activities contributing to the

Strategic Plan. SCE offers its partnerships a tiered incentive structure that rewards greater achievements with

enhanced incentive payments for each kWh saved.

124

The Chula Vista LGP demonstrates important leadership in the region, as well as nationwide, developing and

enacting energy best practices related to municipal building stock and community outreach. Chula Vista staff

engage extensively with other communities to share its expertise, both locally through the South Bay Energy

Action Collaborative, San Diego Regional Energy Partnership, and San Diego Association of Governments

partnerships, and nationally and internationally through participation in conferences and energy efficiency

competitions.

Challenges with LGP Program Design

The LGP program design is complex and presents a steep learning curve for local governments,

implementers, and program staff alike. Partnership representatives report complex administrative barriers to

completing LGP work.

125

While the IOUs are providing technical assistance to help reduce the internal

barriers that local governments face in completing Strategic Plan Projects, the IOU administrative structure

remains challenging.

126

In addition, partnerships in geographically isolated areas continue to experience marketplace barriers in spite

of ongoing attention to this group in the northern part of the state. These marketplace barriers include a lack

of trained local contractors to perform energy efficiency retrofit work, difficulty attracting out-of-area

contractors, and a lack of energy efficient equipment available locally for comprehensive retrofits. In

122

Process Evaluation of the Chula Vista Local Government Program, prepared by Evergreen Economics, July 5, 2017; p.3

123

Targeted Process Evaluation of the Local Government Partnership Program, prepared by Research into Action, September 30, 2016; p.46

124

Targeted Process Evaluation of the Local Government Partnership Program, prepared by Research into Action, September 30, 2016; p.11

125

Page II through Page V, Targeted Process Evaluation of the Local Government Partnership Program, prepared by Research into

Action, September 30, 2016.

126

Page 1, PY2013-2014 Local Government Partnerships Value and Effectiveness Study Final Report, Opinion Dynamics

Corporation, October 29, 2015.

Energy Efficiency Report | 93

addition, the existing working group (the RHTR Working Group) serves some, but not all, of these

partnerships.

127

Path to Statewide Goals

Variation in the IOU approaches to their LGPs came about in part from the 15-year evolution of the LGPs

within separate IOU territories. The four distinct IOU LGP models, namely the mix between resource and

non-resource programs, may allow increased ability to respond to local conditions, but such variation

complicates regulatory oversight and makes the task of program evaluation difficult. In response, CPUC

Decision 16-08-019

clearly signaled a call for change in the way the IOUs administer their LGPs, directing

that “all business plans should also include strategies for improving the consistency of LGP administration

statewide.”

128

The CPUC is currently considering future LGP direction in the energy efficiency business plan

proceeding (R.13-11-005).

127

Page II through Page V, Targeted Process Evaluation of the Local Government Partnership Program, prepared by Research into

Action, September 30, 2016.

128

CPUC, D.16-08-019 Guidance for Initial Energy Efficiency Rolling Portfolio Business Plan Filings. Findings of Law, No. 53, p. 104, August

18, 2016,

Energy Efficiency Report | 94

Regional Energy Networks & Community

Choice Aggregators

Overview

The CPUC authorized new types of energy efficiency program administrators in November 2012, through

the formation of two Regional Energy Networks (RENs) and Marin Clean Energy (MCE), a Community

Choice Aggregator (CCA).

129

With a two-year budget of $87 million, the RENs account for 3 percent of

California’s 2013–2015 energy efficiency portfolio budget of $2.6 billion, while MCE was allocated a little

over $4 million for the same period.

The RENs are independent of the IOUs, but are supported by ratepayer funds. They were approved to

deliver energy efficiency services according to the following criteria:

 Activities that the IOUs cannot or do not intend to undertake;

 Activities for which there is no current IOU program offering and for which there is the potential for

scalability to a broader geographic reach, if successful and;

 Activities in hard-to-reach markets, whether or not there is currently a IOU program that may

overlap.

130

The two RENs formed in 2012 are Bay Area Regional Energy Network (BayREN), which serves nine

counties in the San Francisco Bay Area, and Southern California Regional Energy Network (SoCalREN),

which serves six full counties in southern California, as well as parts of five other counties.

Marin Clean Energy is California’s first Community Choice Aggregator, and is the only CCA that administers

ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs. MCE first began serving residents and businesses in the Marin

County and has since expanded to serve Napa County and the Cities of Richmond, Benicia, El Cerrito, San

Pablo, Walnut Creek, and Lafayette. As a CCA, MCE can purchase power on behalf of its customers and

provide access to energy efficiency programs.

129

D.12-05-015, “Decision Providing Guidance on 2013-2014 Energy Efficiency Portfolios and 2012 Marketing, Education, and

Outreach” Date of Issuance: 18 May 2012; and D.12-11-015: Decision Approving 2013-2014 Energy Efficiency Programs and Budgets. 15

November 2012

130

D.12-11-015: Decision Approving 2013-2014 Energy Efficiency Programs and Budgets. 15 November 2012; p.17

Energy Efficiency Report | 95

Estimated Savings

Table 24: RENs and CCAs Savings Snapshot

Energy Savings

Emissions

Cost-

Effectiveness

Electric

(GWh)

Demand

(MW)

Natural

Gas (MM

Therms)

CO

2

(Million

Tons)

NOx

(1000

pounds)

TRC

Reported

Gross

12

3.4

0.8

9.8

7.7

Net

10

3.0

0.7

8.6

6.9

0.29

Evaluated

Gross

4.4

0.8

0.5

4.2

Net

3.6

0.7

0.4

3.6

0.10

% Portfolio

(Evaluated)

Gross

0.1%

0.5%

0.1%

0.2%

Net

0.1%

0.6%

0.1%

0.2%

Neither the RENs nor MCE are meeting their estimated savings goals based on the findings from the most

recently completed impact evaluation for the 2013-2015 program cycle.

The RENs resource program savings come from the residential sector while MCE’s energy savings come

from both residential and commercial energy efficiency upgrades. The two RENs offer the Single Family

Home Upgrade and Multifamily Whole Building programs, both of which are whole building retrofit

programs with a suite of measures. BayREN has a code compliance program, while SoCalREN has public

sector program that helps municipal governments undertake retrofits.

The MCE program offers a wide variety of energy efficiency measures in both the residential and

nonresidential sectors. Ninety-one percent of the MCE program’s reported electric savings are in the

nonresidential sector, 82 percent of which are focused on nonresidential lighting. MCE’s reported gas

savings mostly come from residential faucet aerators and showerheads, which comprise 69 percent of the

reported savings.

131

BayREN and SoCalREN’s current ex-ante savings values for multifamily measures are not considered reliable

based on the ex-ante savings review. The net-to-gross ratios for BayREN’s multifamily measures are

significantly lower than ex ante estimates.

Overall, the reported savings for MCE’s small commercial and multifamily measures are less than reported

savings but not much lower than what is typically found in CPUC evaluations of similar IOU programs.

MCE’s net-to-gross ratios are consistent with net-to-gross ratios for similar IOU programs.

132

131

2013-14 Regional Energy Networks and Community Choice Aggregator Programs Impact Assessment Final Report, Itron, Apex

Analytics & DNV-GL, January 8, 2016. Page ES-3

132

2013-14 Regional Energy Networks and Community Choice Aggregator Programs Impact Assessment Final Report, Itron, Apex

Analytics & DNV-GL, January 8, 2016. Page ES-17

Energy Efficiency Report | 96

Overview of Non-IOU Programs

Bay Area Regional Energy Network

 BayREN Single Family Home Upgrade is a service available to owners of single-family detached

homes in the BayREN territory who are PG&E customers. This program pays incentives for whole

house retrofits and offers assistance to customers and contractors going through the process through

its Home Upgrade Advisor segment.

 Bay Area Multifamily Whole Building Program is a service that allows multifamily property owners to

receive free technical assistance designed to lower barriers to multiple measure upgrades through

technical and financing assistance. Property owners receive customized scopes of work designed to

reduce building energy use and receive incentives for whole building retrofits and for indoor LED

lighting.

 The BayREN Codes and Standards Subprogram consists of three components: enforcement of

existing codes, training, and sharing best practices for reach codes.

 The BayREN Energy Efficiency Financing Portfolio contains three programs to help make energy

efficiency upgrades more affordable. The components are: (1) Pay as You Save, (2) Commercial

PACE, and (3) Multifamily Capital Advance.

Southern California Regional Energy Network

 Single Family Home Upgrade, Multifamily Whole Building retrofits, Local Marketing and Outreach,

Contractor Outreach and Training, Green Building Labeling, and Low Income Single Family

Housing Upgrades. Through the Single Family Home Upgrade and Multifamily Whole Building

program components, SoCalREN provides incentives for both single family and multifamily whole

house/building retrofits.

 Financing programs are made available by SoCalREN to local governments to supplement the on-bill

financing offered by the IOUs and, therefore, enable greater investments in deep energy savings.

 SoCalREN’s Regional Energy Center offers comprehensive technical support to local governments

and other public entities to enable them to implement deeper and more cost- effective energy

management practices.

133

Marin Clean Energy

 The MCE Multifamily Program is designed to reduce barriers to retrofits by providing technical

assistance and incentives to multifamily property owners. Incentives are offered for window film,

CFLs, linear fluorescents, LEDs, pipe insulation, and a variety of domestic hot water measures. 

 The MCE Small Commercial Program is a multiple measure program for small commercial high-

energy use segments. The program reduces barriers to retrofits by providing technical assistance and

incentives to building owners. Incentives are offered for CFLs, occupancy sensors, LEDs, linear

fluorescents, delamping of linear fluorescents, and selected refrigeration measures. 

 The MCE Single Family Program enables energy and water savings with associated cost reductions

through behavior changes, upgrading of appliances and water conservation measures that affect

133

2013-14 Regional Energy Networks and Community Choice Aggregator Programs Impact Assessment Final Report, Itron, Apex

Analytics & DNV-GL January 8, 2016. Pages ES-2-ES-3,

Energy Efficiency Report | 97

energy. Program activities include encouraging customers to register for the online My Energy Tool

and sending out Home Utility Reports. No measures are rebated under this program. 

 The MCE Finance Pilots Program includes two innovative finance programs to ensure that retrofits

are financially competitive and accessible to a broader and more diverse range of property owners.

The two financing program elements are On‐Bill Repayment and a Standard Offer Energy Efficiency

pilot.

134



Highlights

Despite their relatively nascent status at the beginning of this program cycle, the RENs successfully navigated

the CPUC regulatory environment and mitigated administrative challenges to bring their $67 million dollar

portfolio of programs to fruition within 18 months. Through their Multifamily programs, the two RENs

cumulatively implemented 246 projects during 2013-2015, representing over 18,000 dwelling units.

135

The

BayREN Multifamily program made significant progress relative to its forecasted goals for both its electricity

and gas savings projections. This program offers rebates and no-cost energy consulting for multifamily

properties that undertake energy and water upgrades.

MCE improved the performance of its Home Utility Reports program over the course of the program cycle

until it was on par with savings from similar behavior programs.

Multiple evaluation studies found that both RENs and MCE needed to improve their data reporting and data

quality, in order to properly assess their programs. As detailed in the Regional Energy Networks and Community

Choice Aggregator Programs Impact Assessment Final Report, these three PAs must improve accuracy of program

tracking data and expenditure data in order to support accurate cost-effectiveness calculations and program

assessment.

134

2013-2014 Regional Energy Networks and Community Choice Aggregator Programs Impact Assessment Final Report, Itron, Apex

Analytics & DNV-GL, January 8, 2016. Page E-1

135

2013-2015 REN Multifamily Program Impact Evaluation, prepared by Itron, 20 June 2017 p. ES-4

Energy Efficiency Report | 98

Table 25: Subprograms Included in the EM&V Studies

136

Findings

During the 2013-2015 program cycle, CPUC staff commissioned and oversaw two studies designed to assess

the RENs’ progress, one joint REN and CCA study, and two impact evaluations on MCE’s Home Utility

Reports program:

136

Pages 17-23, PY2013-2014 Value and Effectiveness Study Final Report, Opinion Dynamics Corporation, January 6, 2016

,

and Page

ES-4, 2013-14 Regional Energy Networks and Community Choice Aggregator Programs Impact Assessment Final Report, Itron,

Apex Analytics & DNV-GL, January 8, 2016.

Subprogram

Areas Addressed in

the ODC Report

Areas Addressed in

the Itron Report

BayREN Programs

Single Family Home Energy

Advisor

Assess Value and Effectiveness; Summary

of Accomplishments

Gross Impact Assessment, Cost

Effectiveness Analysis; Evaluability

Assessment; Accomplishments Assessment

Multifamily

Assess Value and Effectiveness; Summary

of Accomplishments

Gross Impact Assessment, Net-to-Gross

Analysis; Cost Effectiveness Analysis,

Evaluability Assessment; Accomplishments

Assessment

Codes & Standards

Summary of Accomplishments

Not evaluated

Financing Portfolio

Assess Value and Effectiveness of

PAYS Water Efficiency Pilot;

Summary Accomplishments

Not evaluated

SoCalREN Programs

Single Family Home Upgrade

and Multifamily Whole

Building

Summary of Accomplishments

Gross Impact Assessment, Cost

Effectiveness Analysis; Evaluability

Assessment; Accomplishments Assessment

Financing

Assess Value and Effectiveness of Public

Agency Financing Program; Summary of

Accomplishments

Not evaluated

SoCalREC

Summary of Accomplishments

Evaluability Assessment; Accomplishments

Assessment

Marin Clean Energy

MCE Multifamily Program

Not Addressed

Gross Impact Assessment, Cost

Effectiveness Analysis; Evaluability

Assessment; Accomplishments Assessment

MCE Small Commercial

Program

Not Addressed

Gross Impact Assessment, Net-to-Gross

Analysis; Cost Effectiveness Analysis;

Evaluability Assessment; Accomplishments

Assessment

Single Family Program

Not Addressed

Evaluability Assessment; Accomplishments

Assessment

Financing Program

Not Addressed

Not Evaluated

Energy Efficiency Report | 99

 The PY 2013–2014 Regional Energy Networks Value and Effectiveness Study (Value and Effectiveness

Study”) Final Report, conducted by Opinion Dynamics Corporation (ODC), January 6, 2016

 2013-2015 Regional Energy Networks Multifamily Programs Impact Evaluation, prepared by Itron and Apex

Analytics, June 30, 2017

 2013-14 Regional Energy Networks and Community Choice Aggregator Programs Impact Assessment Final Report

(Impact Assessment), prepared by Itron, Apex Analytics and DNV-GL January 8, 2016

 Impact Evaluation of 2014 Marin Clean Energy Home Utility Report Program, prepared by DNV-GL, 1 April

2016

 Impact Evaluation of 2015 Marin Clean Energy Home Utility Report Program, prepared by DNV-GL, 5 May

2017

The two studies focused on the 2013-2014 period were intended to determine the overall effectiveness of the

RENs and MCE and the savings impacts they have contributed during the 2013-2014 program period.

However, both studies were reduced in scope based upon the available data, budget, and completion dates.

Thus, rather than providing a comprehensive assessment of the program operations and savings impacts, the

studies provide a qualitative assessment of some REN and MCE programs in the 2013-2014 program years

and a verification of savings estimates for a subset of REN and MCE programs.

137

One aspect to consider when evaluating both the RENs and MCE is that the programs they implement are

typically aimed at serving hard-to-reach customer segments. All three PAs have a program focused on the

multifamily sector, which has been indentified as a hard-to-reach segment, while MCE also has a small

commercial program serving the hard-to-reach small commercial market.

Regional Energy Networks

The Impact Assessment found that, for REN program performance to be accurately assessed, the RENs need to

significantly improve the accuracy and reliability of their reported savings claims and program expenditures.

The Value and Effectiveness Study found that the RENs successfully surmounted significant barriers to entry and

gained proficiency within the complex energy efficiency regulatory environment. When faced with delays in

CPUC decision making and funding, the RENs took stock, made adjustments, and responded to mitigate the

late start and to advance their goals in a responsive manner.

For example, SoCalREN explained that they cut some non-resource activities in order to meet resource

activity goals under a constrained timeframe. To help with the multiple regulatory requirements, the

Association of Bay Area Governments (the lead agency for BayREN) added an assistant to manage most

regulatory processes for BayREN.

138

The Value and Effectiveness Study also identified several additional benefits from the REN program offerings.

137

Pages 2 and 9, Draft EM&V Plan, ODC, September 18, 2014 explained that the effectiveness component of the study would

assess the RENs’ management capabilities with emphasis on both non-resource activities and innovative sub-pilots. The justification

to include only non-resource pilots is two-fold. First, resource pilots would be evaluated under the impact evaluation, and second,

budgetary constraints for the process evaluation necessitate that the overall scope of the evaluation be narrow. The number of RENs

programs evaluated with any rigor was reduced to three via a two-part process. First, Energy Division identified RENs’ programs that

could be evaluated within planned related program studies under a program lead analyst (e.g., Financing and Codes and Standards).

The remainder (e.g., SoCalREC) had evaluability challenges that disqualified them from a more rigorous review (i.e., lack of program

track record and corresponding data and being non-resource programs).

138

PY2013-2014 Value and Effectiveness Study Final Report, Opinion Dynamics Corporation, January 6, 2016. Page 3

Energy Efficiency Report | 100

For example, the RENs unveiled to the California EE community two new programs in the 2013-2014

program cycle that, although presently non-resource programs, hold potential to contribute to states energy

savings goals: Pay as You Save and two Southern California Regional Energy Center software packages.

139

Marin Clean Energy

As with the RENs, the Value and Effectiveness Study found that MCE needed to improve the accuracy and

reliability of their reported savings claims and program expenditures data. The study found that the gross

assessment on MCE’s small commercial and multifamily measures indicate that reported lifecycle gross

savings were overestimated. However, the study did find that the net-to-gross ratio for MCE’s small

commercial program was comparable to other similar programs.

140

An impact evaluation of MCE’s Home Utility Reports found that the program did not achieve any detectable

electric savings during 2013-2014. As described in the evaluation study, “the success of a behavioral program

is driven by the effectiveness of the reports and the willingness and ability of the targeted populations to

decrease their energy consumption. Any of these factors, individually or in combination, could explain the

lack of response to the HUR program.”

141

This program was evaluated again for the 2015 program year, in

which the program improved to provide savings in line with the 1 percent to 3 percent savings produced by

other behavioral programs.

142

139

PY2013-2014 Value and Effectiveness Study Final Report, Opinion Dynamics Corporation, January 6, 2016. P.1

140

PY2013-2014 Value and Effectiveness Study Final Report, Opinion Dynamics Corporation, January 6, 2016. P. ES-19

141

DNV-GL, Impact Evaluation of 2014 Marin Clean Energy Home Utility Report Program, 1 April 2016, p. 3

142

DNV-GL, Impact Evaluation of 2015 Marin Clean Energy Home Utility Report Program, 5 May 2017, p. 3

Energy Efficiency Report | 101

Finance

Overview

Financing is an important tool for California to meet its energy efficiency goals, as these programs can

support the removal of up-front cost barriers for energy efficiency measures. The 2013-2015 Statewide

Financing Program consisted of a portfolio of financing efforts, including continuation of the On-Bill

Financing (OBF) program, continuation of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)-originated

financing programs, and a set of new financing pilots for single-family and multi- family residential customers,

as well as for small business and broader non-residential customers.

OBF and the new financing pilots were statewide efforts by the IOUs, whereas the ARRA-originated

programs were implemented regionally. These financing offerings were intended to eventually support all

types of demand-side investments, including energy efficiency, demand response, distributed generation, and

storage. The total statewide financing budget for IOU programs in the 2013-2015 cycle was $189 million. An

additional $110 million was allocated for REN and CCA financing programs.

For the 2013-2014 portion of the program cycle, the IOUs’ financing program budget totaled $154 million,

which represented slightly less than 10 percent of the total budget for the 2013-14 program cycle. The total

program budget for 2015 was $34 million. Additional portfolio funds were allocated to the RENs’ and MCE’s

finance pilots in the amount of $62 million for 2013-2014 and $47 million for 2015.

Estimated Savings

Financing programs are currently being treated as non-resource programs. The CPUC is exploring the

possibility of attributing savings to financing programs, but the methodology to do so has not been defined

yet. As such, no savings have been reported in the 2013-2015 program cycle.

143

Energy Efficiency Financing Programs

Decision 13-09-044 initiated the Statewide Finance Pilots. The following Program Implementation Plans

(PIPs) are further defined in this Decision:

143

In applications for the 2013-2014 program cycle, the CPUC ordered the IOUs to, “address their strategy for maximizing portfolio

cost-effectiveness by offering financing programs in coordination with rebate/incentive programs, either by offering financing in lieu

of rebates and/or by lower incentives in cases where financing is also provided.” The connection to savings attributions has not been

finalized for financing programs at this time.

Energy Efficiency Report | 102

The ARRA-originated programs include:

ARRA-originated Finance Programs

PG&E

 Golden State Financing Authority (Formerly the California Homebuyers Fund) –

Loan Loss Reserves for Single Family

 emPower Central Coast – Loan Loss Reserves for Single Family

SCE

 emPower Central Coast – Loan Loss Reserves for Single Family

SDG&E

 CCSE Marketing

SCG

 emPower Central Coast – Loan Loss Reserves for Single Family

The regional finance pilots administered by RENs and CCA include the following:

Regional Finance Pilots Administered by RENs and CCAs

SoCalREN

 Energy Upgrade California Residential Loan Loss Reserve (Single Family LLR)*

 Non-Residential PACE: Promotion and administration for already established

PACE program that uses private funding backed by LA County bonds*

 Promotion and management of master lease program (Public Building LLR)*

 Promotion of public agencies of finance programs and assistance setting up

revolving loan fund (Public Agency Loan Fund)*

BayREN

 Multi-Family Capital Advance Program Pilot - Supports Energy Upgrade

California

 Commercial PACE - Supports commercial PACE in the Bay Area

 Pay As You Save*

Marin Clean Energy

(MCE)

 On-Bill Repayment for Single Family (LLR)

 On Bill Repayment for Multi-Family and Small Commercial (LLR)

 Standard Offer Finance Program- Designed for the Commercial and Agricultural

sectors

*ARRA-originated

D. 13-09-044 allocated a total of $75.2 million to finance the pilots over the initial pilot period. The funding

for these Statewide Pilot Programs was delayed until July 2014 as the ability of the implementer, the

California Alternative Energy and Advanced Transportation Finance Authority (CAEATFA) to use the funds

had to be authorized through the annual state budgeting cycle and key systems had to be established and

interconnected before program implementation could begin.

The Residential Energy Efficiency Loan is the first energy efficiency financing pilot program with its first

enrolled loan in July 2016. The Residential Energy Efficiency Loan pilot program uses ratepayer funds to

leverage private finance through credit. This new approach seeks to allow the scale of financing of energy

efficiency in California to grow beyond what ratepayers can fund directly, as well as to expand the availability

of financing to residential that are currently unable to access such funds. As of March 31, 2017, the

Residential Energy Efficiency Loan program has 11 enrolled loans.

144

Other pilots are still under

144

As of the September 22, 2017, there are 65 loans and total amount of loans reached $ one million dollars.

http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/caeatfa/cheef/resources.asp.

Energy Efficiency Report | 103

development and plan to launch in 2017 or beyond. The Decision 17.03-026 addressing energy efficiency

financing pilot programs originally ordered in Decision 13-09-034 ordered CAEATFA to cancel any financing

pilot program that is not launched by December 31, 2019.

In the OBF program, eligible customers applying for energy efficiency program rebates or incentives can

finance the balance of their project costs using an OBF loan at zero percent interest. Loan installments are

then included as a line item on the utility bill. Minimum loans are $5,000 and the maximum loan varies by

customer type and IOU. OBF loans are designed to be bill neutral, meaning that monthly payments are not

expected to exceed projected monthly energy savings. Loan terms are calculated using the total project cost

and the projected monthly energy savings, with a maximum term of five years for commercial, industrial and

agricultural customers, and 10 years for taxpayer-funded institutions.

On-bill financing is a revolving loan pool.

145

With OBF, as loans are repaid on a monthly basis, the IOUs are

able to commit to and make additional loans using the loan pool. Table 28 shows that the total statewide-

authorized loan pool was $158.6 million by the end of 2015. PG&E has issued the most loans since program

inception and SCG had the smallest share.

145

SCE's loan pool operates as revolving loan pool within each program cycle. The other IOUs' loan pools revolve across program

cycles. Unspent, uncommitted OBF funds will be returned to ratepayers at the end of each program cycle by SCE, and at the time of

authorized termination of OBF by the other IOUs.

Energy Efficiency Report | 104

Table 26: On-Bill Financing Loan fund Activities from Program Inception to December 31, 2015

146

Authorized

Loan Funds

Loan Amount

Issued

Loan

Amount

Repaid

Outstanding

Loan Balance

Committed/

Reserved

Loan

Amounts

147

Size of

Available

Loan Pool

148

149

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

PG&E

$60,500,000

$59,165,315

$24,842,186

$34,323,129

$15,641,704

$10,535,167

SCE

$66,663,529

$45,909,365

$21,467,326

$24,442,040

$37,826,335

$4,395,154

SDG&E

$26,002,565

$48,767,117

$35,929,571

$12,837,546

$2,491,952

$10,673,068

SCG

$5,500,000

$2,818,855

$1,887,292

$931,563

$698,017

$4,600,179

Statewide

$158,666,094

$156,660,652

$84,126,375

$72,534,278

$56,658,008

$30,203,568

Definition of Column Headers:

Col (a), Authorized Loan Funds: Cumulative amount of ratepayer dollars authorized by the CPUC to fund OBF loans

from program inception through year 2015.

Col (b), Loan Amount Issued: Cumulative amount of loans issued since program inception through year 2014.

Col (c), Loan Amount Repaid: Cumulative amount of loan repayments by OBF customers from program inception

through year 2014.

Col (d), Outstanding Loan Balance: Cumulative loan amount that is expected, as of 12/31/14, to be paid back by OBF

customers.

Col (e), Committed/Reserved Loan Amounts: Amount of committed/reserved funds as of 12/31/14 for pending OBF

Applications.

Col (f), Size of Available Loan Pool: Funds available for new loans as of 12/31/14. This amount is continually being

modified by factors such as interests accrued on the loan pool balance, loan repayments credited to the loan pool, new

loans reserved/committed, and for PG&E/SCE, new charge offs of defaulted loans.

More loans, both in terms of number of loans and amount of loans, were issued in 2014 than in 2013 or

2015. However, the average loan size was the lowest in 2014 than the year before or after, as shown in Table

29. Additionally, Table 30 shows that more than half of loan amounts (54 percent) were made to the

commercial sector followed by institutional (39 percent) sector.

Table 27: OBF Loans Issued Statewide

OBF Loans Issued Statewide,

2013-2015

2013

2014

2015

2013-2015

# Loans Made

834

1,330

623

2,787

Total Amt. Loaned

$34,480,292

$41,671,050

$30,811,508

$106,962,850

Avg. Loan Amt.

$41,343

$31,332

$49,457

$38,379

146

SDG&E's and SCG' OBF programs were launched in 2006, SCE's launched in 2008, and PG&E's launched in 2010.

147

PG&E and SCE reserve funds for accepted OBF projects. SDG&E and SCG do not reserve loan funds but consider loan projects

meeting program requirements committed loans.

148

For specifics of individual IOU's accounting procedure for the loan pool account (OBF Balancing Account), please see each

IOU's Preliminary Statement for OBFBA.

149

SDG&E and SCG maintain their non-PPP ratepayer-funded loan pool in approved 2-way balancing accounts, as a result, their loan

pools are not capped and are able to collect additional funding beyond the loan pool size shown here to fund committed OBF

projects. Due to this the amount shown is the minimum amount available.

Energy Efficiency Report | 105

Table 28: Statewide Lending by Market

Statewide

Lending by

Market,

2013-2015

Agriculture

Commercial

Industrial

Institutional

Multi-

Family

Total

Number of

Loans

30

2,226

97

403

31

2,787

% of Total

Number

1%

80%

3%

14%

1%

100%

Amount

Loaned

$1,752,074

$57,780,880

$4,805,341

$41,728,820

$895,720

$106,962,850

% of Total

Amount

2%

54%

4%

39%

1%

100%

Average

Loan Size

$58,402

$25,957

$49,540

$108,545

$28,894

$38,379

More than half of measures financed through OBF were lighting equipment only while “lighting plus other

type of equipment” accounted for an additional 29 percent.

150

Highlights

Finance plays a crucial role in increasing energy savings, especially among the residential sector. One finance

evaluation study found that over half of homeowners surveyed (54 percent) agreed that high upfront cost is

why they might not make an energy-related upgrade and a third of homeowners stated that a loan could help

overcome the costs.

The default rate across the utilities is shown in Table 32. Default rates are kept in check by strict underwriting

criteria. Other factors, such as the improving housing market and positive employment conditions may also

be contributing to relatively low default rate levels. Table 31 shows the total amounts and percentages of

defaulted loans in the financing program through 2015.

The CPUC, in cooperation with the California Alternative Energy and Advanced Transportation Authority

(CAEATFA), investor-owned utilities (IOUs), and financial institutions, developed a series of pilot programs

to explore how to expand access to financing for consumers undertaking energy efficiency retrofits. The pilot

programs are designed to enable consumers to undertake deeper and broader energy efficiency projects than

previously achieved through traditional programs.

151

Primarily, the pilots are designed to provide credit

enhancements to lenders mitigating their risk, thus supporting lower interest rates and better terms for

consumers. The pilots also aimed to broaden the availability of financing to individuals who might not have

been able to access it otherwise and address upfront cost barriers to energy efficiency retrofit projects.

150

“Other types of equipment includes appliances, HVAC, boilers and steam systems, industrial systems, cross portfolio, motors,

electronics and IT systems, refrigeration, food service technology, building shell, pumps and fans, and energy management systems

151

The CPUC approved Decision 13-09-044 authorizing two-year pilot programs for serving four market segments i.e. single-family,

multi-family affordable housing with master meters, small business, and On-Bill Repayment (OBR) of financing by non-residential

energy users.

Energy Efficiency Report | 106

The first finance pilot program was Residential Energy Efficiency Loan (REEL) Assistance program that was

launched in July 2016. As the first finance pilot to be implemented, REEL revealed unforeseen administrative

hurdles and provided valuable lessons learned for future implementation. Despite these initial hurdles, REEL

produced promising results as loan dollar volumes quickly accelerated after these start-up challenges.

CAEATFA plans to launch two other finance pilots, targeting small businesses and affordable multifamily

homes, in near future. Should these pilots produce promising results; the CPUC will consider their long-term

implementation.

Table 29: Cumulative Loan Defaults and Partial Payments since Inception through 2015

IOU

Number of

Defaults

Total Amount

Defaulted

% of Defaulted

Amount over Total

Issued Loan

Amount

PG&E

4

$49,603

0.08%

SCE

75

$607,084

1.32%

SDG&E

35

$418,014

0.86%

SCG

1

$1,271

0.05%

Findings

Findings from several market studies are compiled in the following section while findings from the two

Finance impact evaluations are detailed separately in sub-sections below. A number of studies are on hold

pending launch or completion of the Finance Energy Efficiency pilots.

Market and Process Evaluations:

A review of the California energy efficiency finance landscape found that there are three common types of

energy efficiency financing products currently available on the market: home equity loans, term loans (i.e.,

term loans from financial institutions that can be either secured or unsecured against equipment), and

Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) loans. Of these options, PACE dominates the energy efficient

financing volume.

152

A study on PACE loans for single-family homeowners found that financing is an important factor for

achieving larger energy efficiency improvement projects with multiple measures.

153

However, despite

contractors being aware of energy efficient financing options, only 15 percent directly promote them.

154

From

the homeowners’ perspective, one in three homeowners are aware of some form of energy efficient financing

and only one in ten are currently aware of PACE. The Residential market study found that one-third of

homeowners completed energy-related upgrades in the last two years and one quarter of those homeowners

used some form of financing. Among those who used financing, 14 percent used energy efficient financing

such as PACE or energy efficient loans. These findings indicate that there is still an opportunity to promote

energy efficiency finance options to support large, multiple measure energy efficiency improvement projects.

152

Market Study #1: Residential

153

HERO Program Profile Final Report

154

Market Study #1: Residential

Energy Efficiency Report | 107

Impact Evaluations:

Impact Evaluation #1 – Cross-Cutting Background and Attribution Research

A series of white papers were issued that explored ways to approach cost-effectiveness and attribution for the

Financing programs. The cost-effectiveness white paper outlined an approach to cost-effectiveness that aligns

with the current CA Cost-Effectiveness Framework. The paper also suggested an alternative approach to the

current Framework that incorporates non-energy benefits and explains the importance of including non-

energy benefits for financing efforts. The attribution white paper explores all of the concepts that must be

accounted for when assessing attribution from financing programs and explains why it must be different from

the current CA Net-To-Gross Framework for incentive programs. The paper weighs the benefits and

drawbacks of various methods and ultimately recommends a discrete-choice approach as that method allows

for an assessment of all factors at play in a financing decision.

Impact Evaluation #2 – Multiphase On-Bill Finance Study

This report presents findings from the impact evaluation of the program years 2013/14 On-Bill finance

(OBF) programs. The purpose of this study was to quantify OBF program energy savings for the evaluation

period (PY2013/14), to determine the impact of the OBF programs on the installation of energy-efficient

equipment by non-residential customers, and to assess the relative importance of the OBF loan and the

program incentive in customer decision-making. This study performed five distinct analyses, including Gross

Impact, Net Impact, Incremental Net Impact, OBF Loan-to-Incentive Ratio, and Funding Source. During

the 2013-2014 program cycle, four PAs issued 1,812 loans, providing over $64 million in financing.

Compared to the 2010-12 program cycle, the number of loans increased three-fold and the total loan volume

increased four-fold. Most of this increase came from PG&E’s program, which launched during the 2010-12

program cycle, but SCE also experienced a significant increase in program activity. Both SDG&E and SCG

had reduced program activity during 2013/14. The statewide program achieved 294,163 MMBtus in ex post

savings, which were, on average, 79 percent of ex ante savings. The overall estimated net-to-gross ratio for

2013-2014 OBF projects is 0.67. The overall incremental net-to-gross ratio of OBF beyond incentives is 0.09

for energy savings and 0.08 for demand savings.

Path to Statewide Goals

The CPUC, in collaboration with the state’s investor-owned utilities and the California Alternative Energy

and Advanced Transportation Financing Authority, continues to develop the California Hub for Energy

Efficiency Financing Pilot Programs. The pilot programs will encourage and leverage private lending and

investment with various features such as loan loss reserves, debt service reserve funds, and on-bill repayment.

These features also should allow lenders to offer better rates and terms by reducing their risk. In turn,

consumers will have increased access to lower-cost financing, allowing them to upgrade their homes and

businesses while saving money on energy.

155

Addressing these up-front cost barriers is a crucial aspect of achieving the doubling of energy efficiency

statewide. As the “low-hanging fruit” efficiency measures are implemented, financing for larger, more

ambitious efficiency projects will become of increasing importance.

155

California Alternative Energy and Advanced Transportation Financing Authority. Website.

http://www.treasurer.ca.gov/caeatfa/cheef/background.asp

Energy Efficiency Report | 108

Public Utilities Code 913.9 Report

Efforts to Avoid Program Duplication with Sister Agencies in 2017

Public Utilities Code 913.9:

The CPUC shall report annually on its efforts to identify ratepayer-funded energy

efficiency programs that are similar to programs administered by the Energy

Commission, the State Air Resources Board, and the California Alternative Energy and

Advanced Transportation Financing Authority in its annual report prepared pursuant to

Section 913 and to require revisions to ratepayer-funded programs as necessary to

ensure that the ratepayer-funded programs complement and do not duplicate programs

of other state agencies

CPUC Energy Division staff coordinated during 2017 with staff of the CEC, the CAEATFA, the California

Air Resources Board and other agencies to develop and maintain complementary energy efficiency programs

and avoid duplication of efforts.

 CPUC Energy Division staff collaborated closely with the Energy CPUC staff on the SB350

doubling of energy efficiency goals target setting to ensure that quantification of savings potential for

non-utility programs did not duplicate savings estimates for utility programs.

 Energy Division staff reviewed the Air Resources Board greenhouse gas emissions scoping plan and

offered comments on energy efficiency to help shape that plan.

 As part of the Joint Agency Steering Committee, the CPUC Energy Division staff coordinates on an

ongoing basis with staff from the CEC, the California Independent System Operator and the Air

Resources Board on issues related to load forecasting with the objective of aligning work streams,

methods, and objectives.

 Energy Division staff held bi-weekly meetings with CAEATFA staff, and additional bi-weekly

meetings with CAEATFA staff joined by the statewide finance administrator the Southern California

Gas Company, to coordinate activities and prevent duplication on energy efficiency financing pilots.

 CPUC Energy Division staff hosted three workshops on energy efficiency finance that featured

CAEATFA and the investor-owned utilities, as well as evaluation contractors and marketing

contractors, to review the roles and keep the activities on track.

 CPUC Energy Division staff hosted meetings with the Energy CPUC on energy efficiency workforce

education & training to coordinate the roles, and included the investor-owned utilities to coordinate

further.

 CPUC Energy Division staff launched coordination activities with the CEC on responsible

contractor policies for third party energy efficiency solicitations that will be done in the future by

utilities.

Energy Efficiency Report | 109

 CPUC Energy Division staff works with Air Resources Board and the CEC on disadvantaged

communities issues, particularly on implementing recommendations that result from the SB 350

barriers studies.

These meetings coordinated activities among the agencies, brought out synergies, and avoided duplication.

CPUC Decisions also clarified the roles, such as when the most recent finance Decision, D.17-03-026, further

defined the activities to be carried out by CAEATFA and those to be done by Energy Division.

Energy Efficiency Report | 110

Glossary

156

 COST-EFFECTIVENESS - An indicator of the relative performance or economic attractiveness

of any energy efficiency investment or practice when compared to the costs of energy produced and

delivered in the absence of such an investment. In the energy efficiency field, the present value of

the estimated benefits produced by an energy efficiency program as compared to the estimated total

program’s costs, from the perspective of either society as a whole or of individual customers, to

determine if the proposed investment or measure is desirable from a variety of perspectives, e.g.,

whether the estimated benefits exceed the estimated costs.

 CUSTOMER - Any person or entity responsible for payment of an electric and/or gas bill to and

with an active meter serviced by a utility company (refers to IOU customers herein).

 DATABASE FOR ENERGY-EFFICIENT RESOURCES (DEER) – A database sponsored by

the CEC and CPUC designed to provide well-documented estimates of energy and peak demand

savings values, measure costs, and effective useful life (EUL) all with one data source. The users of

the data are intended to be program planners, regulatory reviewers and planners, utility and

regulatory forecasters, and consultants supporting utility and regulatory research and evaluation

efforts. DEER has been designated by the CPUC as its source for deemed and impact costs for

program planning.

 DEMAND (Energy Efficiency) - Formally peak megawatt load reduction, demand in the context

of energy efficiency programs is the estimated average grid-level impact for a measure between 2

p.m. and 5 p.m. during a “heat wave” defined by three consecutive weekdays for weather conditions

that are expected to produce a regional grid peak event.

157

 DEMAND SAVINGS - The reduction in the demand from the pre-retrofit baseline to the post-

retrofit demand, once independent variables (such as weather or occupancy) have been adjusted. This

term is usually applied to billing demand, to calculate cost savings or to peak demand, for equipment

sizing purposes.

 DEMAND SIDE MANAGEMENT (DSM) - The methods used to manage energy demand

including energy efficiency, load management, fuel substitution and load building.

 DISTRIBUTED GENERATION - A distributed generation system involves small amounts of

generation located on a utility’s distribution system for the purpose of meeting local (substation level)

peak loads and/or displacing the need to build additional (or upgrade) local distribution lines.

 DOWNSTREAM – The market sector that includes customers or the end user of a

product/service. Rebates or incentives that are downstream are targeted directly to customers. See

also UPSTREAM.

 EDUCATION PROGRAMS - Programs primarily intended to educate customers about energy-

efficient technologies or behaviors or provide information about programs that offer energy

efficiency or load reduction information or services.

156

California Public Utilities Commission, California Energy Efficiency Evaluation Protocols: Technical, Methodological, and Reporting

Requirements for Evaluation Professionals. April 2006

157

CPUC, Energy Efficiency Policy Manual. p.27

Energy Efficiency Report | 111

 EFFECTIVE USEFUL LIFE (EUL) - An estimate of the median number of years that the

measures installed under a program are still in place and operable.

 EFFICIENCY - The ratio of the useful energy delivered by a dynamic system (such as a machine,

engine or motor) to the energy supplied to it over the same period or cycle of operation. The ratio is

usually determined under specific test conditions.

 END-USE (MEASURES/GROUPS) - Refers to a broad or sometimes narrower category that the

program is concentrating efforts upon. Examples of end-uses include refrigeration, food service,

HVAC, appliances, envelope and lighting.

 ENERGY EFFICIENCY - Using less energy to perform the same function. Programs designed to

use energy more efficiently - doing the same with less. “Energy conservation” is a term that has also

been used but it has the connotation of doing without in order to save energy rather than using less

energy to perform the same function and so is not used as much today. Many people use these terms

interchangeably.

 ENERGY EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENT - Reduced energy use for a comparable level of

service, resulting from the installation of an energy efficiency measure or the adoption of an energy

efficiency practice. Level of service may be expressed in such ways as the volume of a refrigerator,

temperature levels, production output of a manufacturing facility, or lighting level/square foot.

 ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURE - Installation of equipment, subsystems or systems, or

modification of equipment, subsystems, systems or operations on the customer side of the meter, for

the purpose of reducing energy and/or demand (and, hence, energy and/or demand costs) at a

comparable level of service.

 ENERGY EFFICIENCY OF A MEASURE - A measure of the energy used to provide a specific

service or to accomplish a specific amount of work (e.g., kWh/cubic foot of a refrigerator,

therms/gallon of hot water).

 ENERGY EFFICIENCY OF EQUIPMENT - The percentage of gross energy input that is

realized as useful energy output of a piece of equipment.

 ENERGY EFFICIENCY PRACTICE - The use of high-efficiency products, services and

practices or an energy-using appliance or piece of equipment, to reduce energy usage while

maintaining a comparable level of service when installed or applied on the customer side of the

meter. Energy efficiency activities typically require permanent replacement of energy-using

equipment with more efficient models. Examples: refrigerator replacement, light fixture replacement,

cooling equipment upgrades.

 ENERGY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM - A control system (often computerized) designed to

regulate the energy consumption of a building by controlling the operation of energy consuming

systems, such as the heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC), lighting and water heating

systems.

 ENERGY SAVINGS - The reduction in use of energy from the pre-retrofit baseline to the post-

retrofit energy use, once independent variables (such as weather or occupancy) have been adjusted.

 EVALUATION - The performance of studies and activities aimed at determining the effects of a

program; any of a wide range of assessment activities associated with understanding or documenting

program performance or potential performance, assessing program or program-related markets and

market operations; any of a wide range of evaluative efforts including assessing program-induced

changes in energy efficiency markets, levels of demand or energy savings and program cost-

effectiveness.

Energy Efficiency Report | 112

 EX-ANTE SAVINGS ESTIMATE – Administrator-forecasted savings used for program and

portfolio planning purposes as filed with the CPUC, from the Latin for “beforehand.”

 EX-POST EVALUATION ESTIMATED SAVINGS - Savings estimates reported by the

independent evaluator after the energy impact evaluation and the associated M&V efforts have been

completed. If only the term “ex-post savings” is used, it will be assumed that it is referring to the ex-

post evaluation estimate, the most common usage, from the Latin for “from something done

afterward.”

 FREE-RIDER - A program participant who would have implemented the program measure or

practice in the absence of the program.

 GIGAWATT (GW) - One thousand megawatts (1,000 MW), one million kilowatts (1,000,000 kW)

or one billion watts (1,000,000,000 watts) of electricity. One gigawatt is enough to supply the electric

demand of about one million average California homes.

 GIGAWATT-HOUR (GWH) - One million kilowatt-hours of electric power.

 GROSS LOAD IMPACT - The change in energy consumption and/or demand that results directly

from program-related actions taken by participants in a DSM program, regardless of why they

participated. Related to Gross Energy Impact and Gross Demand Protocols.

 IMPACT EVALUATION - Used to measure the program-specific induced changes in energy

and/or demand usage (such kWh, kW and therms) and/or behavior attributed to energy efficiency

and demand response programs.

 INVESTOR-OWNED UTILITY (IOU) - Private electricity and natural gas providers in which a

shareholder-elected board appoints a management team of private sector employees. CPUC oversees

IOUs. Pacific Gas and Electric, San Diego Gas and Electric, and Southern California Edison

comprise approximately three quarters of electricity supply in California while Southern California

Gas Company provides gas service to southern California.

 LOAD - The amount of electric power supplied to meet one or more end user’s needs. The amount

of electric power delivered or required at any specified point or points on a system. Load originates

primarily at the power-consuming equipment of the customer. Load should not be confused with

demand, which is the rate at which power is delivered to or by a system, part of a system, or a piece

of equipment.

 LUMEN - A measure of the amount of light available from a light source equivalent to the light

emitted by one candle.

 LUMENS/WATT - A measure of the efficacy of a light fixture; the number of lumens output/watt

of power consumed

 MARKET - The commercial activity (manufacturing, distributing, buying and selling) associated

with products and services that affect energy usage.

 MARKET ASSESSMENT - An analysis function that provides an assessment of how and how

well a specific market or market segment is functioning with respect to the definition of well-

functioning markets or with respect to other specific policy objectives. Generally includes a

characterization or description of the specific market or market segments, including a description of

the types and number of buyers and sellers in the market, the key actors that influence the market,

the type and number of transactions that occur on an annual basis and the extent to which energy

efficiency is considered an important part of these transactions by market participants. This analysis

may also include an assessment of whether or not a market has been sufficiently transformed to

justify a reduction or elimination of specific program interventions. Market assessment can be

Energy Efficiency Report | 113

blended with strategic planning analysis to produce recommended program designs or budgets. One

particular kind of market assessment effort is a baseline study, or the characterization of a market

before the commencement of a specific intervention in the market, for the purpose of guiding the

intervention and/or assessing its effectiveness later.

 MARKET EFFECT - A change in the structure or functioning of a market or the behavior of

participants in a market that result from one or more program efforts. Typically, these efforts are

designed to increase in the adoption of energy-efficient products, services or practices and are

causally related to market interventions.

 MARKET SECTORS - General types of markets that a program may target or in which a service

offering may be placed. Market sectors include categories such as Agricultural, Commercial,

Industrial, Government and Institutional. Market sectors help the CPUC assess how well its

portfolio of programs is addressing the variety of markets for energy efficiency products and services

in the state.

 MARKET SEGMENTS - A part of a market sector that can be grouped together as a result of a

characteristic similar to the group. Within the residential sector are market segments such as renters,

owners, multi-family and single-family. These market segments help the CPUC assess how well its

portfolio of programs is addressing the variety of segments within the markets served.

 MIDSTREAM – Specifically the retail market segment. Midstream incentives encourage retailers to

stock more high-efficiency products in order to increase sales of these products.

 NET LOAD IMPACT - The total change in load that is attributable to the utility DSM program.

This change in load may include, implicitly or explicitly, the effects of free-drivers, free-riders, state

or federal energy efficiency standards, changes in the level of energy service and natural change

effects.

 NET-TO-GROSS RATIO (NTGR) - A factor representing the program savings net of free

ridership as compared to the total program savings, inclusive of free riders. The NTGR can be

thought of how much savings in a given program area or sector are directly attributable to program

interventions compared to the savings that include both program-generated savings and savings that

would have occurred without program intervention.

 PLUG LOAD – Plug loads are energy used by equipment that is usually plugged into an outlet. Plug

loads can be subdivided into various categories, such as appliances, electronic plug loads (e.g.

consumer electronics), miscellaneous plug loads (e.g. aquarium pumps), and hard wired plug loads

(e.g. ceiling fans, security cameras).

 PORTFOLIO - All IOU and non-IOU energy efficiency programs funded through authorized

energy efficiency funding that are implemented during a program year or cycle.

 REALIZATION RATE - The ratio of evaluated savings to savings reported (pre-evaluation) by the

Program Administrator.

 REBATES - A type of incentive provided to encourage the adoption of energy-efficient practices,

typically paid after the measure has been installed. There are typically two types of rebates: a

Prescriptive Rebate, which is a prescribed financial incentive/unit for a prescribed list of products,

and a Customized Rebate, in which the financial incentive is determined using an analysis of the

customer’s equipment and an agreement on the specific products to be installed. Upstream rebates

are financial incentives provided for manufacturing, sales, stocking or other per unit energy-efficient

product movement activities designed to increase use of particular type of products.

Energy Efficiency Report | 114

 UPSTREAM – Refers to the market sector of manufacturers or retailers of high efficiency products.

Programs can target rebates or incentives at this market sector. See also DOWNSTREAM.

Energy Efficiency Report | 115

Appendices

Appendix A: IOU Savings Compared to CPUC Savings Goals

An Excel file containing the data used in this appendix is available.

This appendix compares the energy savings reported by California’s seven energy efficiency program

administrators and the evaluated energy savings achievements for the 2013-2015 program cycle with the

energy savings goals adopted by the Commission in Decision (D.)12-05-015 and D.14-10-046.

The data should not be compared against other appendix tables showing portfolio savings because only fuel

types that are applicable to goal attainment are included in this appendix. For example, SCE’s natural gas

savings are not included, nor likewise SoCalGas’s electric savings, because as single-fuel utilities the savings

from the fuel type they do not supply are not established in their goals.

The following terms describe different metrics used by the CPUC in establishing goals and defining savings

impacts:

 Goals - Energy savings targets established by the CPUC for each investor-owned utility’s energy

efficiency portfolio. The 2013-14 goals were based on the 2011 Energy Efficiency Potential Study

conducted by the California Energy Commission; 2015 goals were based on 2013 Phase 2 updates to

that study.

158

For the 2013-2015 program cycle, goals are set for gross savings for GWh, MW, and

Therms.

 Reported Savings - Also referred to as “claims,” these are energy savings reported to the CPUC by

the program administrators. The reported savings are based on the number of installed technologies

and pre-evaluation (ex-ante) savings assumptions.

 Evaluated Savings - Energy savings estimates that represent adjustments to the program

administrator’s reported savings based on field research of the installations, performance, and market

conditions gathered during evaluation activities. Evaluation studies determine updates to various

savings parameters, which adjust the amount of savings that occurred and can be attributed to

programs. Parameters include Unit Energy Savings (UES), Net-to-Gross Ratios (NTG), Expected

and Remaining Useful Life (EUL/RUL) for dual baseline measures, Installation Rate (IR),

Realization Rate (RR) In-service rate, and Gross Impacts - Energy savings that result from efficiency

measures installed or actions taken by program administrator customers, regardless of whether or to

what extent the programs influenced their actions.

 Net Impacts - Energy savings directly attributable to the program. Net savings are calculated by

subtracting savings by program participants that are estimated to have happened without the

program (so called “free ridership”) from the gross savings estimate.

When the CPUC adopted updated savings goals for the 2013-2014 program cycle, several changes were made

to previous cycles’ methodology including updates to the avoided costs methodology and the DEER.

158

http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/General.aspx?id=2013

Energy Efficiency Report | 116

For the 2013-2015 program cycle, the CPUC allowed the IOUs to credit savings from Low Income Energy

Efficiency programs and Codes and Standards advocacy toward their goals, although these savings were not

included in the savings potential study used to define the goals. In Decision 12-05-015, the CPUC decided

that codes and standards goals should be separated from the program goals. This is a distinct change from the

2010-2012 program cycle in which IOUs could credit codes and standards advocacy savings toward their

energy efficiency goals.

Electric and peak demand savings attained by SoCalGas, and natural gas savings attained by SCE, are not

included for goal attainment.

Savings achievements from Regional Energy Networks and Community Choice Aggregators are included in

their respective IOU goal attainment since goals are established for IOU territories and not individual entities

(RENs and CCAs do not themselves have mandated goals).

It is important to acknowledge several challenges associated with a comparison of goals and evaluated

savings. Each savings estimate is based on slightly different assumptions and available information in

different time periods. The primary difference is that evaluated savings reflect newly attained information on

energy efficiency market penetration, end user adoption rates, and per unit savings developed through on-site

evaluations and other research. This information was not available when goals or ex ante savings estimates

were established. This discrepancy in available information leads to differences between savings estimates

originally used to develop the efficiency goals and the savings estimates underlying the evaluated savings

results.

The following tables present the range of savings estimates, including the final evaluated savings, compared to

the 2013-2015 energy efficiency savings goals. For the 2013-2015 goal attainment calculations, CPUC policy

dictated Rows that program administrators were allowed to add net show combined programs/codes and

standards goals and savings are for reference only and reported gross savings from low income programs

towards do not reflect the official CPUC guidance on goal attainment calculation.

Table A-1: Statewide Energy Savings for 2013-2015 Portfolio: Goals, Reported, Evaluated

Electric

(GWh)

Demand

(MW)

Natural Gas

(MM Therms)

A. Gross Programs 4,410 830 130

B. Net Codes and Standards 1,756 243 7

C. Combined (A + B) 6,166 1,073 137

D. Reported Gross 5,430 1,007 132

E. Reported Net 3,877 719 89

F. Evaluated Gross 5,070 954 100

G. Evaluated Net 3,230 624 67

Low Income Programs

H. Reported Gross 226 54 15

J. Reported Gross 7,362 1,441 26

K. Reported Net 2,892 538 19

L. Evaluated Gross 7,362 1,441 26

M. Evaluated Net 3,923 576 13

Evaluated Gross Programs Savings including Low Income

N. Gross Programs (F + H) 5,296 1,008 114

Evaluated Net Codes and Standards Savings P. Net Codes and Standards (M) 3,923 576 13

Combined Q. Combined (N+P) 9,219 1,584 127

R. Gross Programs (N over A) 120% 121% 88%

S. Net Codes and Standards (M over B) 223% 237% 183%

T. Combined (Q over C) 150% 148% 93%

Goals

Goals Attainment Percent

Program Savings

Codes and Standards

Energy Efficiency Report | 117

Table A-2: PG&E Energy Savings for 2013-2015 Portfolio

Table A-3: SCE Energy Savings for 2013-2015 Portfolio

Electric

(GWh)

Demand

(MW)

Natural Gas

(MM Therms)

A. Gross Programs 1,889 324 56

B. Net Codes and Standards 776 107 2

C. Combined (A + B) 2,665 431 57

D. Reported Gross 2,332 452 73

E. Reported Net 1,747 335 54

F. Evaluated Gross 2,199 433 56

G. Evaluated Net 1,457 292 38

Low Income Programs

H. Reported Gross 118 23 6

J. Reported Gross 3,249 636 (4)

K. Reported Net 1,276 238 2

L. Evaluated Gross 3,249 636 (4)

M. Evaluated Net 1,717 249 3

Evaluated Gross Programs Savings including Low Income

N. Gross Programs (F + H) 2,317 456 62

Evaluated Net Codes and Standards Savings P. Net Codes and Standards (M) 1,717 249 3

Combined Q. Combined (N+P) 4,034 705 65

R. Gross Programs (N over A) 123% 141% 111%

S. Net Codes and Standards (M over B) 221% 233% 185%

T. Combined (Q over C) 151% 163% 113%

Goals

Program Savings

Codes and Standards

Goals Attainment Percent

Electric

(GWh)

Demand

(MW)

Natural Gas

(MM Therms)

A. Gross Programs 2,030 408 -

B. Net Codes and Standards 800 111 -

C. Combined (A + B) 2,829 518 -

D. Reported Gross 2,604 462 -

E. Reported Net 1,795 320 -

F. Evaluated Gross 2,383 428 -

G. Evaluated Net 1,481 274 -

Low Income Programs

H. Reported Gross 91 29 -

J. Reported Gross 3,352 656 -

K. Reported Net 1,317 245 -

L. Evaluated Gross 3,352 656 -

M. Evaluated Net 1,804 268 -

Evaluated Gross Programs Savings including Low Income

N. Gross Programs (F + H) 2,474 458 -

Evaluated Net Codes and Standards Savings P. Net Codes and Standards (M) 1,804 268 -

Combined Q. Combined (N+P) 4,278 726 -

R. Gross Programs (N over A) 122% 112%

S. Net Codes and Standards (M over B) 226% 243%

T. Combined (Q over C) 151% 140%

Goals

Program Savings

Codes and Standards

Goals Attainment Percent

Energy Efficiency Report | 118

Table A-4: SCG Energy Savings for 2013-2015 Portfolio

Table A-5: SDG&E Energy Savings for 2013-2015 Portfolio

Electric

(GWh)

Demand

(MW)

Natural Gas

(MM Therms)

A. Gross Programs - - 68

B. Net Codes and Standards - - 5

C. Combined (A + B) - - 73

D. Reported Gross - - 56

E. Reported Net - - 33

F. Evaluated Gross - - 42

G. Evaluated Net - - 27

Low Income Programs

H. Reported Gross - - 8

J. Reported Gross - - 30

K. Reported Net - - 17

L. Evaluated Gross - - 30

M. Evaluated Net - - 9

Evaluated Gross Programs Savings including Low Income

N. Gross Programs (F + H) - - 49

Evaluated Net Codes and Standards Savings P. Net Codes and Standards (M) - - 9

Combined Q. Combined (N+P) - - 58

R. Gross Programs (N over A) 73%

S. Net Codes and Standards (M over B) 182%

T. Combined (Q over C) 80%

Goals

Program Savings

Codes and Standards

Goals Attainment Percent

Electric

(GWh)

Demand

(MW)

Natural Gas

(MM Therms)

A. Gross Programs 492 98 6.6

B. Net Codes and Standards 181 25 0.2

C. Combined (A + B) 673 124 6.8

D. Reported Gross 494 92 3.6

E. Reported Net 334 64 2.3

F. Evaluated Gross 488 93 2.3

G. Evaluated Net 292 59 2.0

Low Income Programs

H. Reported Gross 17 2 0.9

J. Reported Gross 761 149 (0.5)

K. Reported Net 299 56 0.2

L. Evaluated Gross 761 149 (0.5)

M. Evaluated Net 402 58 0.4

Evaluated Gross Programs Savings including Low Income

N. Gross Programs (F + H) 505 95 3.2

Evaluated Net Codes and Standards Savings P. Net Codes and Standards (M) 402 58 0.4

Combined Q. Combined (N+P) 907 153 3.6

R. Gross Programs (N over A) 103% 96% 49%

S. Net Codes and Standards (M over B) 222% 231% 188%

T. Combined (Q over C) 135% 124% 53%

Goals

Program Savings

Codes and Standards

Goals Attainment Percent

Energy Efficiency Report | 119

Appendix B: Energy Savings by Sector and End Use

An Excel file containing the data used in this appendix is available.

This appendix shows both first-year and lifecycle savings for each market sector and end use. The majority of

first-year energy savings are concentrated in the residential and commercial market sectors. Key end uses

include HVAC and indoor lighting for electric savings and large industrial processes for natural gas savings.

The evaluations conducted in the 2013-2015 period considered all fuel impacts of the installed measures,

including interactive effects. For instance, the evaluations estimate the positive electric savings from reduced

air conditioning load and negative natural gas savings from increased heating load that result from installation

of more efficient interior lighting and refrigeration measures. Consequently, electric impacts are reflected for

SCG and natural gas impacts are shown for SCE, despite both of these IOUs being single-fuel utilities. These

impacts are not considered compared to goals, since neither utility has goals for energy types it does not sell.

Savings from codes and standards are not included in this appendix. All net savings values include a 5

percent market effects adjustment, as determined in D.12.11.015.

159

The savings estimates provided in this appendix reflect savings parameter updates that were updated based on

the evaluation studies.

160

Appendix H provides a decision tree that illustrates how findings from evaluation

studies were used to update each parameter in the program tracking data. First year savings are calculated for

electricity, demand, and natural gas savings, while lifecycle savings are calculated for electricity and gas savings

only.

Figure B-1a: Distribution of First Year Evaluated Net Electricity Savings by Sector

159

D.12.11.015, Ordering Paragraph 37.

160

Savings parameter updates included Unit Energy Savings, Effective Useful Life, installation rates, realization rates, measure Costs

and Net to Gross ratios.

Agriculture

5%

Commercial

48%

Industrial

6%

Residential

41%

Energy Efficiency Report | 120

FigureB-2a: Distribution of First Year Evaluated Net Natural Gas Savings by Sector

Figure B-1b: Distribution of Lifecycle Evaluated Net Electricity Savings by Sector

Agriculture

8%

Commercial

36%

Industrial

35%

Residential

21%

Agriculture

6%

Commercial

53%

Industrial

9%

Residential

32%

Energy Efficiency Report | 121

Figure B-2b: Distribution of Lifecycle Evaluated Net Natural Gas Savings by Sector

Table B-1a: 2013-2015 Statewide First Year Energy Savings by Sector

Agriculture

9%

Commercial

40%

Industrial

41%

Residential

10%

Peak Demand Savings (kW)

Target Sector Reported Gross Evaluated Gross Reported Net Evaluated Net

Agriculture 84,472 62,104 57,258 36,355

Commercial 482,269 457,067 345,170 292,332

Industrial 75,621 52,151 53,081 31,092

Residential 377,149 395,437 272,552 272,635

Total 1,019,511 966,759 728,061 632,414

Electric Savings (kWh)

Target Sector Reported Gross Evaluated Gross Reported Net Evaluated Net

Agriculture 335,134,037 256,812,240 232,768,525 154,648,213

Commercial 2,709,089,360 2,458,649,067 1,963,775,857 1,557,542,935

Industrial 545,152,320 366,475,195 381,564,953 214,947,839

Residential 1,868,687,344 2,015,916,566 1,316,382,105 1,320,094,524

Total 5,458,063,060 5,097,853,068 3,894,491,440 3,247,233,510

Natural Gas Savings (Therms)

Target Sector Reported Gross Evaluated Gross Reported Net Evaluated Net

Agriculture 10,840,604 8,074,871 7,285,051 4,633,115

Commercial 48,031,568 36,126,682 30,950,355 21,261,920

Industrial 51,564,295 33,419,144 32,067,415 20,936,142

Residential 10,637,553 8,708,186 11,343,915 12,213,254

Total 121,074,019 86,328,882 81,646,736 59,044,431

Energy Efficiency Report | 122

Table B-1b: 2013-2015 Statewide Lifecycle Energy Savings by Sector

Target Sector Reported Gross Evaluated Gross Reported Net Evaluated Net

Agriculture 3,763,493,232 2,734,790,769 2,623,129,614 1,648,502,780

Commercial 28,183,439,760 24,600,270,046 20,704,009,534 15,964,086,187

Industrial 7,156,600,799 4,592,065,751 4,950,281,236 2,687,337,694

Residential 15,285,834,399 16,918,022,352 10,018,692,615 9,542,728,407

Total 54,389,368,190 48,845,148,917 38,296,113,000 29,842,655,067

Natural Gas Savings (Therms)

Target Sector Reported Gross Evaluated Gross Reported Net Evaluated Net

Agriculture 141,804,754 100,598,222 97,912,374 58,317,781

Commercial 583,384,647 439,074,333 381,915,988 271,609,155

Industrial 696,017,174 442,945,100 435,211,101 278,925,063

Residential 115,590,961 63,271,935 85,659,009 71,474,109

Total 1,536,797,536 1,045,889,590 1,000,698,472 680,326,109

Energy Efficiency Report | 123

Sector IOU Gross Net Gross Net Gross Net Gross Net Gross Net Gross Net

PGE 65,893 43,800 47,224 26,310 247,305,661 168,787,016 182,483,966 104,977,756 9,762,193 6,624,311 6,997,724 3,974,144

SCE 18,539 13,433 14,858 10,030 87,298,041 63,646,350 73,862,277 49,372,104 (8,019) (4,480) (9,468) (6,353)

SCG - - - - 264,687 161,376 264,687 161,376 771,922 467,663 771,922 467,663

SDGE 39 26 22 15 265,648 173,782 201,310 136,977 314,508 197,557 314,693 197,662

BAY - - - - - - - - - - - -

MCE - - - - - - - - - - - -

SCR - - - - - - - - - - - -

Total 84,472 57,258 62,104 36,355 335,134,037 232,768,525 256,812,240 154,648,213 10,840,604 7,285,051 8,074,871 4,633,115

PGE 186,904 132,560 183,247 111,476 1,120,474,113 818,911,894 1,029,740,161 640,494,247 27,632,335 18,607,777 21,467,443 11,867,662

SCE 239,964 173,436 217,988 145,486 1,291,511,906 936,459,274 1,152,591,252 744,122,579 (689,602) (562,445) (804,906) (590,543)

SCG 1 1 1 1 (87,479) (57,963) (87,479) (57,963) 17,546,804 10,637,996 13,322,614 8,695,546

SDGE 55,090 38,949 55,520 35,144 295,184,203 207,054,229 274,398,516 171,555,019 3,532,345 2,256,938 2,131,844 1,279,247

BAY - - - - - - - - - - - -

MCE 311 224 311 226 2,006,617 1,408,424 2,006,617 1,429,053 9,687 10,088 9,687 10,007

SCR - - - - - - - - - - - -

Total 482,269 345,170 457,067 292,332 2,709,089,360 1,963,775,857 2,458,649,067 1,557,542,935 48,031,568 30,950,355 36,126,682 21,261,920

PGE 29,064 20,365 21,872 12,884 196,503,339 138,355,073 142,791,256 84,879,690 26,287,964 18,009,672 18,131,462 10,591,002

SCE 43,762 30,798 27,972 16,697 326,048,483 227,665,475 208,355,561 120,620,425 (4,687) (4,989) (14,501) (10,408)

SCG - - - - - - - - 24,524,854 13,578,822 14,811,634 10,080,636

SDGE 2,769 1,901 2,281 1,494 22,516,729 15,489,955 15,244,609 9,393,274 756,637 484,218 491,021 275,220

BAY - - - - - - - - - - - -

MCE 26 17 26 17 83,770 54,450 83,770 54,450 (473) (307) (473) (307)

SCR - - - - - - - - - - - -

Total 75,621 53,081 52,151 31,092 545,152,320 381,564,953 366,475,195 214,947,839 51,564,295 32,067,415 33,419,144 20,936,142

PGE 168,246 136,724 179,282 140,324 758,457,845 612,491,407 835,551,313 620,857,394 8,758,225 9,901,462 8,424,491 11,143,301

SCE 158,776 101,343 166,881 101,167 896,737,721 565,620,567 946,558,865 565,526,174 (10,592,723) (6,620,439) (12,361,045) (7,439,579)

SCG 13,005 8,567 12,627 8,226 28,290,936 17,841,101 27,606,609 17,223,720 12,669,612 7,995,683 12,528,909 7,713,843

SDGE 34,099 23,198 35,154 21,917 175,567,913 111,764,798 197,921,265 111,030,350 (971,343) (627,522) (629,757) 239,223

BAY 1,835 1,652 692 461 7,282,648 6,554,384 6,195,495 4,000,200 644,167 579,751 624,607 465,374

MCE 33 30 33 30 378,124 334,908 378,124 334,908 34,664 29,526 34,664 29,526

SCR 1,154 1,038 767 510 1,972,156 1,774,940 1,704,894 1,121,778 94,950 85,455 86,318 61,566

Total 377,149 272,552 395,437 272,635 1,868,687,344 1,316,382,105 2,015,916,566 1,320,094,524 10,637,553 11,343,915 8,708,186 12,213,254

Total 1,019,511 728,061 966,759 632,414 5,458,063,060 3,894,491,440 5,097,853,068 3,247,233,510 121,074,019 81,646,736 86,328,882 59,044,431

Evaluated kW

Reported kWh

Evaluted kWh

Reported Therms

Evaluated Therms

Agriculture

Commercial

Industrial

Residential

Reported kW

Table B-2a: 2013-2015 First Year Savings by Sector and Program Administrator

Energy Efficiency Report | 124

Sector IOU Gross Net Gross Net Gross Net Gross Net

PGE 2,962,690,298 2,044,719,907 2,124,123,625 1,250,061,242 136,251,889 94,505,588 95,046,028 54,914,616

SCE 797,804,389 576,508,448 607,752,791 396,545,990 (56,610) (34,572) (57,519) (38,206)

SCG 1,323,436 806,881 1,323,436 806,881 3,859,610 2,338,314 3,859,610 2,338,314

SDGE 1,675,110 1,094,377 1,590,917 1,088,667 1,749,864 1,103,044 1,750,103 1,103,058

BAY - - - - - - - -

MCE - - - - - - - -

SCR - - - - - - - -

Total 3,763,493,232 2,623,129,614 2,734,790,769 1,648,502,780 141,804,754 97,912,374 100,598,222 58,317,781

PGE 12,537,916,643 9,302,464,838 10,795,580,025 6,913,467,397 306,712,734 215,553,839 237,970,136 142,138,682

SCE 12,695,610,010 9,342,819,159 10,949,624,209 7,224,816,416 (1,742,647) (2,701,436) (3,950,137) (3,779,023)

SCG (1,835,647) (1,215,201) (1,835,647) (1,215,201) 238,428,782 143,810,542 178,975,631 117,704,999

SDGE 2,932,634,949 2,046,157,859 2,837,787,655 1,813,005,707 39,876,974 25,138,910 25,969,898 15,431,284

BAY - - - - - - - -

MCE 19,113,805 13,782,879 19,113,805 14,011,868 108,806 114,133 108,806 113,213

SCR - - - - - - - -

Total 28,183,439,760 20,704,009,534 24,600,270,046 15,964,086,187 583,384,647 381,915,988 439,074,333 271,609,155

PGE 2,644,889,740 1,856,310,824 1,835,287,406 1,094,568,901 358,045,121 247,650,657 240,279,799 141,389,009

SCE 4,215,235,411 2,891,768,526 2,554,742,358 1,467,858,984 28,756 (15,216) (139,191) (105,096)

SCG - - - - 329,938,477 182,421,726 197,801,161 134,836,160

SDGE 296,050,229 201,925,363 201,610,568 124,633,286 8,007,224 5,155,496 5,005,735 2,806,553

BAY - - - - - - - -

MCE 425,419 276,522 425,419 276,522 (2,405) (1,563) (2,405) (1,563)

SCR - - - - - - - -

Total 7,156,600,799 4,950,281,236 4,592,065,751 2,687,337,694 696,017,174 435,211,101 442,945,100 278,925,063

PGE 4,685,493,140 3,279,457,338 5,303,673,940 2,962,528,579 47,317,973 40,095,312 25,324,551 38,730,666

SCE 8,266,131,235 5,179,323,051 9,179,291,816 5,274,402,391 (99,036,761) (62,899,621) (121,568,283) (70,699,356)

SCG 381,929,029 246,763,819 370,637,543 236,571,765 160,554,366 101,305,519 158,015,951 97,061,840

SDGE 1,785,694,198 1,163,291,262 1,942,412,795 988,477,988 (5,386,288) (3,751,598) (9,766,165) (2,087,090)

BAY 124,263,458 111,837,112 97,217,003 64,525,320 11,292,927 10,163,634 10,141,908 7,707,695

MCE 4,219,473 3,726,554 4,219,473 3,726,554 411,139 351,919 411,139 351,919

SCR 38,103,866 34,293,479 20,569,782 12,495,809 437,605 393,844 712,834 408,436

Total 15,285,834,399 10,018,692,615 16,918,022,352 9,542,728,407 115,590,961 85,659,009 63,271,935 71,474,109

Total 54,389,368,189.60 38,296,113,000 48,845,148,917 29,842,655,067 1,536,797,536 1,000,698,472 1,045,889,590 680,326,109

Evaluated Therms

Agriculture

Commercial

Industrial

Residential

Reported kWh

Evaluted kWh

Reported Therms

Table B-2b: 2013-2015 Lifecycle Savings by Sector and Program Administrator

Energy Efficiency Report | 125

Peak Demand (kW)

End Use Reported Evaluted Reported Evaluted

Appliance 54,377 54,351 33,618 33,602

Food Service 1,537 1,466 1,047 997

HVAC 199,860 178,404 151,230 129,983

Indoor Lighting 393,777 412,395 275,126 250,939

Other 30,149 36,443 26,261 32,805

Outdoor Lighting 2,139 2,107 1,426 1,257

Plug Loads 2,869 2,495 1,691 1,428

Process 123,465 81,396 84,677 47,616

Refrigeration 39,033 34,292 27,551 23,374

Water Heating 804 794 511 500

Whole Building 171,500 162,615 124,923 109,912

Total 1,019,511 966,759 728,061 632,414

Electric (kWh)

End Use Reported Evaluted Reported Evaluted

Appliance 250,814,605 250,694,063 154,565,671 154,486,117

Food Service 7,445,165 7,108,961 5,065,527 4,821,799

HVAC 840,917,243 627,354,449 627,409,865 422,821,577

Indoor Lighting 2,374,583,195 2,507,519,988 1,630,794,534 1,485,471,017

Other 171,759,732 181,013,611 146,480,709 159,000,061

Outdoor Lighting 296,585,901 275,659,262 223,583,501 165,295,901

Plug Loads 48,920,205 44,871,052 23,287,050 20,580,322

Process 704,493,094 458,964,834 485,843,818 271,145,165

Refrigeration 276,227,424 241,885,118 193,431,769 162,723,245

Water Heating 4,998,120 4,916,114 3,288,497 3,182,187

Whole Building 481,318,376 497,865,615 400,740,499 397,706,120

Total 5,458,063,060 5,097,853,068 3,894,491,440 3,247,233,510

Natural Gas (Therms)

End Use Reported Evaluted Reported Evaluted

Appliance 1,410,147 1,305,865 638,978 592,789

Food Service 6,658,694 6,525,075 4,326,457 4,265,554

HVAC 21,373,998 14,470,575 15,324,470 9,084,015

Indoor Lighting (22,682,591) (25,641,848) (14,766,306) (14,332,234)

Other 10,836,798 8,232,618 7,688,732 6,606,384

Outdoor Lighting 22,221 10,844 14,075 5,653

Plug Loads 34,957 (201,322) 187,277 76,391

Process 64,244,971 44,092,708 41,005,513 27,216,447

Refrigeration 2,193,473 1,828,672 1,328,851 1,187,510

Water Heating 15,059,015 14,718,773 9,670,939 9,279,463

Whole Building 21,922,337 20,986,921 16,227,749 15,062,460

Total 121,074,019 86,328,882 81,646,736 59,044,431

Gross

Net

Gross

Net

Gross

Net

Table B-3a: 2013-2015 Statewide First Year Energy Savings by End Use

Energy Efficiency Report | 126

Electric (kWh)

End Use Reported Evaluted Reported Evaluted

Appliance 1,878,848,727 1,877,065,868 1,157,526,534 1,156,304,128

Food Service 89,405,998 84,354,393 60,819,174 57,266,375

HVAC 10,519,948,590 7,664,419,411 7,698,175,130 5,173,484,390

Indoor Lighting 21,634,887,025 23,789,585,730 15,054,645,688 13,933,477,371

Other 931,983,198 836,670,582 621,768,330 559,050,704

Outdoor Lighting 3,369,262,418 2,924,752,332 2,519,335,729 1,752,259,456

Plug Loads 273,473,197 255,378,964 117,548,299 105,623,215

Process 8,545,006,977 5,416,846,252 5,827,376,024 3,189,989,585

Refrigeration 3,661,167,196 3,087,560,013 2,582,327,890 2,091,401,004

Water Heating 54,234,993 52,983,079 35,303,007 33,939,712

Whole Building 3,431,149,871 2,855,532,294 2,621,287,195 1,789,859,128

Total 54,389,368,190 48,845,148,917 38,296,113,000 29,842,655,067

Natural Gas (Therms)

End Use Reported Evaluted Reported Evaluted

Appliance 30,038,066 28,674,718 15,865,733 15,240,486

Food Service 79,944,755 78,257,220 51,939,271 51,160,537

HVAC 263,384,417 185,814,272 178,109,713 115,723,605

Indoor Lighting (222,151,457) (264,123,144) (145,193,659) (142,433,840)

Other 87,388,398 54,241,295 51,711,635 36,637,911

Outdoor Lighting 306,030 128,010 212,789 66,987

Plug Loads 322,735 (1,409,015) 1,364,175 539,560

Process 872,840,702 582,044,945 558,434,171 359,865,443

Refrigeration 19,218,370 15,316,247 11,436,591 9,846,681

Water Heating 210,354,348 204,998,361 135,499,692 129,757,755

Whole Building 195,151,171 161,946,682 141,318,361 103,920,983

Total Therms 1,536,797,536 1,045,889,590 1,000,698,472 680,326,109

Gross

Net

Gross

Net

Table B-3b: 2013-2015 Statewide Lifecycle Savings by End Use

Energy Efficiency Report | 127

Table B-4a: 2013-2015 Statewide First Year Savings by Sector and End use

Sector End Use Reported

Evaluated

Reported

Evaluated

Reported Evaluated Reported Evaluated Reported Evaluated Reported Evaluated

Appliance 8 8 5 5 77,806 77,806 52,145 52,145 1,498 1,498 1,076 1,076

Food Service 10 10 6 6 44,318 44,318 28,807 28,807 28,975 28,975 18,834 18,834

HVAC 6,485 5,967 4,286 3,869 19,999,024 16,823,813 14,197,534 10,677,663 708,714 481,732 544,934 276,157

Indoor Lighting 5,150 4,629 3,705 2,715 29,932,350 30,170,852 21,428,527 17,564,287 (16,773) (17,899) (10,441) (11,847)

Other 1,387 752 907 429 4,006,884 2,528,020 2,610,217 1,432,261 - - - -

Outdoor Lighting

824 723 485 412 13,814,262 14,726,910 8,953,951 8,171,189 - - - -

Plug Loads 0 0 0 0 768 768 499 499 (4) (4) (2) (2)

Process 64,853 45,608 44,077 26,779 230,619,160 165,549,504 159,443,790 101,733,032 9,842,199 7,305,878 6,670,105 4,289,460

Refrigeration 3,790 2,584 2,774 1,493 30,548,325 21,875,614 21,982,751 12,741,297 4,189 2,886 2,723 1,616

Water Heating - - - - - - - - 7,898 7,898 5,133 5,133

Whole Building 1,965 1,823 1,013 645 6,091,140 5,014,634 4,070,305 2,247,033 263,907 263,907 52,689 52,689

Total 84,472 62,104 57,258 36,355 335,134,037 256,812,240 232,768,525 154,648,213 10,840,604 8,074,871 7,285,051 4,633,115

Appliance 1,598 1,572 1,038 1,012 15,863,367 15,742,825 10,801,949 10,704,669 254,730 152,723 147,306 100,018

Food Service 1,521 1,451 1,037 986 7,358,565 7,022,361 5,006,827 4,763,100 6,582,105 6,459,542 4,279,659 4,223,026

HVAC 117,122 100,418 89,583 72,857 658,125,345 484,494,268 493,691,586 325,398,743 16,121,623 10,551,347 11,961,065 6,642,687

Indoor Lighting 249,547 259,657 179,637 165,448 1,234,638,861 1,279,194,410 889,086,396 808,325,887 (3,771,537) (4,148,553) (2,686,125) (2,661,913)

Other 1,660 1,178 1,084 716 17,588,723 11,986,479 11,481,196 7,362,128 4,399,334 2,938,731 2,736,726 1,920,454

Outdoor Lighting

1,093 1,060 792 618 247,087,233 227,095,644 186,479,196 135,241,558 22,886 11,509 14,647 6,225

Plug Loads 2,418 2,046 1,584 1,322 30,841,778 26,798,379 20,361,857 17,657,899 (33,268) (30,990) (22,814) (21,342)

Process 15,195 9,083 10,698 5,207 126,523,675 77,727,736 89,022,897 44,232,416 10,429,907 7,869,472 6,546,303 4,779,042

Refrigeration 31,475 29,210 22,059 20,278 217,834,007 202,128,212 152,078,114 139,041,678 1,817,855 1,624,549 1,121,153 1,053,371

Water Heating 203 192 121 114 875,940 793,935 525,381 466,600 4,839,233 4,560,842 3,203,502 3,051,913

Whole Building 60,438 51,202 37,536 23,774 152,351,865 125,664,818 105,240,458 64,348,256 7,368,701 6,137,509 3,648,932 2,168,438

Total 482,269 457,067 345,170 292,332 2,709,089,360 2,458,649,067 1,963,775,857 1,557,542,935 48,031,568 36,126,682 30,950,355 21,261,920

Appliance 15 15 10 10 163,575 163,575 107,314 107,314 6,217 3,942 3,612 2,687

Food Service 19 19 12 12 90,468 90,468 58,804 58,804 38,517 27,461 22,506 18,237

HVAC 12,078 7,949 8,723 5,026 85,251,941 51,918,835 61,124,855 31,011,987 2,822,612 1,712,155 1,749,464 1,116,808

Indoor Lighting 14,089 13,169 10,759 8,391 67,877,552 65,069,124 51,827,857 40,195,629 (97,166) (98,129) (72,973) (67,548)

Other 355 184 233 98 1,638,741 1,043,000 1,080,128 557,865 3,479,938 1,977,295 1,915,909 1,275,887

Outdoor Lighting

218 214 144 129 13,682,386 12,677,223 10,615,337 7,129,449 - - - -

Plug Loads 6 6 4 4 19,008 19,008 12,355 12,355 507,774 269,079 279,267 166,826

Process 43,018 26,466 29,666 15,477 344,109,497 213,653,944 235,488,863 123,902,079 43,972,178 28,916,670 27,788,569 18,147,409

Refrigeration 3,073 1,804 2,148 1,034 25,128,159 15,164,962 17,181,318 8,751,524 375,251 205,061 208,405 135,953

Water Heating - - - - - - - - 106,848 87,541 64,783 56,080

Whole Building 2,750 2,324 1,382 911 7,190,992 6,675,056 4,068,123 3,220,833 352,125 318,069 107,872 83,803

Total 75,621 52,151 53,081 31,092 545,152,320 366,475,195 381,564,953 214,947,839 51,564,295 33,419,144 32,067,415 20,936,142

Appliance 52,757 52,757 32,566 32,575 234,709,858 234,709,858 143,604,264 143,621,989 1,147,702 1,147,702 486,984 489,007

Food Service (13) (13) (8) (8) (48,186) (48,186) (28,912) (28,912) 9,097 9,097 5,458 5,458

HVAC 64,175 64,070 48,638 48,231 77,540,932 74,117,534 58,395,891 55,733,183 1,721,049 1,725,341 1,069,007 1,048,364

Indoor Lighting 124,991 134,940 81,025 74,385 1,042,134,431 1,133,085,601 668,451,754 619,385,214 (18,797,116) (21,377,267) (11,996,767) (11,590,927)

Other 26,747 34,329 24,037 31,562 148,525,384 165,456,111 131,309,169 149,647,807 2,957,526 3,316,593 3,036,097 3,410,043

Outdoor Lighting

5 111 4 98 22,002,020 21,159,485 17,535,017 14,753,705 (665) (665) (572) (572)

Plug Loads 444 443 103 102 18,058,651 18,052,897 2,912,339 2,909,569 (439,546) (439,407) (69,175) (69,091)

Process 399 239 236 153 3,240,763 2,033,650 1,888,268 1,277,638 687 687 536 536

Refrigeration 695 695 568 568 2,716,933 2,716,330 2,189,586 2,188,746 (3,823) (3,823) (3,430) (3,430)

Water Heating 602 602 390 386 4,122,179 4,122,179 2,763,116 2,715,587 10,105,036 10,062,492 6,397,521 6,166,337

Whole Building 106,347 107,265 84,992 84,582 315,684,380 360,511,107 287,361,613 327,889,997 13,937,604 14,267,436 12,418,256 12,757,529

Total 377,149 395,437 272,552 272,635 1,868,687,344 2,015,916,566 1,316,382,105 1,320,094,524 10,637,553 8,708,186 11,343,915 12,213,254

Total ######## 966,759 728,061 632,414 5,458,063,060 5,097,853,068 3,894,491,440 3,247,233,510 121,074,019 86,328,882 81,646,736 59,044,431

Agriculture

Commercial

Industrial

Residential

Electric (kWh)

Demand (kW)

Natural Gas (MMTherms)

Gross

Net

Gross

Net

Gross

Net

Energy Efficiency Report | 128

Table B-4b 2013-2015 Statewide Lifecycle Savings by Sector and End use

Sector End Use Reported Evaluated Reported Evaluated Reported Evaluated Reported Evaluated

Appliance 896,359 896,359 598,003 598,003 16,627 16,627 11,922 11,922

Food Service 531,816 531,816 345,680 345,680 347,700 347,700 226,005 226,005

HVAC 236,751,491 189,198,395 171,702,885 118,956,442 13,185,659 8,993,781 9,923,325 5,154,554

Indoor Lighting 274,703,559 257,910,255 198,138,096 144,094,981 (157,936) (155,044) (106,823) (103,794)

Other 70,013,630 39,786,585 45,594,989 21,965,446 - - - -

Outdoor Lighting 162,940,811 125,346,375 105,263,940 69,739,506 - - - -

Plug Loads 6,144 6,144 3,994 3,994 (29) (29) (19) (19)

Process 2,494,642,377 1,755,271,723 1,716,210,122 1,081,302,038 127,457,112 90,460,430 87,593,363 52,782,232

Refrigeration 450,761,421 312,085,145 326,569,082 182,699,085 67,046 46,183 43,580 25,861

Water Heating - - - - 96,852 96,852 62,954 62,954

Whole Building 72,245,624 53,757,972 58,702,822 28,797,604 791,722 791,722 158,067 158,067

Total 3,763,493,232 2,734,790,769 2,623,129,614 1,648,502,780 141,804,754 100,598,222 97,912,374 58,317,781

Appliance 149,513,052 147,730,194 100,068,251 98,674,129 3,398,025 2,059,712 1,970,684 1,332,764

Food Service 88,318,612 83,267,007 60,085,871 56,533,072 78,961,417 77,439,976 51,342,797 50,628,888

HVAC 8,288,945,990 6,053,250,268 6,093,966,830 4,105,766,542 177,027,927 119,485,695 123,474,160 74,812,867

Indoor Lighting 10,166,657,009 10,553,739,680 7,575,753,896 6,901,042,263 (29,985,562) (32,910,603) (22,111,720) (22,067,677)

Other 233,403,925 161,441,754 151,857,666 98,274,261 41,263,057 25,782,695 24,580,771 16,889,360

Outdoor Lighting 2,739,518,501 2,409,892,239 2,048,564,266 1,439,680,337 316,026 138,006 221,488 75,686

Plug Loads 147,055,934 129,007,735 97,175,647 85,272,718 (155,802) (146,688) (107,242) (101,354)

Process 1,491,759,019 902,568,152 1,036,096,968 510,137,517 145,071,836 104,945,401 90,411,220 64,173,941

Refrigeration 2,802,891,174 2,540,685,796 1,972,313,368 1,765,567,826 13,611,381 12,276,861 8,332,506 7,837,427

Water Heating 9,360,930 8,109,016 5,594,829 4,701,111 84,551,204 80,405,599 56,220,980 53,937,303

Whole Building 2,066,015,613 1,610,578,205 1,562,531,940 898,436,412 69,325,138 49,597,679 47,580,343 24,089,952

Total 28,183,439,760 24,600,270,046 20,704,009,534 15,964,086,187 583,384,647 439,074,333 381,915,988 271,609,155

Appliance 1,792,348 1,792,348 1,176,150 1,176,150 68,312 43,277 39,674 29,496

Food Service 1,085,616 1,085,616 705,650 705,650 535,574 369,480 310,430 245,605

HVAC 1,211,703,687 662,062,415 851,343,378 387,242,444 41,935,746 25,976,321 25,522,982 16,947,997

Indoor Lighting 767,739,079 747,105,918 588,433,901 464,204,854 (1,238,369) (1,219,325) (946,129) (843,342)

Other 26,777,375 16,222,511 17,584,168 8,548,026 41,417,197 23,393,759 22,795,606 15,054,135

Outdoor Lighting 163,210,679 143,781,390 125,738,555 80,739,742 - - - -

Plug Loads 152,064 152,064 98,842 98,842 3,554,333 1,812,363 1,954,812 1,123,644

Process 4,526,187,085 2,743,475,986 3,055,020,196 1,588,753,437 600,303,536 386,630,896 380,423,262 242,902,944

Refrigeration 368,979,458 196,263,879 252,504,186 112,202,380 5,568,108 3,021,368 3,085,714 2,008,603

Water Heating - - - - 1,850,204 1,444,336 1,109,362 922,999

Whole Building 88,973,409 80,123,623 57,676,210 43,666,169 2,022,532 1,472,625 915,387 532,983

Total 7,156,600,799 4,592,065,751 4,950,281,236 2,687,337,694 696,017,174 442,945,100 435,211,101 278,925,063

Appliance 1,726,646,967 1,726,646,967 1,055,684,130 1,055,855,846 26,555,102 26,555,102 13,843,452 13,866,304

Food Service (530,046) (530,046) (318,028) (318,028) 100,064 100,064 60,038 60,038

HVAC 782,547,422 759,908,332 581,162,037 561,518,962 31,235,084 31,358,475 19,189,245 18,808,187

Indoor Lighting 10,425,787,378 12,230,829,878 6,692,319,794 6,424,135,273 (190,769,590) (229,838,172) (122,028,986) (119,419,026)

Other 601,788,269 619,219,733 406,731,506 430,262,971 4,708,144 5,064,841 4,335,258 4,694,417

Outdoor Lighting 303,592,426 245,732,328 239,768,968 162,099,871 (9,997) (9,997) (8,698) (8,698)

Plug Loads 126,259,054 126,213,021 20,269,816 20,247,662 (3,075,767) (3,074,662) (483,377) (482,711)

Process 32,418,496 15,530,391 20,048,738 9,796,593 8,218 8,218 6,327 6,327

Refrigeration 38,535,143 38,525,192 30,941,254 30,931,712 (28,165) (28,165) (25,209) (25,209)

Water Heating 44,874,063 44,874,063 29,708,177 29,238,602 123,856,089 123,051,574 78,106,395 74,834,500

Whole Building 1,203,915,226 1,111,072,494 942,376,223 818,958,942 123,011,779 110,084,656 92,664,564 79,139,981

Total 15,285,834,399 16,918,022,352 10,018,692,615 9,542,728,407 115,590,961 63,271,935 85,659,009 71,474,109

Total 54,389,368,190 48,845,148,917 38,296,113,000 29,842,655,067 1,536,797,536 1,045,889,590 1,000,698,472 680,326,109

Agriculture

Commercial

Industrial

Residential

Electric (kWh)

Natural Gas (MMTherms)

Gross

Net

Gross

Net

Energy Efficiency Report | 129

Appendix C: Emissions Reductions

An Excel file containing the data used in this appendix is available.

A key benefit of energy efficiency programs is the reduction in CO2, NOx, and particulate matter (PM-10)

emissions that would have otherwise occurred. The CPUC calculates avoided emissions from electric and gas

savings based on an emissions rate specific to type of installed efficient technology. The avoided emissions

factors for each technology are embedded in the cost effectiveness tools that Energy Division uses to

estimate portfolio impacts.

161

Electric:

ER[CO

2

]

M

= Emission rate of CO

2

in tons per kWh of measure

M

.

Gas:

ER[CO

2

]

GCT

= Emission rate of CO

2

in tons per therm, based on the gas combustion

type (GCT) specified on the input sheet for the measure.

Table C-1a: Evaluated First Year Emissions Reductions by Program Administrator

162

161

CPUC Energy Efficiency Policy Manual Version 5, p.50.

162

Note: CO2 is reported in 1,000 tons; NOx and PMs are reported in pounds.

PA

CO2

(1,000 tons)

Nox

(pounds)

PM10

(pounds)

CO2

(1,000 tons)

Nox

(pounds)

Gross 2,801,383 692,281 368,051 296,866 466,866

Net 1,625,680 400,528 213,738 241,447 376,391

Gross 2,940,289 727,911 386,136 (76,522) (120,342)

Net 1,686,812 419,567 221,274 (46,119) (73,135)

Gross 20,943 5,386 2,725 417,644 656,808

Net 12,803 3,296 1,665 209,408 329,678

Gross 634,914 155,688 83,569 9,843 15,480

Net 352,952 86,626 46,446 13,058 21,008

Gross 3,366 858 439 3,558 5,595

Net 2,184 556 285 2,737 4,163

Gross 975 236 129 222 349

Net 735 178 97 197 310

Gross 724 182 95 267 420

Net 434 110 57 163 234

Gross 6,401,871 1,582,359 841,049 651,611 1,024,756

Net 3,681,165 910,751 483,505 420,728 658,416

Portfolio

Electric

Gas

BAY

SCR

MCE

PGE

SCE

SCG

SDGE

Energy Efficiency Report | 130

PA

CO2

(1,000 tons)

Nox

(pounds)

PM10

(pounds)

CO2

(1,000 tons)

Nox

(pounds)

Gross 28,442,040 7,063,023 3,732,433 4,219,267 6,635,429

Net 15,533,308 3,827,769 2,030,981 2,607,448 4,100,603

Gross 30,662,933 7,609,187 4,024,554 (735,433) (1,156,579)

Net 17,229,551 4,280,414 2,250,456 (436,537) (686,519)

Gross 267,061 68,852 34,727 6,254,515 9,836,160

Net 166,649 43,030 21,662 2,912,704 4,580,663

Gross 6,782,174 1,665,464 892,384 177,913 279,794

Net 3,558,560 874,440 468,051 141,284 222,190

Gross 51,848 13,209 6,762 59,330 93,306

Net 36,288 8,765 4,487 45,090 70,911

Gross 12,026 2,915 1,587 3,028 4,761

Net 9,118 2,210 1,203 2,712 4,265

Gross 10,855 2,739 1,419 4,170 6,558

Net 5,780 1,672 864 2,389 3,758

Gross 66,228,938 16,425,391 8,693,867 9,982,789 15,699,429

Net 36,539,255 9,038,300 4,777,704 5,275,091 8,295,869

Electric

Gas

BAY

MCE

SCR

Portfolio

PGE

SCE

SCG

SDGE

Table C-1b: Evaluated Lifecycle Emissions Reductions by Program Administrator

Energy Efficiency Report | 131

Appendix D: Cost-Effectiveness Results

An Excel file containing the data used in this appendix is available.

The California Energy Efficiency Policy Manual defines cost effectiveness as “an indicator of the relative

performance or economic attractiveness of any energy efficiency investment or practice when compared to the costs of energy produced

and delivered in the absence of such an investment.

163

”

The CPUC requires that all energy efficiency portfolios provide positive net benefits based on two cost

effectiveness tests: the Total Resource Cost test (TRC) and the Program Administrator Cost test (PAC).

Since the TRC costs are generally greater than PAC costs, in practice this dual requirement results in the TRC

being the primary indicator of energy efficiency program cost effectiveness.

When looking at evaluated savings, every dollar invested in energy efficiency through the IOUs’ 2013-2015

energy efficiency programs, excluding savings from codes and standards, resulted in $0.87 in benefits through

the TRC test “lens,” and $1.28 in benefits based on the PAC test lens. The definition of each of these cost

effectiveness tests and how they are used to evaluate the cost effectiveness of the portfolio are discussed in

this appendix.

For this report, the SQL based cost effectiveness tool (CET_17.3.0) was used for the evaluated portfolio-

level analysis and cost effectiveness calculations. The CET calculates cost effectiveness on the portfolio and

programs using methodologies adopted in the California Standard Practice Manual – Economic Analysis of

Demand-Side Programs and Projects.

164

Cost effectiveness is calculated using lifecycle cost-benefit ratios to

produce total resource cost (TRC) and program administrator cost (PAC) ratios. These ratios are based on

the net present value of benefits, determined by avoided cost methodology

165

, divided by net present value of

costs.

Cost‐Effectiveness Tests

The TRC measures the net resource benefits to all ratepayers by combining the net benefits of the program to

participants and nonparticipants. The benefits are the avoided costs of the supply‐side resources that are

either avoided or deferred by the energy savings. The TRC costs encompass the cost of the measures or

equipment installed by the customer, as well as the costs incurred by the program administrator for both

resource and non‐resource program activities.

Benefits = Net Present Value of avoided costs of supply‐side resources avoided

TRC =

Costs = Net Present Value of Measure Costs paid by participants and program administrators

+ non-rebate costs incurred by program administrators

The PAC test measures program benefits in the same way the TRC test does. However, only those costs

incurred by the program administrator are included (i.e., measure costs paid by the participating customers are

not included).

163

Energy Efficiency Policy Manual, Version 4; p2, http://www.calmac.org/events/EE_Policy_Manual_v4_0.pdf

164

Available at http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=7741

165

Available at: https://ethree.com/public_projects/cpuc5.php

Energy Efficiency Report | 132

Benefits = Net Present Value of avoided costs of supply‐side resources avoided

PAC =

Costs = Net Present Value of all costs incurred by program administrators

This report provides portfolio- and program-level cost effectiveness estimates. It is difficult to disaggregate

the benefits and costs to specific measure or market sector levels in a meaningful way, so the lowest

granularity of cost-effectiveness calculations are done at the program level. Table D-1 presents the cost

effectiveness of the portfolios as a whole; program-level cost effectiveness results are provided in Tables D-4

through D-10. The costs included in the TRC test remove the measure costs to free‐rider participants, since

the benefits associated with those participants are excluded as well.

Table D-1: IOU Reported and Commission Evaluated Cost Effectiveness – with and without Codes &

Standards (C&S)

Cost Effectiveness of the 2013-2015 Programs

Energy efficiency program impact evaluations conducted by the CPUC do not include analysis of program or

measure costs or cost effectiveness. The cost effectiveness results presented in this appendix are calculated

based on the monetized benefits of the evaluated net energy savings, compared to the incentive and program

costs according to the California Standard Practice Manual. In D.12-11-015, the CPUC adopted a portfolio

level “market effects adjustment” of 5 percent across the board for the entire 2013-2014 portfolio cost

effectiveness calculation. This policy was carried through into 2015. D.14-10-046 also reduced the cost

effectiveness threshold for 2015 to account for budget changes thought to have an adverse effect on TRC,

and to discourage fund shifting within the portfolios in an effort to increase the TRC.

Context of the Results

The cost effectiveness rules that guide California energy efficiency planning and evaluation are outlined in

more detail in the California Standard Practice Manual. These rules are embedded in the cost effectiveness

IOU

CE Test

Benefit

(M$) Cost (M$) Ratio

Benefit

w/C&S

(M$)

Cost

w/C&S

(M$)

Ratio

(w/C&S)

Benefit

no C&S

(M$)

Cost no

C&S (M$)

Ratio-

no C&S

TRC 1,988 1,479 1.34 3,159 1,833 1.72 1,422 1,466 0.97

PAC 1,988 1,027 1.94 3,159 1,052 3.00 1,422 1,027 1.38

TRC 1,485 1,486 1.00 2,718 1,556 1.75 1,185 1,450 0.82

PAC 1,485 933 1.59 2,718 947 2.87 1,185 933 1.27

TRC 307 289 1.06 482 312 1.54 256 289 0.89

PAC 307 180 1.70 482 182 2.65 256 180 1.42

TRC 339 377 0.90 601 442 1.36 283 383 0.74

PAC 339 253 1.34 601 255 2.36 283 253 1.12

TRC 25 47 0.53 25 51 0.49 17 47 0.35

PAC 25 31 0.82 25 34 0.72 17 31 0.54

TRC 2 4 0.47 2 4 0.47 2 4 0.48

PAC 2 3 0.60 2 3 0.60 2 3 0.60

TRC 4 46 0.10 4 46 0.10 2 51 0.04

PAC 4 42 0.11 4 42 0.11 2 42 0.05

TRC 4,151 3,630 1.14 6,990 4,243 1.65 3,166 3,689 0.86

PAC 4,151 2,393 1.73 6,990 2,514 2.78 3,166 2,469 1.28

Evaluated

PGE

SCE

SCG

SDGE

Portfolio

BAY

MCE

SCR

Reported

Energy Efficiency Report | 133

calculators that are used for reporting program accomplishments and planning programs. The rules reflect

current Commission policy for assessment of the cost effectiveness of these program activities.

Certain limitations with incremental measure cost data affected the accuracy of the cost effectiveness

calculations presented here. These include data quality issues associated with program tracking data as well as

deemed estimates for incremental costs that are out of date and may have led to both over‐ and under‐

estimates of the incremental measure costs. The largest error has been corrected, as noted above, and

corrections at the measure level will be made in the future.

Likewise, the long-term savings benefits may not be accurately reflected by the simple extrapolation of first

year energy savings over the expected useful life of the technology. The “dual baseline” effects can both

over‐ and under‐estimate long‐term savings and consequently distort the real value of the resource. Dual

baselines were captured in the 2013-2015 cost effectiveness calculator and were modeled for the non-

residential lighting and other program areas where appropriate.

The benefits for these programmatic activities do not consider the potential long-term market effects of the

energy efficiency programs. Similarly, short term participant or non-participant spillover effects were not

included in the 2013-2015 program period but will be included in the 2013-2014 program cycle savings for

the first time. Long term market effects can include program effects on end user decision making (e.g.

changes in knowledge and awareness), trade ally practices (e.g., changes in product availability and marketing),

and changes in energy efficiency and product and service characteristics (e.g. changes in product costs and

features). The primary focus of the 2010‐2012 impact evaluations was on the estimation of the immediate and

direct impacts of the 2010‐2012 programs and the cost benefit calculations reflect those requirements. While

the inclusion of market‐driven effects could result in higher benefit‐cost (B/C) ratios it could also result in a

lower level of estimated net savings for utility programs even though total societal savings from both utility

program and market forces are significant.

Energy Efficiency Report | 134

Appendix E: Program Level Detail – Net Lifecycle kW, kWh, Therms

An Excel file containing the data used in this appendix is available.

Throughout the report, references to savings are referring to first year savings; however, measures continue to

provide savings throughout their useful lives. Tables showing the net lifecycle savings, kW, kWh and

Therms, cost effectiveness and emissions reductions for all programs measures installed in 2013-2015 and

lasting through 2035 are available in the Appendix E excel file.

Energy Efficiency Report | 135

Appendix F: Ex-Post Gross Lifecycle Savings by Sector, GWh, MMTherms

An Excel file containing the data used in this appendix is available.

Throughout the report, references to savings are generally referring to first year savings; however, measures

continue to provide savings throughout their useful lives. In particular, grid planning activities are informed

by understanding the full lifetime impact of all energy efficiency savings, not just the savings attributable to

program administrator efforts. The following graphics show evaluated gross lifetime savings (GWh, and

Therms) for energy efficiency measures installed between 2006-2015 and the total impacts of installed energy

efficiency through 2035.

Figure F-1a: Statewide Ex Post Gross Lifecycle Savings (GWh) 2006-2015

Energy Efficiency Report | 136

Figure F-1b: Statewide Ex Post Gross Lifecycle Savings (MM Therms) 2006-2015

Energy Efficiency Report | 137

Figure F-2a: PG&E Ex Post Gross Lifecycle Savings (GWh) by Sector 2006-2015

Energy Efficiency Report | 138

Figure F-2b: PG&E Ex Post Gross Lifecycle Savings (MM Therms) by Sector 2006-2015

Energy Efficiency Report | 139

Figure F-3: SCE Ex Post Gross Lifecycle Savings (GWh) 2006-2015

Energy Efficiency Report | 140

Figure F-4: SoCalGas Ex Post Gross Lifecycle Savings (MM Therms) 2006-2015

Energy Efficiency Report | 141

Figure F-5a: SDG&E Ex post Gross Lifecycle Savings (GWh) 2006-2015

Energy Efficiency Report | 142

Figure F-5b: SDG&E Ex Post Gross Lifecycle Savings (MM Therms) 2006-2015

Energy Efficiency Report | 143

Appendix G: Processing and Updating Utility Claim Data with Evaluation

Results Data

The energy efficiency program tracking data forms the basis for program reporting and for evaluation studies.

Over the course of the 2013-2015 program cycle, the CPUC and the PAs collected all reported savings values

in a set of relational tables that were referenced by quarterly PA claims. This data set is the foundation for

the values in this report. It was compared and reconciled against the monthly and annual savings reports

submitted by the PAs.

Working closely with Energy Division staff and consultants throughout the 2013-2015 program cycle, the

PAs were able to submit standardized quarterly claims data along with corresponding ex-ante data tables.

Despite improvements to standardization, the central data set still required some level of manual data

cleaning to enable processing through the cost effectiveness tool.

166

The steps for cleaning and processing

the PA submitted data are described in this appendix.

Preparation of PA Quarterly Tracking Data for Reporting

Each quarter of the calendar year, the following steps are performed to process PA reported savings data.

Figure G-1 is an illustration of the process.

PA Claim Submissions (CPUC)

Step 1. Receive FTP link to download data from PAs

Step 2. Write PA data together into standardized tables

Step 3. Join claim tables to the ex-ante database for deemed claims; write data into “EDFilled” table

Step 4. Quality check the data submission

Step 5. Post PA data submissions and “EDFilled” table onto ED Central Server (EDCS) and into

SQL Server database

Evaluation Results Submissions (CPUC)

Step 1. Post impact evaluation report specific databases to EDCS SmartFile for evaluation teams

Step 2. Evaluation team posts filled out claim-level evaluation data submission to EDCS SmartFile

Step 3. Quality check individual data submissions and iterate with evaluation teams

Step 4. Read together all evaluation results and create 13-15 ATR Evaluation SQL Server database

Cost Effectiveness Run (CPUC)

Step 1. Run EDFilled and Evaluation table through the Cost Effectiveness Tool (CET)

166

Subsequent to the 2013-2015 program cycle, the Energy Division developed a customized software to automatically enforce data

rules for quarterly claims and monthly reports; this is known as the California Energy Data and Reporting System (CEDARS).

Energy Efficiency Report | 144

Step 2. Write CET results into SQL Server database

Step 3. Validate and quality check CET results against SQL savings calculations

Report Preparation (CPUC)

Final step. Summarize data to produce result sets for Energy Division staff to use in evaluated

program cycle reporting.

Figure G-1: Claims Processing

ED

database

Evaluation teams

PAs

ED Summary

Report

PA claim tables

evaluation

Evaluation

results

Annual claims

submission

2013-2015

Data Summaries

QC

EDFilled

Mapping tables

Cost

Effectiveness

Tool

ED 13-15 final

summary report

Data Cleaning

Data elements such as Target Sector, Climate Zone, Costs, and other parameters that were necessary for

evaluation and for cost-effectiveness calculations were cleaned by CPUC evaluation contractors in

conjunction with PA staff. Throughout the cycle, the amount of data cleaning necessary was continuously

reduced as PAs improved their reporting capabilities. The result of the data cleaning process was a table

named “EDFilled,” which contains all cleaned ex-ante PA data necessary to run through the CET.

Energy Efficiency Report | 145

Validation and Quality Control

The main component of the Energy Division’s data cleaning process was a quality control algorithm. All

quality control algorithms were communicated to the PAs via the Data Transfer Tool, a Microsoft Access file

that the PAs use to transfer their quarterly tracking data to the Energy Division. The PAs also use this file to

perform quality control on their own data before transferring. The end-product was a clean, consistent data

set of claims that were ready for evaluation sampling, update, and CET processing. The link to this tool on

EEStats is:

http://eestats.cpuc.ca.gov/EEGA2010Files/GuidanceDocuments/Claim_Tables_2015_Q1_revised2015060

2.zip

Energy Efficiency Report | 146

Appendix H: Evaluation Decision Framework

Commission staff used the quarterly tracking data as the foundation for prioritizing evaluation activities and

applying updates from evaluation work. The 2013-2015 ESPI impact evaluation reports carried out CPUC

staff’s guidance to make updates to the claims on a savings realization rate basis. CPUC staff and evaluation

contractors used the following options in making updates to the PA savings claims:

1. Pass through: provide no update to reported savings values for claims that do not fall within the frame of

an impact evaluation (no change)

2. Apply results from the 2013-2015 impact evaluation studies: Apply evaluation report provided claim level

results to records included in the frame of an impact evaluation.

The decision tree in Figure H1 illustrates how CPUC staff partitioned claims for the purposes of resource

program savings evaluation results application. The figure is based upon section 7 of D.13-09-023.

Impact Evaluation Reports

Impact evaluation reports were submitted by the two main evaluation contractors, DNV-GL and Itron, but

also included other subcontractors, Apex Analytics and ERS. Each final evaluation report was reviewed and

vetted via the public review process and the final numbers were provided to the data processing team.

Evaluation impact results are summarized and uploaded to the Energy Division SmartFile data repository and

downloaded and processed into the SQL Server database on the Energy Division Central Server (EDCS).

EDCS is an internal server used to manage the data. It is not accessible to the public. Table lists all impact

evaluations by year and provides links to download each report.

Table H-1: Impact Evaluation Reports by Program Year(s) Studied

Program

Year(s)

Impact Evaluation Reports

2013

2013 Custom Impact Evaluation Industrial, Agricultural, and Large Commercial

2013 Nonresidential Downstream Custom ESPI Lighting Impact Evaluation Report

2013 Nonresidential Downstream Deemed ESPI Net-to-Gross Evaluation For Sprinkler and

Pipe Insulation Measures

2013 Nonresidential Downstream Deemed Lighting Impact Evaluation Report

2013 PG&E Home Energy Reports Program Review and Validation of Impact Evaluation

ED Res 3.1

IALC4 NRNC Whole Building Impact Evaluation Report PY-2013

SDG&E Home Energy Reports Program 2013 Impact Evaluation ED Res 3.3

2014 Custom Impact Evaluation Industrial, Agricultural, and Large Commercial

2014

2014 Nonresidential Downstream Custom ESPI Lighting Impact Evaluation Report

2014 Nonresidential Downstream Deemed ESPI Lighting Impact Evaluation Report

2014 Nonresidential Downstream Deemed ESPI pipe Insulation Impact Evaluation Report

2014 Nonresidential Downstream Deemed Plug Load PC Power Management Software

ESPI Impact Evaluation Report

2014 Nonresidential Downstream Deemed ESPI Low-Pressure Sprinkler Nozzle Impact

Evaluation Report

Impact Evaluation of 2014 San Diego Gas & Electric Home Energy Reports Program (Final

Report)

Energy Efficiency Report | 147

Review and Validation of 2014 Pacific Gas and Electric Home Energy Reports Program

Impacts (Final Report)

Review and Validation of 2014 Southern California Edison Home Energy Reports Program

Impacts (Final Report)

2013-2014 Residential Roadmap Multifamily Focused Impact Evaluation - Final

2013-2014

Focused Impact Evaluation of the 2013-2014 Home Upgrade Program

Impact Evaluation of 2013-14 Upstream and Residential Downstream Lighting Programs

Impact Evaluation of 2013-2014 SDG&E Residential VSD Pool Pump Program

Net-to-gross Evaluation of 2013-14 Commercial Quality Maintenance Programs (HVAC3)

Net-to-gross Evaluation of 2013-14 Upstream HVAC Programs (HVAC 1)

2013-2015 Residential Roadmap 2015 Multifamily Focused Impact Evaluation Report

2015

2015 Custom Impact Evaluation Industrial, Agriculture and Large Commercial

2015 Nonresidential Downstream ESPI Deemed Pipe Insulation Impact Evaluation

2015 Nonresidential Downstream ESPI Deemed Pool Cover Impact Evaluation

2015 Nonresidential Downstream ESPI Deemed Sprinkler Impact Evaluation

2015 Nonresidential ESPI Custom Lighting Impact Evaluation

2015 Nonresidential ESPI Deemed Lighting Impact Evaluation

2015 SCE HEES Impact Evaluation

2015 Single-family Home Energy Upgrade Impact Evaluation*

2015 Upstream and Residential Downstream Lighting Programs

Impact Evaluation of 2015 Commercial Quality Maintenance Programs (HVAC3)

Impact Evaluation of 2015 San Diego Gas & Electric Home Energy Reports Program (Final

Report)

Impact Evaluation of 2015 Upstream HVAC Programs (HVAC 1)

Review and Validation of 2015 Pacific Gas and Electric Home Energy Reports Program

Impacts (Final Report)

Review and Validation of 2015 Southern California Edison Home Energy Reports Program

Impacts (Final Report)

As mentioned above, the main driver for impact evaluations during the 2013-2015 program years was the

ESPI mechanism. The two portions of the ESPI Ex-Post Savings Incentive were the Ex-Post Custom and

Ex-Post Deemed. The Ex-Post Deemed portion of the portfolio is identified by the Uncertain Measure List,

which was constant for 2013-2014, but changed in 2015 and will change each year moving forward. The

following table list the ESPI Ex-Post classification grouping, the Uncertain Measures defined for each

program year, and each ESPI impact evaluation report that provided evaluation results for this classification.

Table H-2: Ex-Post Targeted ESPI Classifications and Uncertain Measures and Evaluation Reports

Program

Year(s)

ESPI

Ex-Post

Class

Uncertain

Measure

Impact Evaluation Report(s)

2013-

2014

ESPI

Ex-Post

Custom

NA

2013 Nonresidential Downstream Custom ESPI Lighting Impact

Evaluation Report

2014 Nonresidential Downstream Custom ESPI Lighting Impact

Evaluation Report

Energy Efficiency Report | 148

2013 Custom Impact Evaluation Industrial, Agricultural, and Large

Commercial

2014 Custom Impact Evaluation Industrial, Agricultural, and Large

Commercial

Impact Evaluation of 2013-14 Upstream and Residential Downstream

Lighting Programs

IALC4 NRNC Whole Building Impact Evaluation Report PY-2013

Review and Validation of 2014 Southern California Edison Home

Energy Reports Program Impacts (Final Report)

SDG&E Home Energy Reports Program 2013 Impact Evaluation ED

Res 3.3

Impact Evaluation of 2014 San Diego Gas & Electric Home Energy

Reports Program (Final Report)

2013-2014 Residential Roadmap Multifamily Focused Impact

Evaluation - Final

Focused Impact Evaluation of the 2013-2014 Home Upgrade

Program

ESPI

Ex-Post

Deemed

CFL

2013 Nonresidential Downstream Deemed Lighting Impact

Evaluation Report

2014 Nonresidential Downstream Deemed ESPI Lighting Impact

Evaluation Report

Impact Evaluation of 2013-14 Upstream and Residential Downstream

Lighting Programs

2013-2014 Residential Roadmap Multifamily Focused Impact

Evaluation - Final

Computer

Power Mgt

2014 Nonresidential Downstream Deemed Plug Load PC Power

Management Software ESPI Impact Evaluation Report

De-lamping

2013 Nonresidential Downstream Deemed Lighting Impact

Evaluation Report

2014 Nonresidential Downstream Deemed ESPI Lighting Impact

Evaluation Report

Home

Energy

Reports

2013 PG&E Home Energy Reports Program Review and Validation

of Impact Evaluation ED Res 3.1

Review and Validation of 2014 Pacific Gas and Electric Home Energy

Reports Program Impacts (Final Report)

Home

Energy

Surveys

2013-2014 Residential Roadmap Multifamily Focused Impact

Evaluation - Final

Focused Impact Evaluation of the 2013-2014 Home Upgrade

Program

Home

Energy

Upgrade

2013-2014 Residential Roadmap Multifamily Focused Impact

Evaluation - Final

Focused Impact Evaluation of the 2013-2014 Home Upgrade

Program

HVAC Mini

Net-to-gross Evaluation of 2013-14 Upstream HVAC Programs

(HVAC 1)

HVAC

Quality

Net-to-gross Evaluation of 2013-14 Commercial Quality Maintenance

Programs (HVAC3)

Energy Efficiency Report | 149

LED

2013 Nonresidential Downstream Deemed Lighting Impact

Evaluation Report

2014 Nonresidential Downstream Deemed ESPI Lighting Impact

Evaluation Report

Impact Evaluation of 2013-14 Upstream and Residential Downstream

Lighting Programs

2013-2014 Residential Roadmap Multifamily Focused Impact

Evaluation - Final

LED

Nightlights

Impact Evaluation of 2013-14 Upstream and Residential Downstream

Lighting Programs

Occupancy

2013 Nonresidential Downstream Deemed Lighting Impact

Evaluation Report

2014 Nonresidential Downstream Deemed ESPI Lighting Impact

Evaluation Report

Impact Evaluation of 2013-14 Upstream and Residential Downstream

Lighting Programs

2013-2014 Residential Roadmap Multifamily Focused Impact

Evaluation - Final

Pipe

Insulation

2013 Nonresidential Downstream Deemed ESPI Net-to-Gross

Evaluation For Sprinkler and Pipe Insulation Measures

2014 Nonresidential Downstream Deemed ESPI Pipe Insulation

Impact Evaluation Report

Pool Pumps

Impact Evaluation of 2013-2014 SDG&E Residential VSD Pool

Pump Program

Sprinklers

2013 Nonresidential Downstream Deemed ESPI Net-to-Gross

Evaluation For Sprinkler and Pipe Insulation Measures

2014 Nonresidential Downstream Deemed ESPI Low-Pressure

Sprinkler Nozzle Impact Evaluation Report

T5 Linear

Fluorescents

2013 Nonresidential Downstream Deemed Lighting Impact

Evaluation Report

2014 Nonresidential Downstream Deemed ESPI Lighting Impact

Evaluation Report

Impact Evaluation of 2013-14 Upstream and Residential Downstream

Lighting Programs

Water Kits

2013-2014 Residential Roadmap Multifamily Focused Impact

Evaluation - Final

2015

ESPI

Ex-Post

Custom

NA

2015 Nonresidential ESPI Custom Lighting Impact Evaluation

Impact Evaluation of 2015 Commercial Quality Maintenance

Programs (HVAC3)

2015 Custom Impact Evaluation Industrial, Agriculture and Large

Commercial

Review and Validation of 2015 Southern California Edison Home

Energy Reports Program Impacts (Final Report)

Impact Evaluation of 2015 San Diego Gas & Electric Home Energy

Reports Program (Final Report)

Energy Efficiency Report | 150

2013-2015 Residential Roadmap 2015 Multifamily Focused Impact

Evaluation Report

2015 Single-family Home Energy Upgrade Impact Evaluation*

ESPI

Ex-Post

Deemed

CFL > 30W

2015 Nonresidential ESPI Deemed Lighting Impact Evaluation

2015 Upstream and Residential Downstream Lighting Programs

De-lamping

2015 Nonresidential ESPI Deemed Lighting Impact Evaluation

Home

Energy

Reports

Review and Validation of 2015 Pacific Gas and Electric Home Energy

Reports Program Impacts (Final Report)

Home

Energy

Survey

2015 SCE HEES Impact Evaluation

Home

Energy

Upgrade

2015 Single-family Home Energy Upgrade Impact Evaluation*

HVAC Mini

Impact Evaluation of 2015 Upstream HVAC Programs (HVAC 1)

HVAC

Quality

Impact Evaluation of 2015 Commercial Quality Maintenance

Programs (HVAC3)

2013-2015 Residential Roadmap 2015 Multifamily Focused Impact

Evaluation Report

LED

2015 Nonresidential ESPI Deemed Lighting Impact Evaluation

2015 Upstream and Residential Downstream Lighting Programs

2013-2015 Residential Roadmap 2015 Multifamily Focused Impact

Evaluation Report

LED

Outdoor

2015 Nonresidential ESPI Deemed Lighting Impact Evaluation

2013-2015 Residential Roadmap 2015 Multifamily Focused Impact

Evaluation Report

LED

Streetlights

2015 Nonresidential ESPI Deemed Lighting Impact Evaluation

Occupancy

Sensors

2015 Nonresidential ESPI Deemed Lighting Impact Evaluation

2013-2015 Residential Roadmap 2015 Multifamily Focused Impact

Evaluation Report

Pipe

Insulation

2015 Nonresidential Downstream ESPI Deemed Pipe Insulation

Impact Evaluation

Pool Covers

2015 Nonresidential Downstream ESPI Deemed Pool Cover Impact

Evaluation

Sprinklers

2015 Nonresidential Downstream ESPI Deemed Sprinkler Impact

Evaluation

Water Kits

2013-2015 Residential Roadmap 2015 Multifamily Focused Impact

Evaluation Report

In contrast to prior program cycles, evaluation results data for the 2013-2015 program cycle were provided by

the lead evaluators in a similar format to that provided by the PAs. First, the claims data for each program

year was partitioned into separate impact evaluation reports. Next, impact evaluation teams were responsible

Energy Efficiency Report | 151

for providing claim level results to the data processing team using a standardized template. The data

processing team performed many quality checks, however, in addition, the standardized data template was

used for automated generation of the Impact Evaluation Standardized Reporting (IESR) appendices printed

in each impact evaluation report. These appendix tables served as a quality check for the impact evaluation

teams. This information is used to generate the ex-post dataset.

The final processing step covers submission of all raw and processed evaluation data, analysis and processing

code, and field tracking data to the online Energy Division data library. The data library is maintained by

Energy Division for future reference for evaluation activities and for savings estimation analysis (i.e. ex ante

values for work papers or DEER updates).

Creation of Ex-Post Dataset

The payments from the ESPI mechanism are driven by a combined 2013-2015 ex post dataset. This dataset

contains both ex ante and ex post savings values as well as all parameters necessary for their calculations. The

basis of the ex post dataset are the quarterly tracking data claims (described in detail in Appendix G). Once

the claims have been submitted by the PAs to the CPUC, and passed all quality control checks, they form the

ex ante portion of the ex post database. The ex post portion of the dataset is provided by the previously

mentioned ex post evaluations. These ESPI impact evaluation reports, overseen by the CPUC, were

performed on custom measures and specific deemed measures with uncertain ex ante parameter values.

Each ex ante claim submitted throughout 2013-2015 was assigned to an individual impact evaluation report

where appropriate. Each claims subject to ex post evaluation was assigned to exactly one evaluation report.

Then an impact evaluation specific database was generated and posted to Energy Division Central Server

(EDCS) Smartfile for each evaluation teams to fill out claim level evaluation results. These databases were

filled out by evaluators, and posted in return on EDCS Smartfile. All databases complete with ex post results,

were then downloaded and run through iterative and through quality control checks to verify consistent and

accurate results. All impact evaluation specific databases are combined with each other and those claims not

subject to ex post evaluation to create a final ex post database.

Each claim was identified as either being available for ex post evaluation or not. The following decision tree

shows how ED staff determined the situations in which a claim was classified.

Figure H-1: Evaluation Framework Decision Tree

Energy Efficiency Report | 152

Impact Evaluation Reports

Evaluation reports were submitted by the two main evaluation teams, DNV-GL and Itron, including other

subcontractors, Apex Analytics and ERS. Approximately, 12 impact evaluations submitted results per year for

the 13-15 program cycle. Each final evaluation report was reviewed and vetted via the public review process

and the final numbers were provided to the data processing team. Evaluation impact results are summarized

and uploaded to the Energy Division SmartFile data repository and downloaded and processed into the SQL

Server database on the Energy Division Central Server (EDCS) an internal server (not publicly available) used

to manage the data. Table lists all impact evaluations for which results were integrated into the portfolio

claim level savings and provides links to download each report.

Table H-3: Impact Evaluation Reports by Program Year(s) Studied

Start

IOU Claim?

Deemed Measure?

Deemed Uncertain

Measure List?

Apply Eval Results

Retain Ex Ante Values,

i.e. Pass Thru

End

Deemed Ex Ante Savings

Incentive

Part of

Eval Population?

Apply Eval Results

Retain Ex Ante Values,

i.e. Pass Thru

Deemed Ex Post Savings

Incentive

Part of

Eval Population?

Yes

No

Yes

No

Ex-Ante Adjustments

Performed

Custom Ex Post Savings

Incentive

Multi-Family REN?

Retain Ex Ante Values,

i.e. Pass Thru

Part of

Eval Population?

Apply Eval Results

Retain Ex Ante Values,

i.e. Pass Thru

Yes

No

Yes

No

Energy Efficiency Report | 153

Program

Year(s)

Impact Evaluation Reports

2013

2013 Custom Impact Evaluation Industrial, Agricultural, and Large Commercial

2013 Nonresidential Downstream Custom ESPI Lighting Impact Evaluation Report

2013 Nonresidential Downstream Deemed ESPI Net-to-Gross Evaluation For Sprinkler and

Pipe Insulation Measures

2013 Nonresidential Downstream Deemed Lighting Impact Evaluation Report

2013 PG&E Home Energy Reports Program Review and Validation of Impact Evaluation

ED Res 3.1

IALC4 NRNC Whole Building Impact Evaluation Report PY-2013

SDG&E Home Energy Reports Program 2013 Impact Evaluation ED Res 3.3

2014 Custom Impact Evaluation Industrial, Agricultural, and Large Commercial

2014

2014 Nonresidential Downstream Custom ESPI Lighting Impact Evaluation Report

2014 Nonresidential Downstream Deemed ESPI Lighting Impact Evaluation Report

2014 Nonresidential Downstream Deemed ESPI pipe Insulation Impact Evaluation Report

2014 Nonresidential Downstream Deemed Plug Load PC Power Management Software

ESPI Impact Evaluation Report

2014 Nonresidential Downstream Deemed ESPI Low-Pressure Sprinkler Nozzle Impact

Evaluation Report

Impact Evaluation of 2014 San Diego Gas & Electric Home Energy Reports Program (Final

Report)

Review and Validation of 2014 Pacific Gas and Electric Home Energy Reports Program

Impacts (Final Report)

Review and Validation of 2014 Southern California Edison Home Energy Reports Program

Impacts (Final Report)

2013-2014 Residential Roadmap Multifamily Focused Impact Evaluation - Final

2013-2014

Focused Impact Evaluation of the 2013-2014 Home Upgrade Program

Impact Evaluation of 2013-14 Upstream and Residential Downstream Lighting Programs

Impact Evaluation of 2013-2014 SDG&E Residential VSD Pool Pump Program

Net-to-gross Evaluation of 2013-14 Commercial Quality Maintenance Programs (HVAC3)

Net-to-gross Evaluation of 2013-14 Upstream HVAC Programs (HVAC 1)

2013-2015 Residential Roadmap 2015 Multifamily Focused Impact Evaluation Report

2015

2015 Custom Impact Evaluation Industrial, Agriculture and Large Commercial

2015 Nonresidential Downstream ESPI Deemed Pipe Insulation Impact Evaluation

2015 Nonresidential Downstream ESPI Deemed Pool Cover Impact Evaluation

2015 Nonresidential Downstream ESPI Deemed Sprinkler Impact Evaluation

2015 Nonresidential ESPI Custom Lighting Impact Evaluation

2015 Nonresidential ESPI Deemed Lighting Impact Evaluation

2015 SCE HEES Impact Evaluation

2015 Single-family Home Energy Upgrade Impact Evaluation*

2015 Upstream and Residential Downstream Lighting Programs

Impact Evaluation of 2015 Commercial Quality Maintenance Programs (HVAC3)

Impact Evaluation of 2015 San Diego Gas & Electric Home Energy Reports Program (Final

Report)

Energy Efficiency Report | 154

Impact Evaluation of 2015 Upstream HVAC Programs (HVAC 1)

Review and Validation of 2015 Pacific Gas and Electric Home Energy Reports Program

Impacts (Final Report)

Review and Validation of 2015 Southern California Edison Home Energy Reports Program

Impacts (Final Report)

As mentioned above, the main driver for impact evaluations during the 2013-2015 program years was the

ESPI mechanism. The two portions of the ESPI Ex-Post Savings Incentive were the Ex-Post Custom and

Ex-Post Deemed. The Ex-Post Deemed portion of the portfolio is identified by the Uncertain Measure List,

which was constant for 2013-2014, but changed in 2015 and will change each year moving forward. The

following table list the ESPI Ex-Post classification grouping, the Uncertain Measures defined for each

program year, and each ESPI impact evaluation report that provided evaluation results for this classification.

Table H-4: Ex-Post Targeted ESPI Classifications and Uncertain Measures and Evaluation Reports

Program

Year(s)

ESPI

Ex-Post

Class

Uncertain

Measure

Impact Evaluation Report(s)

2013-

2014

ESPI

Ex-Post

Custom

NA

2013 Nonresidential Downstream Custom ESPI Lighting Impact

Evaluation Report

2014 Nonresidential Downstream Custom ESPI Lighting Impact

Evaluation Report

2013 Custom Impact Evaluation Industrial, Agricultural, and Large

Commercial

2014 Custom Impact Evaluation Industrial, Agricultural, and Large

Commercial

Impact Evaluation of 2013-14 Upstream and Residential Downstream

Lighting Programs

IALC4 NRNC Whole Building Impact Evaluation Report PY-2013

Review and Validation of 2014 Southern California Edison Home

Energy Reports Program Impacts (Final Report)

SDG&E Home Energy Reports Program 2013 Impact Evaluation ED

Res 3.3

Impact Evaluation of 2014 San Diego Gas & Electric Home Energy

Reports Program (Final Report)

2013-2014 Residential Roadmap Multifamily Focused Impact

Evaluation - Final

Focused Impact Evaluation of the 2013-2014 Home Upgrade

Program

ESPI

Ex-Post

Deemed

CFL

2013 Nonresidential Downstream Deemed Lighting Impact

Evaluation Report

2014 Nonresidential Downstream Deemed ESPI Lighting Impact

Evaluation Report

Impact Evaluation of 2013-14 Upstream and Residential Downstream

Lighting Programs

2013-2014 Residential Roadmap Multifamily Focused Impact

Evaluation - Final

Energy Efficiency Report | 155

Computer

Power Mgt

2014 Nonresidential Downstream Deemed Plug Load PC Power

Management Software ESPI Impact Evaluation Report

De-lamping

2013 Nonresidential Downstream Deemed Lighting Impact

Evaluation Report

2014 Nonresidential Downstream Deemed ESPI Lighting Impact

Evaluation Report

Home

Energy

Reports

2013 PG&E Home Energy Reports Program Review and Validation

of Impact Evaluation ED Res 3.1

Review and Validation of 2014 Pacific Gas and Electric Home Energy

Reports Program Impacts (Final Report)

Home

Energy

Surveys

2013-2014 Residential Roadmap Multifamily Focused Impact

Evaluation - Final

Focused Impact Evaluation of the 2013-2014 Home Upgrade

Program

Home

Energy

Upgrade

2013-2014 Residential Roadmap Multifamily Focused Impact

Evaluation - Final

Focused Impact Evaluation of the 2013-2014 Home Upgrade

Program

HVAC Mini

Net-to-gross Evaluation of 2013-14 Upstream HVAC Programs

(HVAC 1)

HVAC

Quality

Net-to-gross Evaluation of 2013-14 Commercial Quality Maintenance

Programs (HVAC3)

LED

2013 Nonresidential Downstream Deemed Lighting Impact

Evaluation Report

2014 Nonresidential Downstream Deemed ESPI Lighting Impact

Evaluation Report

Impact Evaluation of 2013-14 Upstream and Residential Downstream

Lighting Programs

2013-2014 Residential Roadmap Multifamily Focused Impact

Evaluation - Final

LED

Nightlights

Impact Evaluation of 2013-14 Upstream and Residential Downstream

Lighting Programs

Occupancy

2013 Nonresidential Downstream Deemed Lighting Impact

Evaluation Report

2014 Nonresidential Downstream Deemed ESPI Lighting Impact

Evaluation Report

Impact Evaluation of 2013-14 Upstream and Residential Downstream

Lighting Programs

2013-2014 Residential Roadmap Multifamily Focused Impact

Evaluation - Final

Pipe

Insulation

2013 Nonresidential Downstream Deemed ESPI Net-to-Gross

Evaluation For Sprinkler and Pipe Insulation Measures

2014 Nonresidential Downstream Deemed ESPI Pipe Insulation

Impact Evaluation Report

Pool Pumps

Impact Evaluation of 2013-2014 SDG&E Residential VSD Pool

Pump Program

Energy Efficiency Report | 156

Sprinklers

2013 Nonresidential Downstream Deemed ESPI Net-to-Gross

Evaluation For Sprinkler and Pipe Insulation Measures

2014 Nonresidential Downstream Deemed ESPI Low-Pressure

Sprinkler Nozzle Impact Evaluation Report

T5 Linear

Fluorescents

2013 Nonresidential Downstream Deemed Lighting Impact

Evaluation Report

2014 Nonresidential Downstream Deemed ESPI Lighting Impact

Evaluation Report

Impact Evaluation of 2013-14 Upstream and Residential Downstream

Lighting Programs

Water Kits

2013-2014 Residential Roadmap Multifamily Focused Impact

Evaluation - Final

2015

ESPI

Ex-Post

Custom

NA

2015 Nonresidential ESPI Custom Lighting Impact Evaluation

Impact Evaluation of 2015 Commercial Quality Maintenance

Programs (HVAC3)

2015 Custom Impact Evaluation Industrial, Agriculture and Large

Commercial

Review and Validation of 2015 Southern California Edison Home

Energy Reports Program Impacts (Final Report)

Impact Evaluation of 2015 San Diego Gas & Electric Home Energy

Reports Program (Final Report)

2013-2015 Residential Roadmap 2015 Multifamily Focused Impact

Evaluation Report

2015 Single-family Home Energy Upgrade Impact Evaluation*

ESPI

Ex-Post

Deemed

CFL > 30W

2015 Nonresidential ESPI Deemed Lighting Impact Evaluation

2015 Upstream and Residential Downstream Lighting Programs

De-lamping

2015 Nonresidential ESPI Deemed Lighting Impact Evaluation

Home

Energy

Reports

Review and Validation of 2015 Pacific Gas and Electric Home Energy

Reports Program Impacts (Final Report)

Home

Energy

Survey

2015 SCE HEES Impact Evaluation

Home

Energy

Upgrade

2015 Single-family Home Energy Upgrade Impact Evaluation*

HVAC Mini

Impact Evaluation of 2015 Upstream HVAC Programs (HVAC 1)

HVAC

Quality

Impact Evaluation of 2015 Commercial Quality Maintenance

Programs (HVAC3)

2013-2015 Residential Roadmap 2015 Multifamily Focused Impact

Evaluation Report

LED

2015 Nonresidential ESPI Deemed Lighting Impact Evaluation

2015 Upstream and Residential Downstream Lighting Programs

2013-2015 Residential Roadmap 2015 Multifamily Focused Impact

Evaluation Report

LED

2015 Nonresidential ESPI Deemed Lighting Impact Evaluation

Energy Efficiency Report | 157

Outdoor

2013-2015 Residential Roadmap 2015 Multifamily Focused Impact

Evaluation Report

LED

Streetlights

2015 Nonresidential ESPI Deemed Lighting Impact Evaluation

Occupancy

Sensors

2015 Nonresidential ESPI Deemed Lighting Impact Evaluation

2013-2015 Residential Roadmap 2015 Multifamily Focused Impact

Evaluation Report

Pipe

Insulation

2015 Nonresidential Downstream ESPI Deemed Pipe Insulation

Impact Evaluation

Pool Covers

2015 Nonresidential Downstream ESPI Deemed Pool Cover Impact

Evaluation

Sprinklers

2015 Nonresidential Downstream ESPI Deemed Sprinkler Impact

Evaluation

Water Kits

2013-2015 Residential Roadmap 2015 Multifamily Focused Impact

Evaluation Report

In contrast to prior program cycles, evaluation results for the 13-15 cycle were provided by the impact

evaluation leads in a similar format to that provided by the PAs. First, the claims data for each program year

was partitioned into separate impact evaluation reports. Next, impact evaluation teams were responsible for

providing claim level results to the data processing team using a standardized template. The data processing

team performed many quality checks, however, in addition, the standardized data template was used for

automated generation of the Impact Evaluation Standardized Reporting (IESR) appendices printed in each

impact evaluation report. These appendix tables served as a quality check for the impact evaluation teams.

This information is used to generate the ex-post dataset.

Following standardized claim level results reporting there is one final step in evaluation data reporting. This

final step covers submission of all raw and processed evaluation data, analysis and processing code, and field

tracking data to the online Energy Division data library. The data library is maintained by Energy Division

for future reference for evaluation activities and for savings estimation analysis (i.e. ex ante values for work

papers or DEER updates).