PD and APD should ensure that evaluation occurs at the program level using the test, was taken into account in the final Decision. Working Group should continue to meet in identify measures that should be included or excluded from the Adjusted ESACET calculation. 89-97 Ordering Paragraphs 54-56 (p. 462) Cost Effectiveness Working group build on mid-cycle work and continue it following series of directives outlined in Decision. Appendix B: Copy of Working Group white paper, to which NRDC substantially contributed. ESA Program Measures and Energy Savings Evaluation Process NRDC provided energy and cost savings data on Tier 2 Advanced Power Strips, contributing to the Commissions’ full adoption of this updated measure. NRDC also successfully advocated for full phase-in of LEDs without delay and installation of thermostatic tub spouts. NRDC also highlighted the need to set a basic common core set of measures across utilities. NRDC also highlighted the need to increase the amount of stakeholder input and review of impact evaluation studies and the need to provide more consistent savings values for existing and new measures over time. NRDC Protest, 1/12/2015, p. 22 NRDC Sponsored Testimony: Ex. 32 (Stamas) pp. 18-20; Ex. 44 (Dryden) NRDC Opening Brief, 7/13/2015, pp. 27-33 on new measures NRDC Comments on PD/APD, 9/6/2016, pp. 8-10. FINAL DECISION, D. 16-11-022: Findings of Fact p. 403, 28: “it is reasonable to mandate switch to LEDs and away from CFLs as soon as possible” p. 403, 29: “reasonable to approve Tier 2 power strips” p. 403, 34: “reasonable to authorize a common core set of ESA Program measures” Conclusions of Law p. 413, 17: “IOUs should offer replacements of second refrigerators” p. 414, 27, 28: approving LEDs p. 415, 30: Tier 2 power strips CoL 101: impact evaluation plan will be Verified
Issues around income eligibility and more efficiently enrolling multifamily buildings We have urged various techniques for efficiently qualifying multifamily buildings that are primarily inhabited by low-income families as eligible for ESA, and making these buildings eligible for “whole building” treatment. 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 shopping”). This is an issue we have been advocating since the prior ESA docket, A.11-05-017, and which we again advocated through testimony and briefs. Our goal is to remove unnecessary administrative barriers to multifamily buildings being well-served by the ESA program. (p. 181): Describing NRDC et al. recommendation. (p. 190): “SPOC is an important first step” in serving multifamily sector. (p. 196): Supporting “SPOC model” for addressing the ‘split incentive’ problem; SPOC helps “get the best bang for the buck”; “SPOC model could be useful as a starting point for tackling the privately buildings in the multifamily sector.” (p. 202): “As demonstrated by NRDC et al.’s extensive research in support of their procedural findings a single program implementer program design may overcome many of the administrative barriers experienced by this [multifamily] housing sector.” (p. 205): Criticizing the IOUs for not committing sufficient resources to SPOCs Conclusions of law: 75 (p. 422) (“one stop shop EE contractor”), 88 (p. 424) (“SPOC should be used. . .”) 29 (p. 415) IOUs should coordinate ESA Program efforts with activities in EE proceeding 54/55 (p. 418) IOUs should create balancing account for work with CSD 71-73 (p. 421) IOUs should target owners through the State Treasury 75 (p. 422) SDG&E should report back on one-stop ESA and EE contractor 76 (p. 422) (owner affidavits should be used for qualifying low-income affordable housing for whole building treatment; no need for door-to-door tenant income verification) 77 (p. 422) (further discussing for large portfolio owners).