Advocacy 2 1 1 Industry organizations 2 4 3 Program Administrators 17 12 13 Implementer 24 15 13 Commission & Contractors 9 8 7 The working group held seven weekly meetings after the public kickoff on October 12, 2016. A summary of each working group activity and the corresponding topic is provided in Table 3. Table 3: Working Group Meetings and Topics Date Topic 10/12/16 Public Meeting, all day Introduce Working Group objectives and recruit participants 10/20/16 Webinar Review Working Group process, schedule 10/25/16 Webinar Installation category definitions 11/1/16 Webinar Measure level assignments 11/8/16 Webinar Program influence models 11/15/16 Webinar Preponderance of evidence models 11/17/16 Sub-group conference call Deemed Preponderance of Evidence standards 11/22/16 Webinar Preponderance of evidence details 11/30/16 In-person working group meeting, all day Final report discussion
Table 6. Illustrative (Not Adopted) Table of Potential Dual Baseline Scenarios Allowing Suboptimal Performance, Performance Enhancements and Non-Operational Repair Eligible Equipment Existing Equipment Perfor- mance than EUL? Action Taken Counterfactual /Baseline action at end of RUL Measure costs based on difference between action taken and: 1st Baseline 2nd Baseline Comments Broken N/A? Replace Repair again Discounted repairs over EUL of installed Original Efficiency of existing equipment Original Efficiency of existing equipment Broken N/A? Replace Replace Repair cost and discounted replacement cost Original Efficiency of existing equipment Code Orig Efficiency Y Replace Repair Discounted repairs over EUL of installed equip Original Efficiency of existing equipment Original Efficiency of existing equipment
Orig Efficiency Y Replace Replace Repair cost and discounted replacement cost Original Efficiency of existing equipment Code Suboptimal Y Replace Replace Discounted future replacement cost Suboptimal or Original? Code Suboptimal Y Replace Repair Discounted repairs over EUL of installed equip Suboptimal or Original efficiency? Original Efficiency Suboptimal efficiency Y Repair to Orig eff. Repair to Orig eff. Zero – full cost is incremental ?? No Savings maintenance??
Suboptimal efficiency Y Repair to > original efficiency Repair to Orig eff. Zero – full cost is incremental ?? No Savings maintenance?? Suboptimal efficiency N Repair to Orig eff. Repair to Orig eff. Zero – full cost is incremental Suboptimal? No Savings maintenance?? Suboptimal efficiency Repair to > original efficiency Repair to Orig eff. Zero – full cost is incremental suboptimal to more than original efficiency? Or suboptimal to original? No Savings maintenance?? Suboptimal efficiency Y Replace Repair to Orig eff. Discounted future repair – * Suboptimal efficiency or Original efficiency Original Efficiency *if original efficiency in first period – add cost of
C/I energy management systems that don’t fit in the “add-on” category Accelerated Replacement C/I/Ag refrigeration Public sector, including primary and secondary schools The pre-existing equipment is functional and its age is less than ½ of EUL The pre-existing equipment is broken and the repair cost exceeds ½ of the replacement cost Normal Replacement Measure associated with major alteration during tenant change-out The payback time after incentive exceeds the measure EUL No Influence (Free Rider) Note that this does not include Strategic Energy Management programs The guidance document also stipulates the following: “If a measure meets the ‘direct to default’ criteria for accelerated replacement, a simplified protocol may be used to demonstrate that the measure is in fact accelerated replacement. See the simplified POE protocol described in Section 6. A measure that does not meet the above criteria is not certain to be the opposite of the default baseline shown. It simply means it is not ‘direct-to-default’.“ Neither the descriptions in the table nor the text above address or define what is meant by a “simplified protocol” or what standards and requirement such a protocol would warrant, or how it would be applied. Whether the intention was to reduce the rigor level by one tier than would otherwise apply, or whether the intended meaning was to apply the lowest rigor tier to all cases, neither proposal is adopted. The assertion that any alternative baseline determination beyond what is noted in the table cannot be made without a higher burden of proof is similarly ambiguous. It is also inconsistent with our determination –and working group recommendations - that a normal replacement baseline is always an available
(AR). SCE’s suggested changes offer a marginal improvement to the accuracy of the table and do not alter the intended substance of the table, and therefore we adopt the suggested revisions, as reflected in the Table below. Table 1.1 Measure Level Baseline Guidance Alteration Type Delivery Savings Customer Class Installation Type / Add On / BRO Efficient Equipment AR NR No Existing Condition All Code Existing Buildings Upstream/ midstream All Code NMEC, RCT, exp. design Existing Calculated Existing POE** Code Deemed Existing Deemed POE Code projects including industrial and agricultural processes SEM* programs NMEC All Existing Other programs All Existing POE** Code *Strategic Energy Management programs are currently under development in a collaborative effort of Commission staff and Program Administrators. **”Incentive Tiered POE” will apply here only following Commission approval of Tier 1 and Tier 2 preponderance of evidence requirements. These requirements are not adopted in this Resolution but assigned to the Track 2 Working Group, per ordering paragraph 25.