multifamily sector. Findings of Fact: 46 & 48 (p. 405), 50 (p. 406) (regarding the importance of serving multifamily buildings, including their common areas), 80, 82 (p. 410). Conclusions of Law: 69 (p. 421) (regarding treatment of common areas in rent restricted properties), 72, 73 (p. 421) (outreach to multifamily properties), 84 (p. 423) (IOUs should draw on unspent balances to fund common area measures in multifamily buildings), 86, 87 (p. 424) (treatment and funding of common area measures), 124 (p. 429-430) (“…focus on households and buildings…”) Ordering paragraphs: 41, 42 (p. 458), 43 (p. 458-9) (funding of common area measures in multifamily buildings, subject to an $80 million cap in unspent funds), 48 (p. 460) COMMISSIONER SANDOVAL’S CONCURRENCE (12/21/16): (p. 1): Decision “expands benefits and measures . . . to the eligible population . . . including services for low-income multifamily housing customers.” (p. 2): “For the first time we authorize the deployment of measures . . . in the ‘common area’ of certain multifamily buildings. . .Treating the common areas of those buildings, in addition to the units of low-income families, will increase energy efficiency, and improve the health, comfort, and safety of low-income tenants.” 2. Strengthening & enhancing use of a “single point of contact” (SPOC) for owners of multifamily buildings wishing to access the ESA program (also referred to as “one stop CLAIMANT’S TESTIMONY (4/27/15): Ex. 32 (Stamas), p. 30; Ex. 45 (Larson), pp.7-8; Ex. 41 (Robbins), p. 2; Ex. 43 (Wells), p. 9. CLAIMANT’S BRIEF: Verified
EPA’s Portfolio Manager. benchmark multifamily properties through EPA portfolio manager, beginning with master metered buildings.” Ex. 43 (Wells), p. 7. CLAIMANT’S BRIEF (7/13/15): Opening Br., pp. 55-56. FINAL DECISION, D.16-11-022 (11/21/16): (p. 208): “We direct the utilities to benchmark multifamily properties through Environmental Protection Agency portfolio manager beginning with master metered buildings.” 5. Cost effectiveness screening and threshold We urged the Commission to adopt the Cost-Effectiveness Working Group’s proposals regarding a screening threshold. CLAIMANT’S TESTIMONY (4/27/15): Ex. 32 (Stamas), pp. 17-18 (seeking Commission guidance on inputs into cost-effectiveness calculations and a timeline for resolution, and guidance on how non-energy benefits [NEBs] should be calculated). CLAIMANT’S BRIEFS): Opening Br. (7/13/15), pp. 18-21; Reply Br. (8/4/15), pp. 8-10. FINAL DECISION, D.16-11-022 (11/21/16): (pp. 211-221): Summarizing the efforts of the Cost-Effectiveness Working Group and the various parties’ position regarding the establishment of a threshold of 1.0; directing the “ESACET Working Group to continue to meet,” and providing guidance on the tasks that the Working Group should complete and a timeline for doing so; approving NEB study. Verified
6. Setting energy efficiency goals and/or targets We presented evidence that for three of the four IOUs, their projected energy savings are declining and urged the Commission to set savings goals or targets for ESA so that the program becomes more effective at delivering energy savings. To support this recommendation, we also provided evidence regarding the extent to which similar low-income energy efficiency programs set energy savings goals or targets. CLAIMANT’S TESTIMONY (4/27/15): Ex. 32 (Stamas), pp. 8-14 (portraying declining savings IOUs project for 2105-17, with exception of SoCalGas; noting the many other jurisdictions that set savings goals; noting benefits of setting savings goals) Ex. 41 (Robbins), pp. 2, 16-18 CLAIMANT’S BRIEFS: Opening Br.(7/13/15), pp. 6-12; Reply Br.(8/4/15), pp. 4-8 FINAL DECISION, D. 16-11-022 (11/21/16): (p. 6): A “key program change for the ESA program is to establish an overall portfolio energy savings target…” (p. 42): “In testimony provided by NRDC et al. the groups independently and proactively collected a sample of other LIEE programs to determine the prevalence of energy savings goals in similar programs. We applaud the thoughtfulness and initiative set forth in this effort and appreciate their serious review of comparable programs.” (p. 46): “[W]e clarify that today we are adopting an energy savings target (as opposed to an energy savings goal)… TURN and NRDC et al. have provided a thorough and rigorous analysis that has influenced this decision. These parties should also be recognized for the forward thinking approaches they have brought to the discussion…..” (p. 50): “In response to comments on the proposed decision, the targets have been adjusted upwards to match the savings targets first proposed by the utilities in their applications.” [NOTE that NRDC et al. submitted those comments, on 9/6/16.] Verified effective