E-22021 DSM Evaluation Reports
13 passages
1 EVALUATION SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES The 2021 Portfolio Evaluation Plan was based on the Evaluation Schedule outlined in the Overall Strategic Evaluation Plan, 2 which provides a framework and approach to guide evaluation planning and impleme...
AI summary The 2021 Portfolio Evaluation Plan outlines the approach to evaluating demand-side management (DSM) activities from 2020–2022. It emphasizes prioritizing evaluations based on factors such as program savings, uncertainty, changes in program design, regulatory requirements, and evaluation scheduling. The plan also considers the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on evaluation activities and categorizes evaluations into impact, process, and market evaluations.
Documentation Review The Evaluator reviewed all relevant evaluation and program component specific documentation such as program manuals, marketing materials, application forms, tracking sheets, and any other information on changes made to...
AI summary The Evaluator reviewed program documentation and conducted staff interviews to assess changes and improvements in program components since the last evaluation.
APPENDIX I BIBLIOGRAPHY Program Components Bibliographic References NREL, The Uniform Methods Project: Methods for Determining Energy-Efficiency Savings for Specific Measures, Chapter 11: Sample Design Cross-Cutting Protocol, September 201...
AI summary The document provides a list of bibliographic references cited in a regulatory proceeding, including studies, reports, and guidelines related to energy efficiency, cost of service, and strategic energy management. It includes references from organizations such as NREL, Nova Scotia Utility and Review Board, and Emera Inc.
HEA Findings and Recommendations This section presents the key findings and recommendations from the HEA evaluation. 2021 HEA-Finding: HEA net electrical energy and peak demand savings fell short of targets. As outlined in [Figure](#page-7...
AI summary The 2021 HEA evaluation found that net electrical energy and peak demand savings fell short of targets by 37% and 40%, respectively. Savings per home decreased, though the rate of decline slowed. The tracking sheet has become more complex, increasing the risk of calculation errors. A recommendation is made to update and simplify the tracking sheet for the next evaluation.
Table 1: Verification of 2021 Green Heat Data Field Completeness and Accuracy Data Fields Complete (Y/N/Partial) Consistent with Previous Evaluation If Incomplete or Inconsistent, Action Taken by the Evaluator Heating Seasonal Performance...
AI summary Table 1 verifies the completeness and accuracy of 2021 Green Heat data fields. The Evaluator adjusted or corrected several fields, including HSPF, heating capacity, and COP at -15ºC, based on information from specification sheets and the NEEP list. Some data fields were incomplete or inconsistent, requiring corrective actions.
Table 6: Implementation Status of Past Recommendations for NHC # Recommendations for NHC Status Comments 2018 NHC-R4 Conduct a billing analysis to review overestimation ratios (Ors) when a sufficient NHC participant sample becomes availabl...
AI summary Table 6 outlines the implementation status of past recommendations for New Home Construction (NHC). Three recommendations from 2018 and 2020 have been deferred. The 2018 recommendation regarding billing analysis was postponed due to changes in the evaluation scope. The 2020 recommendations regarding increasing measure uptake and reviewing data-collection strategies were deferred due to changes in evaluation methods and will be addressed in future years.
OEM Operational Demand Savings Pilot Key Findings and Recommendations 2021 OEM Operational Demand Savings Pilot Finding: The incentive had the desired effect of prompting participants to look for rapid and low-cost measures to reduce their...
AI summary The 2021 OEM Operational Demand Savings Pilot found that incentives successfully encouraged participants to reduce energy demand during peak periods. However, improvements in M&V methodologies and savings calculation protocols are recommended for future operational demand programs. Guidance on M&V requirements and load shifting projects is also suggested to ensure accurate demand reductions.
New Construction Participant Decision-making Process Interviews During the 2021 summer, Econoler conducted interviews with different stakeholders to collect information on the Custom New Construction participant decision-making process onc...
AI summary Econoler conducted interviews in 2021 with EOne staff and consultants to understand the Custom New Construction participant decision-making process and develop a new free-ridership approach. The approach was tested through interviews with participants who recently signed Custom Project Agreements.
Retrofit Key Findings and Recommendations 2021 Retrofit-Finding: The pay-for-performance projects reviewed by the Evaluator included an excellent client-led M&V approach that required almost no adjustments, had a free-ridership level of ze...
AI summary The 2021 Retrofit evaluation found that pay-for-performance projects had minimal adjustments, zero free-ridership, and high satisfaction. It recommended expanding structured pay-for-performance approaches for Retrofit, Building Optimization, and Operational Demand Savings. Solar PV and compressed air leak repair projects were found to be suitable for quasi-prescriptive methods, requiring distinct evaluation protocols and documentation.
Table 1: Participant Interview Questionnaire and Free-ridership Algorithm Question (From the Custom New Construction Participant Interview Guide) Response Score Identifying Key Decision-makers A1. We hope to interview the key decision-make...
AI summary This table outlines a participant interview questionnaire focused on identifying key decision-makers in the context of building better-than-code construction, with a specific emphasis on free-ridership algorithm considerations.
APPENDIX XVII SEM: PROJECT REVIEW PROTOCOL The 2021 SEM impact evaluation involved conducting project reviews for four continuing participants and two new participants. One of the continuing participants was also an EMIS participant. For t...
AI summary The 2021 SEM impact evaluation involved project reviews for continuing and new participants, adapting the protocol to assess both bottom-up and top-down approaches. The Evaluator reviewed baseline energy regression, engineering calculations, and M&V results, while interviews were conducted after reviewing EOne digital files. This appendix focuses on the technical aspects of the protocol for continuing participants.
Table 1: Summary of 2021 Direct Installation Program Evaluation Program Evaluation Type Component Impact Process Market Methodology Small Business Energy Solutions Condensed - - › Participant survey › Tracking sheet audit › Measure Assessm...
AI summary The 2021 Direct Installation Program Evaluation focuses on the Small Business Energy Solutions program, using methods such as participant surveys, tracking sheet audits, and GHG emission reduction calculations to assess program performance and impact.
4 SBES IMPACT EVALUATION The objectives of the 2021 SBES impact evaluation were to determine gross and net electrical energy and peak demand savings. This section discusses the gross and net savings results.
AI summary The 2021 SBES impact evaluation aimed to assess gross and net electrical energy and peak demand savings, with this section discussing the results of those evaluations.
E-12E1(NSUARB) RIR-1 to RIR-41
42 passages
hree-year energy efficiency plan with the Department of Public Utilities (“Department”) for calendar years 2022 through 2024 (“Three-Year Plans”).1 The Program Administrators filed their Three-Year Plans pursuant to An Act Relative to Gree...
AI summary Program Administrators have submitted Three-Year Energy Efficiency Plans for 2022–2024 to the Department of Public Utilities, seeking approval for proposed programs, budgets, cost-recovery mechanisms, and performance incentives. These plans are filed under various docket numbers and are based on multiple legislative acts, including the Green Communities Act and the Energy Act of 2012.
supported under the Green Communities Act. See, e.g., 2016-2018 Three-Year Energy Efficiency Plans, D.P.U. 15-160 through D.P.U. 15-169, at 26 (2016) (“2016-2018 Three-Year Plans Order”) (approving renter specific offering, enhanced incent...
AI summary The Department of Energy and Environmental Regulation (DOER) requires energy efficiency programs to align with GHG emissions reduction targets under the Green Communities Act. The 2022-2024 Three-Year Plans must be consistent with statutory goals and assess the impact on the distribution system to avoid reliability issues. Program Administrators are required to evaluate program effectiveness and GHG impacts.
the energy efficiency market, the Department issues a pre-filing memorandum to identify any additional information the Program Administrators must include in their filings to facilitate the Department’s review and reduce the need for disco...
AI summary The Department of Energy and Environmental Regulation expresses disappointment with the 2022-2024 Three-Year Plans submitted by Program Administrators, noting repeated issues despite prior guidance and the administrators' proven capability in energy efficiency planning.
, 2022 NSUARB IR-17, Attachment 3, Page 33 of 343 D.P.U. 21-120 through D.P.U. 21-129 Page 20 First, as noted above, in a Three-Year Plan filing (or any regulatory filing), it is imperative that the filing contain all required information,...
AI summary The text discusses issues with the submission of Three-Year Plan filings, highlighting missing information, incomplete testimony, and failure to follow directives from the Department. Multiple rounds of discovery were required to obtain necessary data, and service territory-specific information was not adequately provided.
eloped until months after the conclusion of the Department’s review. For example: (1) a proposal for allowing mixed-income buildings to participate in the low-income programs will not be developed until the second quarter of 2022; (2) the...
AI summary The text discusses delays in developing program proposals, adjustments to budget allocations targeting environmental justice communities, and the need for more comprehensive program descriptions in future Three-Year Plans. It also highlights errors in initial filings and data anomalies discovered during the proceeding.
Page 25 these measures, the Program Administrators responded that they “have not defined any measure as an equity measure” (Exh. DPU-Comm 3-1). Further, a cornerstone proposal of the Program Administrators’ equity efforts is the Community...
AI summary The Program Administrators' equity efforts, including the Community First Partnership Program, faced criticism for unclear criteria and lack of transparency. The Department of Public Utilities had to address inconsistencies and ensure clarity in the proposed budget increase of $1.2 billion, which is 29.3% higher than the 2019-2021 Three-Year Plans.
are appropriate to be made so close to the filing of a multi-billion dollar, ratepayer funded Three-Year Plan. Such actions erode the credibility of the foundational elements that these Three-Year Plans have been built on. With regard to t...
AI summary The Department of Energy and Environmental Regulation (DOER) criticizes the timing of actions related to a multi-billion dollar, ratepayer-funded Three-Year Plan, arguing it undermines credibility. The DOER emphasizes the importance of reliable avoided cost studies, referencing the AESC Study and prior orders, and indicates it will not reject filings solely due to procedural deficiencies in energy efficiency plans.
nue to deliver nation-leading energy efficiency services is not in question. The Department must acknowledge the nation-leading status of the Program Administrators; their innovation and success in the area of energy efficiency remains a c...
AI summary The Department acknowledges the nation-leading energy efficiency services provided by Program Administrators but criticizes the poor quality of recent filings. A reduction to the performance incentive pool is proposed due to filing deficiencies, with further reductions possible if compliance issues persist. The Climate Act and new benefit-cost screening model requirements are noted as additional challenges.
this collaboration, in relation to the filing deadline with the Department, negatively impacts the ability of the Program Administrators to develop and present a complete, accurate, and reviewable Three-Year Plan filing, including quality...
AI summary The document discusses challenges faced by Program Administrators in meeting filing deadlines due to ongoing collaboration with the Department, DOER, and the Council. Late discussions impact the ability to prepare a complete Three-Year Plan filing and stakeholder engagement. The Department requires a final written response to the Council’s recommendations within 45 days.
. M at 6, 7; Exhs. DPU-Comm 13-10; DPU-Comm 13-13). LEAN explains that the intent is to limit and reduce these measure offerings for low-income participants over time, not eliminate them outright (LEAN Reply Brief at 2-4). 7. Northeast Cle...
AI summary The text discusses the Low Energy Alternative Network's (LEAN) approach to reducing measure offerings for low-income participants over time, and the Northeast Clean Energy Council's (NECEC) support for the Statewide Plan, including its alignment with GHG reduction goals and the inclusion of the ConnectedSolutions ADR program with additional oversight requirements.
argues that, the Program Administrators should be required to implement a more transparent change process, including at least two annual meetings with stakeholders (NCEC Brief at 20-22). NECEC argues that the Department should direct the P...
AI summary NECEC argues that Program Administrators should be required to implement a more transparent change process, including two annual stakeholder meetings, and that the October 6th draft Statewide Plan should be revised to allow renewable natural gas CHP energy efficiency measures under the Three-Year Plan, aligning with RPS Class I-eligible fuels and ensuring cost-effectiveness and GHG emission reductions.
argues that process improvements to facilitate meaningful stakeholder engagement are needed to maximize ADR program benefits (Sunrun Brief at 10-11). Specifically, Sunrun argues that it is necessary to simplify what are currently complex e...
AI summary Sunrun argues for process improvements to enhance stakeholder engagement in ADR programs, citing the need for simplified enrollment procedures and stakeholder input on mid-cycle changes. It also raises concerns about the lack of detail in National Grid (electric)’s proposed solar PV inverter offering and recommends that National Grid provide more information before implementation.
rates was to use a geographic approach to select a set of communities with high concentrations of low-participation customers (Tr. 2, at 246). The Department, however, has concerns with the final criteria the Program Administrators used to...
AI summary The Department of Public Utilities (DPU) raised concerns about the final criteria used by Program Administrators to identify 38 Targeted Communities, arguing that the criteria were overly limiting and focused too narrowly on income, while factors like English proficiency and renter status are more significant in participation rates.
D.P.U. 21-120 through D.P.U. 21-129 Page 110 enhanced incentive for prior weatherization).78 As noted above, the Program Administrators state that weatherization is provided along with heating system upgrades for low-income customers (Exh....
AI summary The Department requires Program Administrators to weatherize low-income buildings before installing heat pumps, unless impractical, and to file detailed protocols by May 2, 2022. The Department supports efforts to ensure electrification marketing reaches all customers and aligns with decarbonization goals outlined in the Massachusetts 2050 Decarbonization Roadmap.
conduct a Department-mandated study on the best practices for minimizing administrative costs (“PP&A Study Report”) (Program Administrators Brief at 54, citing 2016-2018 Three-Year Plans Order, at 42).101 The Program Administrators argue t...
AI summary The Program Administrators reference a Department-mandated study on minimizing administrative costs and assert that they have implemented its recommendations. They also highlight their use of competitive procurement processes for services such as energy assessments and program evaluation.
laboratively with LEAN to capture all available cost-effective energy efficiency in the low-income sector (Program Administrators Brief at 58, citing Statewide Plan, Exh. 1, at 108-115). No other party addressed low-income program budgets...
AI summary The document discusses the minimization of administrative costs in energy efficiency programs, noting that some Program Administrators have kept their PP&A costs flat or slightly increased, while others have seen a significant increase, such as electric Program Administrators who proposed an $8.4 million increase over the Three-Year Plan period.
Table IV.C.2.2 (Rev.)). The electric Program Administrators have proposed an increase of approximately $8.4 million (or 8.6 percent) in planned PP&A costs over the Three-Year Plans term (Statewide Plan, Exh. 1, App. C.1 - Electric, Table I...
AI summary The document discusses proposed increases in Program Planning and Administration (PP&A) costs for both electric and gas Program Administrators over the Three-Year Plans term. Electric Program Administrators propose an 8.6% increase, while gas Program Administrators propose a 40% increase. NSTAR Electric is the only electric Program Administrator proposing a decrease in PP&A costs, though it still represents a significant increase from 2019 to 2022.
s term) the gas Program Administrators have proposed a $4.5 million (or a 48.8 percent) increase in PP&A costs (c.f., Statewide Plan, Exh. 1, App. C.2 – Gas (Rev.), Table IV.C.2.2, cells E75 and J75). NSTAR Gas is the only gas Program Admi...
AI summary The gas Program Administrators have proposed a significant increase in PP&A costs, with NSTAR Gas being the only one proposing a decrease, though still showing a 52% increase compared to prior years. There are data inconsistencies in the PP&A budget tables, and the Program Administrators did not explain the increase in planned PP&A costs.
nd develop new program designs during the 2022-2024 Three-Year Plans term.103 However, the Program Administrators propose significant enhancements in every Three-Year Plan. D.P.U. 18-110 through D.P.U. 18-119, Statewide Plan, Exh. 1, at 13...
AI summary The Program Administrators propose significant enhancements to energy efficiency programs during the 2022-2024 Three-Year Plans term, including new initiatives, realignments, and outreach strategies. However, there is a discrepancy in the reported PP&A budget, and the Department emphasizes the need for accurate and complete filings to ensure an efficient review within the statutory 90-day period.
should be completely and fully described in the Three-Year Plan filings. Date Filed: April 29, 2022 NSUARB IR-17, Attachment 3, Page 161 of 343 D.P.U. 21-120 through D.P.U. 21-129 Page 148 the record how or why these new enhancements propo...
AI summary The Department of Public Utilities acknowledges the Program Administrators' efforts to minimize administrative costs through collaboration and implementation of recommendations from the PP&A Study Report. The discussion focuses on the expected continuation of cost-reducing strategies in the 2022-2024 Three-Year Plans.
recommendations were adopted. 2019-2021 Three-Year Plans Order, at 50. The Program Administrators have implemented many of the recommendations in the PP&A Study Report, which has led to 104 The Best Practices for Minimizing Program Plannin...
AI summary The document references the implementation of recommendations from the PP&A Study Report, which led to the minimization of administrative costs through updated accounting systems, streamlined data reporting, and the establishment of a cost review working group. These efforts are intended to continue under the 2022-2024 Three-Year Plan.
, at 103-104; NG-Gas-2, at 110-111; NSTAR Gas-2, at 105-106; Compact-2, at 102-103;FGE (electric)-2, at 100-101; NG-Electric-2, at 108-109; NSTAR-Electric-2, at 100-101).105 Finally, the Program Administrators state that they will seek to...
AI summary The Department of Public Utilities acknowledges the Program Administrators' efforts to minimize administrative costs through collaboration and joint vendor services. It emphasizes the need to include Key Performance Indicators in the Three-Year Plans and continue streamlining reporting and data request processes as recommended in the PP&A Study Report.
ta request process. PP&A Study Report at 18. As directed by the Department, in the 2019 Annual Reports, the Program Administrators provided a detailed explanation of the progress towards implementing each recommendation contained in the PP...
AI summary The document discusses the implementation of recommendations from the PP&A Study Report by Program Administrators, focusing on creating a formal process for Key Performance Indicators and addressing data requests from stakeholders while minimizing administrative costs. The Department of Public Utilities has directed the Program Administrators to adopt revised guidelines and work with the Council to develop a formal process for handling data requests.
Program Administrators Brief at 59, citing Statewide Plan, Exh. 1, App. C (Rev.), Table V.D.1). The Department will not make any substantive findings on the reasonableness of the Program Administrators’ decision not to competitively procur...
AI summary The Department of Public Utilities finds that Program Administrators' 2022-2024 Three-Year Plans meet statutory requirements for competitive procurement and low-income program budgets, but will not make substantive findings on the reasonableness of the Program Administrators’ decision not to competitively procure services at this time.
of 343 D.P.U. 21-120 through D.P.U. 21-129 Page 175 Program Administrators provide recalculated BCR screening models using the AESC Study-derived $128 per short ton social value of GHG emissions reductions (Tr. 2, at 288-290). The data the...
AI summary The Department of Energy Resources (DOER) evaluates the Program Administrators' recalculated BCR models and social value of GHG emissions reductions. It finds that the revised social value, derived from a non-peer-reviewed literature review, does not justify increasing the Three-Year Plans' benefits from $9.2 billion to $12.9 billion without additional quantitative support.
torney General Brief at 21; DOER Brief at 28, 33; 36-37; Acadia Brief at 21-22; CLF Brief at 43). The Department finds that the addition of an equity component will encourage the Program Administrators to pursue all cost-effective energy e...
AI summary The Department finds that the equity component of the energy efficiency program lacks clearly defined measures, making it difficult to monitor, quantify, and verify performance. The Department requires Program Administrators to revise their data tables and provide detailed methods for tracking equity measures in compliance filings.
nent. Accordingly, each Program Administrator shall provide the following information in its required compliance filing: (1) revised Energy Efficiency Data Tables identifying specific 126 As discussed above, the Department has modified the...
AI summary The Department has modified the criteria for the equity component of the program, making electrification measures in certain communities ineligible for the electrification component. Program Administrators must provide detailed compliance filings, including Energy Efficiency Data Tables and methods for tracking strategic electrification measures at the ZIP code level. The Department accepts the modified electrification component as consistent with energy policies and necessary to overcome barriers in the fuel conversion market.
Three-Year Plans are significant and material. Notably, these Three-Year Plans are one of several statutory policy initiatives that the Department has overseen in recent years to further 138 Pursuant to Guidelines § 3.8.2(c), a Program Adm...
AI summary The text discusses budgeting procedures for Program Administrators under the Three-Year Plans, allowing a 10% overspend without prior approval but requiring review by the Council and Department for larger budget changes. The process includes submitting justification and supporting documentation if the Council opposes the change.
R-17, Attachment 3, Page 253 of 343 D.P.U. 21-120 through D.P.U. 21-129 Page 240 3. Department of Energy Resources DOER argues that the Department should approve the Program Administrators’ RCS budgets, which include the cost of implementi...
AI summary DOER argues that the Program Administrators’ proposed RCS budget is reasonable but they are not fully complying with the RCS statute and guidelines, particularly regarding the delayed implementation of home energy scorecards and the requirement for customer consent to disclose audit reports.
ressly charged with reviewing the reasonableness of the budget and expenditures, and may modify the budget. St. 1980, c. 465 § 7(b). The Program Administrators must include a description of the activities that support the requested budget....
AI summary The Department of Energy and Resources (DOER) is reviewing the reasonableness of the Residential Conservation Standards (RCS) budgets proposed by Program Administrators. It approves most of the budgets but notes that the portion allocated to home energy scorecards lacks supporting proposals and documentation, raising concerns about the justification for these expenditures.
ratepayer protections in the Green Communities Act regarding cost effectiveness, funding, and bill impacts. G.L. c. 25, § 21(a), (b)(1), (b)(2)(iv). Customers within the Compact’s member municipalities may opt out of participation in the C...
AI summary The text discusses the Green Communities Act and its provisions related to cost effectiveness, funding, and bill impacts. It highlights that customers in the Compact's municipalities may opt out of the municipal aggregation program but not of having the Compact as their energy efficiency Program Administrator. The Department is required to ensure the Compact spends its funds reasonably and prudently.
age 263 (Statewide Plan, Exh. 1, App. D). Use of non-energy efficiency measures to reach energy efficiency goals would create an imbalance among the other goals set by the EEA Secretary. Therefore, the claim that the proposed CVEO should b...
AI summary The Department of Energy and Resources (DOER) denies the implementation of the Strategic Electrification Offering (CVEO) in the Compact’s 2022-2024 Three-Year Energy Efficiency Plan, citing inconsistencies with the Green Communities Act and significant bill impacts for a limited number of participants. The claim that CVEO helps achieve climate goals is deemed a red herring.
rd with its residential new construction and C&I existing buildings enhancements, but makes no substantive findings on the prudence of these incentive levels at this time. The Department again directs the Compact to complete prior to the f...
AI summary The Department of Energy and Resources requires the Compact to analyze enhanced incentives in its 2025-2027 Three-Year Plan, ensuring they are justified and necessary for participation levels. The Compact must provide detailed support for these incentives, including stakeholder review and budget breakdowns, in future filings.
the Compact for the 2022-2024 Three-Year Plan term in the same manner as it does with other Program Administrators when there are mutual customers (Exh. DPU-National Grid (Gas)-1, at 2). More specifically, National Grid (gas) proposes that...
AI summary National Grid (gas) argues that the Compact's practice of providing energy efficiency measures to mutual gas heating customers is inconsistent with statewide coordination protocols used by other Program Administrators, leading to conflicting savings claims and improper allocation of gas savings through the Compact’s EES.
ervice territories. 2019-2021 Three-Year Plans Order, at 146, citing 2016-2018 Three-Year Plans Order, at 118. Given the lack of a more specific directive, however, the Compact continued its practice of providing energy efficiency services...
AI summary The document discusses the continuation of energy efficiency services for Mutual Customers heating with natural gas by the Compact, emphasizing the need for adherence to statewide coordination protocols to ensure consistent implementation and prevent subsidization by electric ratepayers. This directive is interim and subject to final resolution in D.P.U. 16-169.
ng mechanism otherwise available to municipal aggregators pursuant to a municipal aggregation plan or G.L. c. 164, § 134(b).179 It is a fully funded reconciling mechanism available to 176 As we have stated previously, while the Compact is...
AI summary The text discusses the oversight of energy efficiency programs by the Department of Public Utilities (D.P.U.) and the legal framework governing municipal aggregation plans and energy efficiency cost recovery mechanisms. It emphasizes the Department's role in ensuring proper cost allocation and the standards applied to energy efficiency plans.
entive mechanism easily applicable to the Compact. As investor-owned utilities, all other Program Administrators are subject to performance incentives and penalties, and poor performance will be the responsibility of the utility’s sharehol...
AI summary The Department emphasizes the need for additional scrutiny of the Compact's performance due to its historical poor performance and the necessity of ensuring that municipal aggregators meet energy efficiency goals and deliver programs safely and equitably.
ompany of Columbia Gas of Massachusetts, by Eversource Energy, EGMA and NSTAR Gas each share the same corporate parent.193 However, NSTAR Gas and EGMA remain separate operating companies with individual gas distribution service territories...
AI summary NSTAR Gas and EGMA, both subsidiaries of Eversource Energy, seek approval to implement a consolidated Three-Year Plan with shared program design, budget, savings goals, and incentive structures, while maintaining separate operations and service territories.
program design and to jointly implement their programs, asserting that such treatment has the potential to reduce implementation costs (Exhs. NSTAR Gas-2, at 137-138; EGMA-2, at 137-138; Program Administrators Brief at 81). In addition, NS...
AI summary The document discusses the joint implementation of energy efficiency programs by NSTAR Gas and EGMA, citing potential cost savings and consistent customer engagement. The Department of Energy and Resources supports this approach, aligning with the Green Communities Act and aiming to minimize implementation costs through a unified budgeting system.
the Council’s EM&V consultant (Exh. DOER-Comm 1-1, at 2). The Program Administrators shall submit such study with their 2022 Annual Reports. Pending the Department’s review of the study, the Program Administrators may include a ten percent...
AI summary The Department is concerned about the Program Administrators' alleged actions under the EM&V process and their decision not to appeal a decision affecting their ability to present information. The EM&V framework, approved in the 2019-2021 Three-Year Plans Order, ensures independence and objectivity through the EM&V consultant and the Council's oversight.
015 Three-Year Plans, Order on Motions for Interim Continuation (2012); 2010-2012 Three-Year Plans, Order on Motions for Interim Continuation (2009). In order to ensure the continuity of energy efficiency programs in the future and to obvi...
AI summary The document discusses the continuation of energy efficiency and RCS programs by Program Administrators until the Department completes its review of the 2025-2027 Three-Year Plans. It references past orders and emphasizes the need for cost-effective resource acquisition in the Three-Year Plans.
c. 25, §§ 19(a), 21(b)(2)(vii). In particular, the Department finds that the proposed budgets are appropriately designed to achieve savings goals while minimizing customer rate impacts. Subject to the modifications and disallowances addres...
AI summary The Department approves the Program Administrators' Three-Year Plans and budgets, subject to modifications and disallowances, aligning with the Green Communities Act and guidelines. Compliance filings with updated data, BCR models, and performance indicators are required within 60 days.
E-12-(i)NSUARB IR-17 Attachment 2_ACEEE’s Entire State Database - Excel
11 passages
rgy efficiency programs in Alaska. There is no required reporting to any central entity. Last Updated: July 2017 ","Requirements for State and Utility Support of Low-Income Energy Efficiency Programs Federal funding for weatherization effo...
AI summary Alaska's low-income energy efficiency programs are funded through federal, state, and utility investments, administered by the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation. No specific cost-effectiveness rules, decoupling policies, or data release requirements exist for utilities. Coordination with WAP services is unclear, and no policies reward energy efficiency success.
ch include provisions for demand-side resources. The most recent budgets for energy efficiency programs and electricity and natural gas savings can be found in the State Spending and Savings Tables. For further reading, in March 2011, as p...
AI summary The text discusses energy efficiency programs in Arkansas, including the establishment of energy efficiency resource standards, cost recovery mechanisms, and the expansion of programs by utilities to meet annual targets. It references regulatory actions and reports related to these initiatives.
annually) from customers to be forwarded to the Department of Health and Social Services, Division of State Service Centers, to be used to fund low-income fuel assistance and weatherization programs. The Delaware Weatherization Assistance...
AI summary The Delaware Weatherization Assistance Program aims to complete 400 homes annually and is funded by a $4 million allocation from the merger of Exelon and Delmarva Power. The program's funds are used to support energy efficiency initiatives for low-income households and must be approved by the Energy Efficiency Advisory Council and the Public Service Commission.
e Energy Circuit Rider. The Idaho Code Collaborative includes the Office of Energy and Mineral Resources, the state’s electric investor-owned utilities, and the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance. Last Updated: July 2021 ",,"The state ha...
AI summary Idaho has limited policies to encourage CHP deployment, with no interconnection standards or state-wide policies to acquire energy savings or generation from CHP. Some financing options exist, such as low-interest energy loans and the Renewable Energy Project Bond Program. Energy efficiency programs are administered by investor-owned utilities under the oversight of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission.
the electric utility's RIM test is less than one. The most recent budgets for energy efficiency programs and electricity and natural gas savings can be found in the State Spending and Savings Tables. Last reviewed: July 2019 ","Iowa's ener...
AI summary Iowa's energy utilities are required to administer energy efficiency programs, with investor-owned utilities recovering program costs through tariff riders. The Iowa Utilities Board (IUB) approves these plans, ensuring they are cost-effective using five tests, with the societal cost test being primary. Targets for the 2019-2023 planning period include incremental electricity savings of 0.89% annually and natural gas savings between 0.10% and 0.29% of retail sales.
incremental savings totaling 357,400 MWh over 2018-2020, or approximately 2.4% of annual sales. Natural gas - Three-year annual incremental savings of 192,599 Mcf spanning 2018-2020, or 0.5% of sales. Vermont does not have traditional EERS...
AI summary Vermont's energy efficiency programs focus on incremental savings in electricity and natural gas, with no traditional EERS legislation. Instead, the PUC sets budgets and goals every three years through a Demand Resource Plan proceeding, with compensation tied to performance. The EEU structure is reviewed every six years, and the administrator may be replaced if goals are not met.
ed in the California Standard Practice Manual. These are the Total Resource Cost (TRC) and utility cost test (UCT). The benefit-cost tests are required for portfolio and total program level screening. According to the Database of State Eff...
AI summary The text discusses Missouri's use of the Total Resource Cost (TRC) as its primary benefit-cost test for energy efficiency programs, including non-energy benefits. It also mentions the approval of technical reference manuals for Ameren Missouri and KCP&L, and the development of a statewide TRM for gas and electric measures, which has not yet been approved by the Missouri Public Service Commission. Natural gas utilities use all five cost effectiveness tests as governed by specific regulations.
.75% annually through 2018. Last Updated: May 2020 "," Primary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: total resource cost test Secondary cost-effectiveness test(s) used: utility cost test The evaluation of ratepayer-funded energy efficiency prog...
AI summary Ohio evaluates ratepayer-funded energy efficiency programs using the Total Resource Cost (TRC) and Utility/Program Administrator (UCT) tests. The TRC is the primary test and considers non-energy benefits like productivity, water savings, and environmental impacts. Low-income programs are subject to a different evaluation standard.
hase their NEG. If the utility agrees, the NEG will be purchased at the utility's avoided-cost rate. Last Updated: July 2018 ","There are currently no additional supportive policies to encourage CHP. Last Updated: July 2018 ",4 out of 20,"...
AI summary Oklahoma utilities have energy efficiency programs, but their investment and performance are below the national average. The Oklahoma Corporation Commission (OCC) established and updated rules for these programs in 2008 and 2018, requiring utilities to file three-year program plans. Utilities may recover lost revenues and earn incentives for successful programs, but no policy currently treats energy efficiency as a resource.
ow 150% of the Federal Income Poverty Guidelines. Details are available in each years’ Universal Service Report on the PUC website. Cost-Effectiveness Rules for Low-Income Energy Efficiency Programs In Order M-2015-2468992, the PUC specifi...
AI summary The Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission (PUC) uses the total resource cost (TRC) test as its primary cost-effectiveness test for low-income energy efficiency programs. There is no separate TRC test for low-income programs, and no performance incentives are in place for successful programs. Coordination between weatherization and energy efficiency programs is managed through a 2016 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that has not been publicly posted.
lically-accessible facilities, and supports the purchase or lease of electric vehicles (EVs) for integration into public sector fleets. Last Updated: July 2018 ","Community and stakeholder engagement The Office of Energy Resources has deve...
AI summary The Office of Energy Resources (OER) is focused on improving community and stakeholder engagement by collecting demographic data from public workshops and implementing pilot programs to support low-income participation in clean energy initiatives, including Community Solar and electric vehicle integration into public fleets.