Topic:"Energy Efficiency Financing" in M12920

Table 1: Impact Evaluation Metrics CEM Effectiveness Category Measurement Metric Measurement Description What Is Measured How it Is Measured Measurement Approach To Be Included in 2025 Year 4 Evaluation Customer Load and Energy Billing Imp...

AI summary The document outlines evaluation metrics for assessing the effectiveness of the Customer Energy Management (CEM) program, focusing on customer load, energy usage, and cost-effectiveness. It also discusses unrealized impacts due to a cyber incident and how these should be interpreted as directional estimates rather than formal evaluations.

1.2 Usage Level Definition The CEM usage level for each month is defined using a metric named MDef3, which is calculated as the sum of logins for the two previous months. This metric was identified as correlating the most with observed sav...

AI summary The CEM usage level is defined using the MDef3 metric, calculated as the sum of logins over the previous two months, which correlates with observed savings. Table 4 outlines the thresholds for classifying CEM users as low or high based on their rate code.

2 Evaluation Methodology The EM&V Plan establishes a general methodology for measuring the impacts of the CEM platform. Econoler further refined that methodology before implementing it. The EM&V Plan establishes how impacts will be estimat...

AI summary The EM&V Plan uses a difference-in-difference (DID) approach to evaluate the impact of the Customer Energy Management (CEM) platform by comparing usage data between CEM users and non-users. Due to a cyber incident and lack of AMI data, the evaluation period for Year 4 is limited to January to March 2025, and baseline periods are adjusted accordingly.

Status of the Issues Raised for Prior Reports Weather / difference-in-difference (DID). We previously accepted Econoler's position that the month-by-month DID design controls for weather by differencing the treatment and control groups ove...

AI summary The report discusses concerns with the DID methodology due to a shorter evaluation window, acknowledges Econoler's approach to E1 savings, notes the retention of electrification controls, and highlights the discontinuation of the E1 Behaviour program for integrated evaluation.

The Cyber Incident Severely Limits Report Relevance Because the CEM platform and AMI data have been unavailable since April 2025, every impact metric except paperless billing was evaluated for January–March 2025 only. This limits the relev...

AI summary The cyber incident caused the unavailability of the CEM platform and AMI data since April 2025, limiting the evaluation of impact metrics to January–March 2025. This affects the relevance of the report, as prior evaluations show that savings are positive in winter but negative in summer.

Engagement Has Fallen and the Commercial Evaluation Is Not Informative The engagement picture is weak and, in places, deteriorating. The share of analyzed customers who did not log in during the evaluation period rose year-over-year for ev...

AI summary Engagement with the Customer Energy Management (CEM) program has significantly declined, particularly among commercial customers, leading to weak and inconclusive evaluation results. Only a small percentage of commercial customers logged in during the evaluation period, raising concerns about the reliability of the reported energy savings.

Role of Electrification With respect to electrification, the SBA and GEEG's comments both reference the following statement provided by Econoler in the Report: The evaluation results for high and low users under the Commercial General code...

AI summary The SBA and GEEG reference Econoler's report, which highlights that electrification (heating and non-heating related) may be captured in the analysis despite only considering electrically heated customers. The report notes that small sample sizes and heterogeneous consumption profiles in commercial customer groups increase variability and uncertainty in the results.