Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 - SCE Energy PartnershipCITY OF z NEWPORT BEACH C9�FO0.HP City Council Staff Report Agenda Item No. 6 September 13, 2011 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: Public Works Department Stephen G. Badum, Public Works Director 949 - 644- 3311,sbadum @newportbeachca.gov PREPARED BY: David Webb, Deputy Public Works Director /City Engineer Iris Lee, Senior Civil Engineer APPROVED: 0, TITLE: Energy Leader Partnership between Southern California Edison and the City of Newport Beach ABSTRACT: The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has allocated $1.2 billion to Southern California Edison (SCE) in support of energy efficiency efforts over the 2010 to 2012 period. The City of Newport Beach will need to enter into a joint partnership with Southern California Edison via the existing Orange County Cities Energy Leader Partnership (Partnership) to utilize project incentives and community outreach funds to increase City -wide energy efficiency. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 2011- , "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Newport Beach Declaring the City's Support for an Energy Partnership between Southern California Edison and City of Newport Beach." 2. Authorize the City Manager to execute the Energy Leader Partnership Agreement between the City of Newport Beach and Southern California Edison. 3. Designate Iris Lee, in the Public Works Department as the "Energy Champion" pursuant to the Energy Leader Partnership Agreement. FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: There are no funding requirements related to this item; however, the City will directly benefit from SCE's allocation to supplement funding for the City's energy efficiency goals. Energy Leader Partnership between Southern California Edison and the City of Newport Beach September 13, 2011 Page 2 DISCUSSION: In 2009, CPUC announced the release of $1.2 billion to SCE in support of energy efficiency programs for the 2010 -2012 funding cycle. The funds which make up the Partnership budget are collected from electric utility ratepayers pursuant to Section 381 of the California Public Utilities Code for public purposes programs, including energy efficiency programs approved by the Commission. The Orange County Cities Energy Leader Partnership was established to provide additional funds to the Partnership cities when the cities invest in energy efficiency projects. The Partnership is designed to provide integrated technical and financial assistance to help local governments effectively lead their communities to increase energy efficiency, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, protect air quality and ensure that their communities are more livable and sustainable. The Partnership provides a performance -based opportunity for the City to demonstrate energy efficiency leadership in its community through energy saving actions, including retrofitting its municipal facilities as well as providing opportunities for constituents to take action in their homes and businesses. By implementing measures in its own facilities, the City will lead by example as the City and SCE work together to increase community awareness of energy efficiency and position the City as a leader in energy management practices. The Partnership will provide marketing, outreach, education, training and community sweeps to connect the community with opportunities to save energy, money and help the environment. The Partnership participants include the Cities of Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, Westminster, and Costa Mesa, and will leverage the strengths of each to efficiently deliver energy and demand savings. There are four Partnership levels — Valued, Silver, Gold, and Platinum. As the City's energy efficiency increases, the incentives increase. The City is currently at the Valued Partner Level where project incentives range from $0.08 to $0.18 per kilowatt -hour saved compared to pre - project conditions. Furthermore, costs associated with community outreach efforts to encourage energy efficiency are fully reimbursable. In order to gain access to the Partnership's allocation for energy efficient - related projects, the City will need to enter into a joint agreement with SCE for the 2010 -2012 funding cycle. If approved, the agreement will allow the City to be reimbursed for Kilowatt hours saved for municipal retrofit projects and community outreach efforts. Pursuant to the Partnership Agreement, an "Energy Champion" will need to be designated as the primary contact between the City, other Partnership participants, and the SCE Energy Efficiency Representative. Staff recommends appointing Iris Lee, Public Works Department, to act as the "Energy Champion" on behalf of the City in carrying out the City's obligations under this Partnership Agreement. Energy Leader Partnership between Southern California Edison and the City of Newport Beach September 13, 2011 Page 3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Staff recommends the City Council find this action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. Projects funded as a result of this Partnership will be subject to environmental review. NOTICING: The agenda item has been noticed according to the Brown Act (72 hours in advance of the meeting at which the City Council considers the item). Submitted by: Public W6rks Director Attachments: A. Southern California Edison Partnership Agreement B. Energy Partnership Resolution AGREEMENT TO JOINTLY DELIVER THE 2010 -2012 ORANGE COUNTY ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM BETWEEN THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH and SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY Dated: July 1, 2011 This program is funded by California utility ratepayers and administered by Southern California Edison under the auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission. ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT TO JOINTLY DELIVER THE 2010 -2012 ORANGE COUNTY ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM (the "Agreement ") by and between SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISION COMPANY ( "SCE ") and the City of Newport Beach (the "City "), which Agreement shall be effective as of September 13, 2011 ( "Effective Date "). SCE and the City may be referred to herein individually as a "Party" and collectively as the "Parties." The Orange County Energy Leader Partnership may be referred to herein as the "Partnership." WHEREAS, on July 21, 2008 (and as amended on March 2, 2009), SCE submitted its 2009 -2011 Application for Approval of its Proposed Energy Efficiency Program Plans and Public Goods Charge and Procurement Funding Requests to the California Public Utilities Commission (the "Commission "), which application included the Energy Leader Partnership Program in which SCE will partner with cities, counties, and other local government organizations that have a vision for energy efficiency sustainability and a desire to provide energy efficiency leadership to their communities; WHEREAS, on July 2, 2009, SCE amended its aforementioned application to the Commission, requesting approval of an extended 2010 -2012 Program cycle for its proposed plans and funding requests, including the Energy Leader Partnership Program; WHEREAS, on September 24, 2009, the Commission authorized certain energy efficiency programs, including the Partnership's Energy Leader Partnership Program for the 2010 -12 program cycle (the "Program "); WHEREAS the City has expressed a commitment, and has qualified, to participate in the Program through the Partnership, allowing the City to demonstrate energy efficiency leadership in its community while helping residents and businesses achieve sustainable reductions in energy use within SCE's service territory; WHEREAS, the Partnership's Program is designed to encompass several local government jurisdictions in Orange County, including Westminster, Fountain Valley, Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach, and Newport Beach ('Program Participants "), provided however that each Program Participant shall execute individual agreements for the performance of their respective obligations in connection with the Program; WHEREAS, the City, on September 13, 2011, passed, approved and adopted a Resolution supporting and endorsing the Program, approving the City as a Program Participant, and authorizing execution of a Partnership Agreement, in substantially similar form as this Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Parties desire to enter and conditions under which the Program shall be implemented with respect to the Parties. NOW THEREFORE, for valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows: ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT 2 1. DEFINITIONS All terms used in the singular will be deemed to include the plural, and vice versa. The words "herein," "hereto," and "hereunder" and words of similar import refer to this Agreement as a whole, including all exhibits or other attachments to this Agreement, as the same may from time to time be amended or supplemented, and not to any particular subdivision contained in this Agreement, except as the context clearly requires otherwise. "Includes" or "including" when used herein is not intended to be exclusive, or to limit the generality of the preceding words, and means "including without limitation." The word "or" is not exclusive. 1.1. Agreement: This document and all exhibits attached hereto, and as amended from time to time. 1.2. Authorized Partnership Budget: The Commission approved maximum budget for funding the Partnership and performance by all of the Program Participants' performance of the Authorized Work, which total amount shall be apportioned among the Program Participants, including the City, by SCE in its sole and absolute discretion (see "Partner Budget "). 13. Authorized Work: The work authorized by the Commission for the Program as set forth in this Agreement and as more fully described in the Program Implementation Plans attached hereto as Exhibit C, and as agreed to be performed by the Parties. 1.4. Business Day: The period from one midnight to the following midnight, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays. 1.5. Calendar Day: The period from one midnight to the following midnight, including Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays. Unless otherwise specified, all days in this Agreement are Calendar Days. 1.6. Contractor: An entity contracting directly or indirectly with a Party, or any subcontractor thereof subcontracting with such Contractor, to furnish services or materials as part of or directly related to such Party's Authorized Work obligations. 1.7. Customers or Eligible Customers: Those customers eligible for Program services, which are SCE customers located in the City. 1.8. Energy Efficiency Measure (or Measure): As used in the Commission's Energy Efficiency Policy Manual, Version 4, August 2008. 1.9. EM &V: Evaluation, Measurement and Verification of the Program pursuant to Commission requirements. 1.10. Incentive: As used in the Commission's Energy Efficiency Policy Manual, Version 4, August 2008. 1.11. Partner Budget: That portion of the Authorized Partnership Budget, which represents the maximum budget and maximum allocation by period, for funding the ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT 3 performance of the Program by the City and as set forth in Exhibit B, subject to amendment by SCE consistent with the terms of this Agreement. 1.12. Program Expenditures: Actual (i.e., no mark -up for profit, administrative or other indirect costs), reasonable expenditures of the City that are pre- approved, directly identifiable to and required for the Authorized Work in accordance with Section 10.3. 1.13. PIP or Program Implementation Plan: The implementation plan specific to this Partnership, together with the Energy Leader Partnership Master PIP, which include the anticipated scope of the Program in SCE's service territory, approved by the Commission and attached hereto as Exhibit C. 1.14. Public Goods Charge (PGC): The funds which make up the Partner Budget and which are collected from electric utility ratepayers pursuant to Section 381 of the California Public Utilities Code for public purposes programs, including energy efficiency programs approved by the Commission. 2. PURPOSE The Program is funded by California utility ratepayers and is administered by SCE under the auspices of the Commission. The purpose of this Agreement is to set forth the terms and conditions under which the Parties will jointly implement the Program. The work authorized pursuant to this Agreement is not to be performed for profit. This Agreement is not intended to and does not form any "partnership" within the meaning of the California Uniform Partnership Act of 1994 or otherwise. 3. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION 3A. Overview. The Energy Leader Partnership Program is designed to provide integrated technical and financial assistance to help local governments effectively lead their communities to increase energy efficiency, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, protect air quality and ensure that their communities are more livable and sustainable. The Program provides a performance -based opportunity for the City to demonstrate energy efficiency leadership in its community through energy saving actions, including retrofitting its municipal facilities as well as providing opportunities for constituents to take action in their homes and businesses. By implementing measures in its own facilities, the City will lead by example as the City and SCE work together to increase community awareness of energy efficiency and position the City as a leader in energy management practices, The Program will provide marketing, outreach, education, training and community sweeps to connect the community with opportunities to save energy, money and help the enviromnent. The Program Participants will leverage the strengths of each other to efficiently deliver energy and demand savings. Delivering sustainable energy savings, promoting energy efficiency lifestyles, and achieving an enduring leadership role for the City through this Program design is rooted in an effective relationship between the City, other Program Participants, their constituents, and SCE. ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRMA AGREEMENT 4 3.2. Energy Leader Partnership Level. The Program offers a tiered Incentive structure through achievement of four separate levels of participation: "Valued Partner," "Silver," "Gold" and "Platinum." The City will enter the Program at the level indicated on Exhibit A hereto, which has been determined by the City's past participation in SCE energy efficiency and demand response programs both at the city level and at the community level. Exhibit A further explains each level and the energy savings requirements for moving to the next Energy Leader Partnership level. SCE will track the City's performance under this Agreement against the goals and objectives set forth herein, and will notify the City when it has achieved the next incentive level. 4. AUTHORIZED WORK 4.1. Scope. The work authorized by the Commission is set forth broadly in the PIP (Exhibit C) and shall be performed pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. The Parties shall collaborate and mutually agree upon specific Program implementation consistent with the PIP, and the Parties shall document such details in a "Planning Document" which is intended to evolve throughout the term of the Program. 4.2. Objectives. The Program is designed to meet the specific goals and milestones set forth in Exhibit B of this Agreement, while implementing the Program strategies and meeting the general objectives and goals set forth in the PIP, attached hereto as Exhibit C. 5. LIMITATION ON SERVICE TERRITORY — The Parties agree that Authorized Work shall only be performed in SCE's service territory, with energy savings and demand reduction claims applicable solely to SCE's utility system. No Authorized Work shall be performed for any customers that receive electricity from a municipal utility corporation or other electricity service provider or that do not directly receive electricity service from SCE. 6. OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES 6.1. Obligations of SCE and the City 6.1.1. Each Party will be responsible for the overall progress of its Authorized Work, to ensure that the Program remains on target (including but not limited to achieving the Program's specific energy savings and demand reduction goals as set forth in Exhibit B). 6.1.2. The Parties shall jointly coordinate and prepare all Program - related documents, including all required reporting pursuant to Section 9, and any such other reporting as may be reasonably requested by SCE. 6.1.3. To the extent practicable and with coordination by SCE, the Parties shall use the Program as a portal for other existing or selected programs that SCE offers, including programs targeting low- income customers, demand response, self - generation, solar, and other ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT 5 programs as described in the PIP, with a goal to enhance consistency in rebates and other Program details, minimize duplicative administrative costs, and enhance the possibility that programs can be marketed together to avoid duplicative marketing expenditures. 6.1.4. Consistent with those contained in the PIP, SCE and the City will work together to develop and accomplish additional mutually agreeable goals. ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT 6.2. Obligations of the City. 6.2.1. The City will appoint an "Energy Champion" who will be the primary contact between the City, other Program Participants, and the SCE Energy Efficiency Representative (defined in Section 6.3.1), and who will be authorized to act on behalf of the City in carrying out the City's obligations under this Agreement. Such appointment shall be communicated in writing to SCE within 10 Business Days following execution of this Agreement. The City shall communicate regularly with the SCE Energy Efficiency Representative in accordance with Section 7.2 and 7.3 hereof, and shall advise SCE immediately of any problems or delays associated with its Authorized Work obligations. 6.2.2. The City shall perform its Authorized Work obligations within the Partner Budget and in conformance with the schedule and goals associated with such Authorized Work as set forth in this Agreement, and shall furnish the required labor, equipment and material with the degree of skill, care and professionalism that is required by current professional standards. 6.2.3. The City will be actively involved in all aspects of the Program. The City will use its best efforts to (a) dedicate human resources necessary to implement the Program successfully, (b) providing support for the Program's marketing and outreach activities, and (c) working to enhance communications with SCE to address consumer needs. 6.2.4. The City shall obtain the approval of SCE when developing Program marketing materials and prior to their distribution, publication, circulation, or dissemination in any way to the public. In addition, all advertising, marketing or otherwise printed or reproduced material used to implement, refer to, or that is in any way related to the Program must contain the respective name and logo of SCE and, at a minimum, the following language: "This Program is funded by California utility ratepayers and adm.in.istered by Southern California Edison under the auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission." 6.2.5. The City shall obtain the approval of SCE prior to conducting any Program public outreach activities (exhibits, displays, public presentations, canvassing, etc.) and any marketing materials used in connection with such outreach activity shall comply with the requirements of Section 6.2.4. 6.2.6. The City shall submit to SCE, upon its request, all contracts, agreements or other requested documents with the City's Contractors (including subcontractors) performing Authorized Work in connection with the Program. ENERGY LEADER PAR "INLRSHIPPROGRAM AGRELMEN "I 7 6.2.7. The City acknowledges and agrees that the Program has other Program Participants, and that no one Program Participant is entitled to the entire Authorized Partnership Budget, and that the City shall work with SCE and each other Program Participants to achieve the goals and accomplish the Authorized Work of the Program. 6.3. Obligations of SCE. 6.3.1. SCE will appoint a Partnership representative ( "SCE Energy Efficiency Representative ") who will be the primary contact between SCE, other Program Participants, and the City, and who will be authorized to act on behalf of SCE in carrying out SCE's obligations under this Agreement. Such appointment shall be communicated in writing to the City within 10 Business Days following execution of this Agreement. 6.3.2. SCE will oversee the activities and implementation of the Program, in accordance with this Agreement. 6.3.3. SCE will be actively involved in all aspects of the Program. SCE will use its best efforts to add value to the Program by (a) dedicating human resources necessary to assist the City in implementing the Program successfully and providing and maintaining an SCE presence in the City, (b) providing support for the Program's marketing and outreach activities, and (c) working to enhance communications with the City to address consumer needs and provide SCE information and services. 6.3.4. SCE shall provide, at no cost to the City, informational and educational materials on SCE's statewide and local energy efficiency core prograzns. 6.3.5. SCE shall work with the City as requested to help identify cost - effective energy efficient projects in the City's qualifying municipal facilities within SCE's service territory. 6.3.6. SCE shall administer the PGC funds authorized by the Commission for the Program in accordance with this Agreement, and SCE shall reimburse the City for Program Expenditures in accordance with Section 10 below. 6.3.7. SCE shall be responsible for coordinating and ensuring compliance with. all reporting and other filing requirements. 6.3.8. SCE shall be responsible for tracking performance of the City in accordance with Section 1.0.1.2, and for verifying all energy savings and demand reduction claims of the City, and for monitoring and verifying achievement of the Partner Levels as described in Exhibit A. ENERGY LEADER PAR I NERSHIP PROGRAM AGREENIENT 8 6.4. EM &V. Once the Commission has approved and issued an evaluation, measurement and verification ( "EM &V ") plan for the Program, such EM &V plan shall be attached to this Agreement as Exhibit D and shall be incorporated herein by this reference. Any subsequent changes or modifications to such EM &V plan by the Commission shall be automatically incorporated into Exhibit D. The City shall provide and comply with all Commission/SCE requests regarding activities related to EM &V. The City and its Contractors shall cooperate fully with the SCE Energy Efficiency Representative and will provide all requested information, if any, to assure the timely completion of all EM &V Plan tasks requiring the City's involvement or cooperation. 7. ADMINISTRATION OF PROGRAM 7.1. Decision - making and Approval. 7.1.1. Except as specifically provided in this Agreement, the following actions and tasks require consent of both Parties: a. Any material modification to the Authorized Work in connection with the Program. b. Any action that materially impacts the agreed -upon schedule for implementing the Program. C. Selection of any Contractor not previously approved by SCE. 7.1..2. Unless otherwise specified in this Agreement, the Parties shall document all material Program decisions, including, without limitation, all actions specified in Section 7.1.1 above, in meeting minutes or if' taken outside a meeting, through written communication, which shall be maintained in hard copy form on file by the Parties for a period of no less than five (5) years after the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 7.2. Regular Meetings. During the term of this Agreement, the Program Participant representatives of the Partnership identified in writing pursuant to Section 6.2.1 and 6.3.1 respectively, along with such members of the Partnership team as the Parties deem necessary or appropriate, shall meet monthly at a location reasonably agreed upon by the Parties. In addition to any other agenda items requested by either Party, the agenda shall include a review the status of the City's performance against Partner 'Budget, toward achievement of the goals set forth in Exhibit B, and the Partnership's progress towards meeting overall Partnership goals set forth in Exhibit C. Any decision - making shall be reached and documented in accordance with the requirements of Section 7.1 above. 7.3. Re -ular Communication. Regular communication among Partnership representatives is critical for the long -term success of the Partnership and achievement of Partnership goals and objectives. Notwithstanding Section 7.2, above, the Partnership representatives identified in writing by each Partner pursuant to Sections 6.2.1 and 6.3.1, respectively, including other Program Participants, shall communicate regularly with each other to review the status of ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT 9 the Program's goals, deliverables, schedules and budgets, and plan for upcoming Program implementation activities, and to advise the other Party of any problems associated with successful implementation of the Program. Any decision - making during this communication process shall be reached and documented in accordance with the requirements of Section 7.1 above. 7.4. Non - Responsibility for Other Party. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Agreement in the contrary, a Party shall not be responsible for the performance or non - performance hereunder of the other Party, nor be obligated to remedy any other Party's defaults or defective performance. ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT 10 8. DOUBLE DIPPING PROHIBITED In performing its respective Authorized Work obligations, the City shall implement the following mechanism and shall take other practicable steps to minimize double- dipping: 8.1. Prior to providing incentives or services to an Eligible Customer, the City and its Contractors shall obtain a signed form from such Eligible Customer stating that: 8.1.1. Such Eligible Customer has not received incentives or services fbr the same measure from any other SCE program or from another utility, state, or local program; and 8.1.2. Such Eligible Customer agrees not to apply for or receive Incentives or services for the same measure from any other SCE program or from another utility, state, or local program. Each Party shall keep its Customer - signed forms for at least five (5) years after the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 8.2. No Party shall knowingly provide an incentive to an Eligible Customer, or make payment to a Contractor, who is receiving compensation for the same product or service either through another ratepayer funded program, or through any other funding source. 8.3. The City represents and warrants that it or its Contractors has not received, and will not apply for or accept Incentives or services for any measure provided for herein or offered pursuant to this Agreement or the Program from any other SCE program or from any other utility, state or local program. 8.4. The Parties shall take reasonable steps to minimize or avoid the provision of incentives or services for the same measures provided under the Program from another program or other funding source ( "double- dipping"). 9. REPORTING 9.1. Reporting Requirements. The Parties shall implement those reporting requirements set forth in Exhibit E attached hereto, as the same may be amended from time to time, or until the Connnission otherwise requires or issues different or updated reporting requirements for the Program, in which case and at which time such Commission - approved reporting requirements shall replace the requirements set forth in Exhibit E in their entirety. 10. PAYMENTS 10.1. Partner Buda'et 10.1.L Maximrnn Budget: The Partner Budget is set forth in Exhibit. B to this Agreement and represents the City's maximum share of the ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT 11 Program's three -year Authorized Partnership Budget. Additionally, Exhibit B sets forth the maximum non - Incentive budget on a periodic basis during the Program. The City shall not be entitled to compensation in excess of the Partner Budget (either on a periodic basis or in total), without written authorization by SCE and receipt of a revised Exhibit B. Consistent with Commission directives to maximize cost - effectiveness and energy savings, the Partner Budget set forth in Exhibit B may be reallocated or adjusted at any time by SCE in its sole discretion, based upon SCE's evaluation of the City's commitment to, and progress toward the City's energy savings goals set forth herein. 10.1.2. Tracking: SCE will track the City's performance against the objectives set forth in Section 4.2 hereof, including tracking (or estimating) achievement towards the specific energy savings and demand reduction goals set forth in Exhibit B, and will provide such tracking information to the City on a regular basis, but in no event less than quarterly. The tracking will enable SCE, to (i) properly allocate the Authorized Partnership Budget among all the Energy Leader Partnerships according to their individual performance and achievement of respective goals and objectives, (ii) confirm or amend the Partner Budget, set forth in Exhibit B hereto, based on the City's performance of the goals and objectives set forth in this Agreement; and (iii) determine /verify the City's eligibility to move to a new Energy Leader Level as described in Section 3.2 hereof. 10.1.3. Partner Budget Adjustment: The Parties acknowledge that this Program is offered in furtherance of the Commission's strategic energy efficiency goals for California and is based on the City's commitment to attain such goals and its desire to provide leadership to its community. To this end, in the event that SCE determines, in its sole discretion and through the tracking mechanism set forth in 10.1.2 above, that the City is not performing in accordance with the goals and objectives set forth in Section 4.2 hereof, then SCE shall have the unilateral right to reduce, eliminate, or otherwise adjust the Partner Budget for the remaining Program year or years (other than for Program Expenditures previously approved by SCE) by amending Exhibit B and providing the amended Exhibit to the City. Pursuant to this Section, any such amended Exhibit B shall automatically be incorporated into this Agreement and take effect immediately upon delivery from SCE to the City. 10.1.4. Partner Budget Cate og ries a. Non- Incentive_ Budge t: The Partner Budget is comprised of a non - incentive portion which includes separate categories for Marketing, Education & Outreach, Technical Assistance [and Direct Implementation], all of which are more fully described in the Program Implementation Plan (Exhibit C). ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT 12 b. Incentive Budget: As part of the Partner Budget, the City shall be eligible to receive certain enhanced Incentives through partnership participation in SCE core programs, as well as additional incentives consistent with the City's tier level of program participation, including completion of municipal retrofit projects further described in this Agreement and in the Program Implementation Plan. The additional Incentives will be made available as the City reaches higher Energy Leadership Partnership Levels in accordance with Exhibit A. 10.2. Pro ram Expenditures of City. The City, with SCE's prior approval, shall be entitled to spend PGC funds, within the limits of the Partner Budget, on Program Expenditures. The City shall not be entitled to reimbursement of Program Expenditures for any item (i) not specifically identifiable to the Program, (ii) not previously approved by SCE, (iii) not expended within the term of this Agreement, or (iv) not otherwise reimbursable under this Agreement. 10.3. Payment to the City. In order for the City to be entitled to PGC funds for Program Expenditures: 10.3.1. The City shall submit monthly activity reports to SCE in a format acceptable to SCE and containing such information as may be required for the reporting requirements set forth in Section 9 above ( "Monthly City Reports "), by the tenth (10 "') Calendar Day of the calendar month following performance, setting forth all Program Expenditures. 10.3.2. The City shall submit to SCE, together with any Monthly City Report (if required), a monthly invoice for reimbursement of reported Program Expenditures, in a format acceptable to SCE, attaching all documentation reasonably necessary to substantiate the Program Expenditures, including, without limitation, the following: a. Contractor Costs: Copies of all Contractor invoices. If only a portion of Contractor costs applies to the Program, the City shall clearly indicate the line items or percentage of the invoice amount that should be applied to the Program as provided in Exhibit E. b. Marketing, Education & Outreach: A copy of each distinct marketing material produced, with quantity of a given marketing material produced and the method of distribution. C. Other expenditures: As pre - approved by SCE, with sufficient documentation to support the expenditure. d. Allowable Costs: Only those costs as listed in the Allowable Cost Table contained in the Reporting Requirements attached as Exhibit E can be submitted for payment. All invoices ENERGY LEADER PAR' NERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT 13 submitted to SCE must report all costs using the allowable cost elements shown on the Allowable Cost Table. The City understands and acknowledges that all of the City's invoices for the Program and the Monthly City Report shall be submitted to SCE. 10.3.3. SCE reserves the right to reject any City invoiced amount for any of the following reasons: a. The invoiced amount, when aggregated with previous Program Expenditures, exceeds the amount budgeted therefore in the Partner Budget for such Authorized Work (as set forth in Exhibit B). b. There is a reasonable basis for concluding that such invoiced amount is unreasonable or is not directly identifiable to or required for the Authorized Work, and/or the Program. C. The invoiced amount, in SCE's sole discretion, contains charges for any item not authorized under this Agreement or by the Commission, or is deemed untimely, unsubstantiated or lacking proper documentation. 10.3.4. The City shall maintain for a period of not less than five (5) years all documentation reasonably necessary to substantiate the Program Expenditures, including, without limitation, the documentation set forth in Section 10.3.2 above. The City shall promptly provide, upon the reasonable request by SCE, any documentation, records or information in connection with the Program or its Authorized World. SCE shall review and either approve, dispute or reject for payment reported Program Expenditures within twenty (20) Calendar Days of receipt of the Monthly City Report and corresponding invoice. SCE shall pay all undisputed amounts after the ten (10) Calendar Day period described in Section 10.3.1, but within thirty (30) Calendar Days of receiving the Monthly City Report and corresponding invoice. 1.0.3 Payment of Incentives. Payment of Incentives to the City shall be made in accordance with the applicable SCE program requirements, including terms and conditions, and only after appropriate program documents have been submitted and approved, and the appropriate inspections of each Project have been completed to SCE's satisfaction. 10.4. Shifting Funds. SCI; may shift fiends within the Authorized Partnership Budget among Program Participants, and/or may shift funds within the Partner Budget among budget categories (Marketing, Education & Outreach, Technical Assistance, [Direct Implementation] and Incentives), which categories and budget amounts are set forth in Exhibit B. Such shifting may be made by SCE to the ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT 14 maximum extent permitted under, and in accordance with, Commission decisions and rulings to which the Program relates. 10.5. Reasonableness of Expenditures. The City shall bear the burden of ensuring that its Program Expenditures are objectively reasonable. The Commission has the authority to review all Program Expenditures for reasonableness. Should the Commission, at any time, issue a finding of unreasonableness as to any Program Expenditure and require a refund or return of the PGC funds paid in the reimbursement of such Program Expenditure, the City shall be solely liable for such refund or return. 11. END DATE FOR PROGRAM AND ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIVITIES Unless this Agreement is terminated pursuant to Section 25 below, or unless otherwise agreed to by the Parties or so ordered by the Commission, the Parties shall complete all Program Administrative activities (as defined in the PIP) and all reporting requirements by no later than March 31, 2013, and all Direct Implementation and Marketing & Outreach activities by no later than December 31, 2012. 12. FINAL INVOICES The City must submit final invoices to SCE no later than March 31, 2013. 13. INDEMNITY 13.1. Indemnity by the City. The City shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless SCE, and its respective successors, assigns, affiliates, subsidiaries, current and future parent companies, officers, directors, agents, and employees, from and against any and all expenses, claims, losses, damages, liabilities or actions in respect thereof (including reasonable attorneys' fees) to the extent arising from (a) the City's negligence or willful misconduct in the City's activities under the Program or performance of its obligations hereunder, or (b) the City's breach of this Agreement or of any representation or warranty of the City contained in this Agreement. 13.2. Indemnitv by SCE. SCE shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, and its respective successors, assigns, affiliates, subsidiaries, current and future parent companies, officers, directors, agents, and employees, from and against any and all expenses, claims, losses, damages, liabilities or actions in respect thereof (including reasonable attorneys' fees) to the extent arising from (a) SCE's negligence or willful misconduct in SCE's activities under the Program or performance of its obligations hereunder or (b) SCE's breach of this Agreement or any representation or warranty of SCE contained in this Agreement. 13.3. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. NO PARTY SHALL BE LIABLE TO THE OTHER PARTY FOR ANY INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WHATSOEVER WHETHER IN CONTRACT, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE) OR STRICT LIABILITY INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, LOSS OF USE OF OR UNDER- UTILIZATION OF LABOR OR FACILITIES, LOSS OF REVENUE OR ANTICIPATED PROFITS, COST OF REPLACEMENT POWER ENERGY LEADI R PAR] TNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT 15 OR CLAIMS FROM CUSTOMERS, RESULTING FROM A PARTY'S PERFORMANCE OR NONPERFORMANCE OF THE OBLIGATIONS HEREUNDER, OR IN THE EVENT OF SUSPENSION OF THE AUTHORIZED WORK OR TERMINATION OF THIS AGREEMENT. 14. OWNERSHIP OF DEVELOPMENTS The Parties acknowledge and agree that SCE, on behalf of its Customers, shall own all data, reports, information, manuals, computer programs, works of authorship, designs or improvements of equipment, tools or processes (collectively "Developments ") or other written, recorded, photographic or visual materials, or other deliverables produced in the performance of this Agreement; provided, however, that Developments do not include equipment or infrastructure purchased for research, development, education or demonstration related to energy efficiency. Although the City shall retain no ownership, interest, or title in the Developments except as may otherwise be provided in this Agreement, it will have a permanent, royalty free, non - exclusive license to use such Developments. 15. DISPUTE RESOLUTION 15.1. Dispute Resolution. Except as may otherwise be set forth expressly herein, all disputes arising under this Agreement shall be resolved as set forth in this Section 15. 15.2. Negotiation and Mediation. The Parties shall attempt in good faith to resolve any dispute arising out of or relating to this Agreement promptly by negotiations between the Parties' authorized representatives. The disputing Party shall give the other Party written notice of any dispute. Within twenty (20) Calendar Days after delivery of such notice, the authorized representatives shall meet at a mutually acceptable time and place, and thereafter as often as they reasonably deem necessary to exchange information and to attempt to resolve the dispute. If the matter has not been resolved within thirty (30) Calendar Days of the first meeting, any Party may initiate a mediation of the dispute. The mediation shall be facilitated by a mediator that is acceptable to both Parties and shall conclude within sixty (60) Calendar Days of its commencement, unless the Parties agree to extend the mediation process beyond such deadline. Upon agreeing on a mediator, the Parties shall enter into a written agreement for the mediation services with each Party paying a pro rata share of the mediator's fee, if any. The mediation shall be conducted in accordance with the Commercial Mediation Rules of the American Arbitration Association; provided, however, that no consequential damages shall be awarded in any such proceeding and each Party shall bear its own legal fees and expenses. 15.3. Confidentiality. All negotiations and any mediation conducted pursuant to Section 15.2 shall be confidential and shall be treated as compromise and settlement negotiations, to which Section 1152 of the California Evidence Code shall apply, which Section is incorporated in this Agreement by reference. ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT 16 15.4. Injunctive Relief. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, a Party may seek a preliminary injunction or other provisional judicial remedy if in its judgment such action is necessary to avoid irreparable damage or to preserve the status quo. 15.5. Continuing Obligation. Each Party shall continue to perform its obligations under this Agreement pending final resolution of any dispute arising out of or relating to this Agreement. 15.6. Failure of Mediation. If, after good faith efforts to mediate a dispute under the terms of this Agreement as provided in Section 15.2 above, the Parties cannot agree to a resolution of the dispute, any Party may pursue whatever legal remedies may be available to it at law or in equity, before a court of competent jurisdiction and with venue as provided in Section 15.2. 16. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES 16.1. Representation of both Parties. Each Party represents and warrants, as of the Effective Date and thereafter during the term of this Agreement, that: 16.1.1. The Authorized Work performed by a Party and/or its Contractors shall comply with the applicable requirements of all statutes, acts, ordinances, regulations, codes, and standards of federal, state, local and foreign governments, and all agencies thereof. 16.1.2. The Authorized Work performed by a Party and/or its Contractors shall be free of any claim of trade secret, trade mark, trade name, copyright, or patent infringement or other violations of any proprietary rights of any person. 16.1.3. Each Party shall conform to the applicable employment practices requirements of (Presidential) Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, as amended, and applicable regulations promulgated thereunder. 16.1.4. Each Party shall contractually require each Contractor it hires to perform the Authorized Work to indemnify each other Party to the same extent such Party has indemnified each other Party under the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 16.1.5. Each Party shall retain, and shall cause its Contractors to retain, all records and documents pertaining to its Authorized Work obligations for a period of not less than five (5) years beyond the termination or expiration of this Agreement. 16.1.6. Each Party shall contractually require all of its Contractors to provide the other Parties reasonable access to relevant records and staff of Contractors concerning the Authorized Work, 16.1.7. Each Party will maintain, and may require its Contractors to maintain, the following insurance coverage or self insurance ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT 17 coverage, at all times during the term of this Agreement, with companies having an A.M. Best rating of "A -, VII" or better, or equivalent: W Workers' Compensation/Employer's Liability or Equivalent: statutory minimum. (ii) Commercial General Liability: $2 million minimum per occurrence /$4 million minimum aggregate. (iii) Commercial or Business Auto (if applicable): $1 million minimum. (iv) Professional Liability (if applicable): $1 million minimum. 1.6.1.8 Each Party shall take all reasonable measures, and shall require its Contractors to take all reasonable measures, to ensure that the Program funds in its possession are used solely for Authorized Work, which measures shall include the highest degree of care that such Party uses to control its own funds, but in no event less than a reasonable degree of care. 17. PROOF OF INSURANCE 17.1. Evidence of Insurance. Upon request at any time during the term of this Agreement, a Party shall provide evidence that its insurance policies (and the insurance policies of any Contractor, as provided in Section 16.8) are in full force and effect, and provide the coverage and limits of insurance that the Party has represented and warranted herein to maintain at all times during the term of this Agreement. 17.2. Self- Insurance. If a Party is self - insured, such Party shall upon request forward docmnentation to the other Party that demonstrates to the other Party's satisfaction that such Party self- insures as a matter of normal business practice before commencing the Authorized Work. Each Party will accept reasonable proof of self - insurance comparable to the above requirements. 17.3. Notice of Claims. Each Party shall immediately report to the other Party, and promptly thereafter confirm in writing, the occurrence of any injury, loss or damage incurred by such Party or its Contractors or such Party's receipt of notice or knowledge of any claim by a third party of any occurrence that might give rise to such a claim over $1.00,000. ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT 18 18. CUSTOMER CONFIDENTIALITY REQUIREMENTS 1.8.1. Non - Disclosure. Subject to any disclosures required pursuant to the Public Records Act, the City, its employees, agents and Contractors shall not disclose any Confidential Customer Information (defined below) to any third party during the term of this Agreement or after its completion, without the City having obtained the prior written consent of SCE, except as provided by law, lawful court order or subpoena and provided the City gives SCE advance written notice of such order or subpoena. 18.2. Confidential Customer Information. "Confidential Customer Information" includes, but is not limited to, an SCE customer's name, address, telephone number, account number and all billing and usage information, as well as any SCE customer's information that is marked "confidential ". If the City is uncertain whether any information should be considered Confidential Customer Information, the City shall contact SCE prior to disclosing the customer information. 18.3. Non - Disclosure Agreement. Prior to any approved disclosure of Confidential Customer Information, SCE may require the City to enter into a nondisclosure agreement. 18.4. Commission Proceedings. This provision does not prohibit the City from disclosing non - confidential information concerning the Authorized Work to the Commission in any Commission proceeding, or any Commission - sanctioned meeting or proceeding or other public forum. 18.5. Return of Confidential Information. Confidential Customer Information (including all copies, backups and abstracts thereof) provided to the City by SCE, and any and all documents and materials containing such Confidential Customer Information or produced by the City based on such Confidential Customer Information (including all copies, backups and abstracts thereof), during the performance of this Agreement shall be returned upon written request by SCE. 18.6. Remedies. The Parties acknowledge that Confidential Customer Information is valuable and unique, and that damages would be an inadequate remedy for breach of this Section 18 and the obligations of the Parties are specifically enforceable. Accordingly, the Parties agree that in the event of a breach or threatened breach of this Section 1.8 by the City, SCE shall be entitled to seek and obtain an injunction preventing such breach, without the necessity of proving damages or posting any bond. Any such relief shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of', money damages or any other available legal or equitable remedy. 19. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE The Parties hereby acknowledge that time is of the essence in performing their obligations under this Agreement. Failure to comply with milestones and goals stated in this Agreement, including but not limited to those set forth in Exhibit B of this Agreement, may constitute a material breach of this Agreement, resulting in its termination, payments ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT 19 being withheld, Partner Budgets being reduced or adjusted, funding redirected by SCE to other programs or partners, or other Program modifications as determined by SCE or as directed by the Commission. 20. CUSTOMER COMPLAINT RESOLUTION PROCESS The Parties shall develop and implement a process for the management and resolution of Customer complaints in an expedited manner including, but not limited to: (a) ensuring adequate levels of professional Customer service staff; (b) direct access of Customer complaints to supervisory and/or management personnel; (c) documenting each Customer complaint upon receipt; and (d) directing any Customer complaint that is not resolved within five (5) Calendar Days of receipt by the City to SCE. 21. RESTRICTIONS ON MARKETING 21.1. Use of Commission's Name. No Party may use the name of the Commission on marketing materials for the Program without prior written approval from the Commission staff. In order to obtain this written approval, SCE must send a copy of the planned materials to the Commission requesting approval to use the Commission name and/or logo. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Parties shall disclose their source of funding for the Program by stating prominently on marketing materials that the Program is "funded by California ratepayers under the auspices of the California Public Utilities Commission." 21.2. Use of SCE Name. The City must receive prior review and written approval fiom SCE for the use of SCE's name or logo on any marketing or other Program materials. The City shall allow five (5) Business Days for SCE review and approval. If the City has not received a response from SCE within the five (5) Business Day period, then it shall be deemed that SCE has disapproved such use. 21.3. Use of the City's Name. SCE must receive prior review and written approval from the City for the use of the City's name or logo on any marketing or other Program materials. SCE shall allow five (5) Business Days for the City's review and approval. If SCE has not received a response from the City within the five (5) Business Day period, then it shall be deemed that the City has disapproved such use. 22. RIGHT TO AUDIT The Parties agrees that the other Party, and/or the Commission, or their respective designated representatives, shall have the right to review and to copy any records or supporting documentation pertaining to the their performance of this Agreement or the Authorized Work, during normal business hours, and to allow reasonable access in order to interview any staff of the City or SCE who might reasonably have information related to such records. Further, the Parties agrees to include a similar right of the other Party and/or the Commission to audit records and interview staff in any subcontract related to performance of the Authorized Work or this Agreement. ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRANI AGREEMENT 20 23. STOP WORK PROCEDURES SCE may suspend the Authorized Work being performed in their service territory for good cause, including, without limitation, concerns relating to program funding, implementation or management of the Program, safety concerns, fraud or excessive customer complaints, by notifying the City in writing to suspend any Authorized Work being performed in SCE' service territory. Any performance of Authorized Work by the City in SCE's service territory shall stop immediately, and the City may resume its Authorized Work only upon receiving written notice from SCE that it may resume its Authorized Work. 24. MODIFICATIONS Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, changes to this Agreement shall be only be valid through a written amendment to this Agreement signed by both Parties. 25. TERM AND TERMINATION 25.1. Term. This Agreement shall be effective as of the Effective Date. Subject to Section 37, the Agreement shall. continue in effect until June 30, 2013 unless otherwise terminated in accordance with the provisions of Section 25.2 or 30 below. 25.2. Termination for Breach. Any Party may terminate this Agreement in the event of a material breach by the other Party of any of the material terms or conditions of this Agreement, provided such breach is not remedied within sixty (60) days written notice to the breaching Party thereof from the non - breaching Party or otherwise resolved. pursuant to the dispute resolution provisions set forth in Section 15 herein. 25.3. Effect of Termination. Any termination by the City or by SCE shall constitute a termination of this Agreement in its entirety (subject, however, to the survival provisions of Section 37). 25.3.1. Subject to the provisions of this Agreement, the City shall be entitled to PGC Funds for all Program Expenditures incurred or accrued pursuant to contractual or other legal obligations for Authorized Work up to the effective date of termination of this Agreement, provided that any Monthly City Reports or other reports, invoices, documents or information required under this Agreement or by the Commission are submitted in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The provisions of this Section 25.3.1 shall be the City's sole compensation resulting from any termination of this Agreement. 25.3.2. In the event of termination of this Agreement in its entirety, the City shall stop any Authorized Work in progress and take action as directed by SCE to bring the Authorized Work to an orderly ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT 21 conclusion, and the Parties shall work cooperatively to facilitate the termination of operations and of any applicable contracts for Authorized Work. 26. WRITTEN NOTICES Any written notice, demand or request required or authorized in connection with this Agreement, shall be deemed properly given if delivered in person or sent by facsimile, nationally recognized overnight courier, or first class mail, postage prepaid, to the address specified below, or to another address specified in writing by a Party as follows: The City: SCE: City of Newport Beach Southern California Edison Company Iris Lee Bernard Adebayo -Ige 3300 Newport Blvd. 1515 Walnut Grove Newport Beach, CA 92663 Rosemead, CA 91770 Notices shall be deemed received (a) if personally or hand - delivered, upon the date of delivery to the address of the person to receive such notice if delivered before 5:00 p.m., or otherwise on the Business Day following personal delivery; (b) if mailed, three (3) Business Days after the date the notice is postmarked; (c) if by facsimile, upon electronic confirmation of transmission, followed by telephone notification of transmission by the noticing Party; or (d) if by overnight courier, on the Business Day following delivery to the overnight courier within the time limits set by that courier for next -day delivery. 27. CONTRACTS Each Party shall, at all times, be responsible for its Authorized Work obligations, and acts and omissions of Contractors, subcontractors and persons directly or indirectly employed by such Party for services in connection with the Authorized Work. Each Party shall require its Contractors to be bound by terms and conditions which are the same or similar to those contained in this Agreement, as the same may be applicable to Contractors. 28. RELATIONSHIP OF THE PARTIES The Parties shall act in an independent capacity and not as officers or employees or agents of each other. This Agreement is not intended to and does not form any "partnership" within the meaning of the California Uniform Partnership Act of 1994 or otherwise, 29. NON-DISCRIMINATION CLAUSE No Party shall unlawfully discriminate, harass, or allow harassment against any employee or applicant for employment because of sex, race, color, ancestry, religious creed, national origin, physical disability (including HIV and AIDS), mental disability, medical condition (cancer), age (over 40), marital status, and denial of family care leave. Each Party shall ensure that the evaluation and treatment of its employees and applicants for employment are free from such discrimination and harassment, and shall comply with the provisions of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (Government Code Section 12990 (a)- ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT 22 (f), set forth in Chapter 5 of Division 4 of Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations, are incorporated into this Agreement by reference and made a part hereof as if set forth in full. Each Party represents and warrants that it shall include the substance of the nondiscrimination and compliance provisions of this clause in all subcontracts for its Authorized Work obligations. 30. COMMISSION /SCE AUTHORITY TO MODIFY OR TERMINATE This Agreement and the Program shall at all times be subject to the discretion of the Commission, including, but not limited to, review and modifications, excusing a Party's performance hereunder, or termination as the Commission may direct from time to time in the reasonable exercise of its jurisdiction. In addition, in the event that any ruling, decision or other action by the Commission adversely impacts the Program, SCE shall have the right to terminate this Agreement in accordance with the provisions of Section 25 above by providing at least ten (10) days' prior written notice to the City setting forth the effective date of such termination. Notwithstanding the right to terminate, as partners in the Program, the Parties agree to share in the responsibility and to abide by Commission energy policy supporting this Program. The Parties agree to use all reasonable efforts to minimize the adverse impact to a Party resulting from such Commission actions, including but not limited to modification of the required energy savings goals set forth in Section 4.2 which are fundamental to this Agreement. 31. NON - WAIVER None of the provisions of this Agreement shall be considered waived by either Party unless such waiver is specifically stated in writing. 32. ASSIGNMENT No Party shall assign this Agreement or any part or interest thereof, without the prior written consent of the other Party, and any assignment without such consent shall be void and of no effect. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if SCE is requested or required by the Commission to assign its rights and/or delegate its duties hereunder, in whole or in part, such assignment or delegation shall not require the City's consent and SCE shall be released from all obligations hereunder arising after the effective date of such assignment, both as principal and as surety. 33. FORCE MAJEURE Failure of a Party to perform its obligations under this Agreement by reason of any of the following shall not constitute an event of default or breach of this Agreement: strikes, picket lines, boycott efforts, earthquakes, fires, floods, war (whether or not declared), revolution, riots, insurrections, acts of God, acts of government (including, without limitation, any agency or department of the United States of America), acts of terrorism, acts of the public enemy, scarcity or rationing of gasoline or other fuel or vital products, inability to obtain materials or labor, or other causes which are reasonably beyond the control of such Party. ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT 23 34. SEVERABILITY In the event that any of the terms, covenants or conditions of this Agreement, or the application of any such term, covenant or condition, shall be held invalid as to any person or circumstance by any court, regulatory agency, or other regulatory body having jurisdiction, all other terms, covenants, or conditions of this Agreement and their application shall not be affected thereby, but shall remain in full force and effect, unless a court, regulatory agency, or other regulatory body holds that the provisions are not separable from all other provisions of this Agreement. 35. GOVERNING LAW; VENUE This Agreement shall be interpreted, governed, and construed under the laws of the State of California as if executed and to be performed wholly within the State of California. Any action brought to enforce or interpret this Agreement shall be filed in Los Angeles County, California. 36. SECTION HEADINGS Section headings appearing in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall not be construed as interpretations of text. 37. SURVIVAL Notwithstanding completion or termination of this Agreement, the Parties shall continue to be bound by the provisions of this Agreement which by their nature survive such completion or termination. Such provisions shall include, but are not limited to, Sections 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 1.8, 22, 35 and 38 of this Agreement. 38. ATTORNEYS' FEES Except as otherwise provided herein, in the event of any legal action or other proceeding between the Parties arising out of this Agreement or the transactions contemplated herein, each Party in such legal action or proceeding shall bear its own costs and expenses incurred therein, including reasonable attorneys' fees. 39. COOPERATION Each Party agrees to cooperate with the other Party in whatever manner is reasonably required to facilitate the successfid completion of this Agreement. 40. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Agreement (including all of the Exhibits and Attachments hereto which are incorporated into this Agreement by this reference) contains the entire agreement and understanding between the Parties and merges and supersedes all prior agreements, representations and discussions pertaining to the subject matter of this Agreement. ENERGY LEADER PAK'fNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT 24 41. COUNTERPARTS. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which together shall be deemed to be one and the same instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives. The City: NEWPORT BEACH Name: Dave Kiff Title: City Manager SCE: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY By: Erwin Furukawa Title: Senior Vice President, Customer Service RIO FO City Attorney ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT 25 EXHIBIT A ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP - PROGRAM LEVEL * Baseline numbers are nunually (greed upon far purposes of this APvemenl oid.). Energy Leaders Partnership levels are: valued Partner Level — This level is the entry level for the partner to develop knowledge and establish goals towards the Silver Level. A budget is available for energy savings projects, for marketing, education, and outreach to the community, as well as for technical assistance toward upgrading or retrofitting partners' facilities. SCE's core program incentives will be oflered directly to the partner. The partner will be expected to use the marketing and outreach funds to generate verifiable energy savings in their own facilities and in the community and will participate in demand response at a basic level. Valued Level provides the Partner with 3 cents per kWh paid in addition to what is paid to the Partner under SCE's core program. Partner will need to meet the hollowing DR requirement: Enroll in California's Statewide Flex Alert and implement an internal educational campaign. Silver Level—To qualify for this level, the partner demonstrates past participation in SCE energy efficiency programs, develops an energy action plan, sets community and CITY energy reduction goals, tmgets 25 percent of its iacilkies to complete energy efficiency upgrades, and participates in demand response. An enhanced incentive is paid at the Silver Level. Silver Level provides the Partner with 6 cents per kWh paid in addition to what is paid to the Partner under SCE's core program. Parmn a will need to meet the following DR requirements: I -At least one (I ) eligible facility to participate in one (1) SCE Demand Response program 2 -At least one (I) eligible facility to develop a Demand Reduction Action Plan to be followed during a Flex Alert event 3- Distribute Encrgy Solutions brochure to partner employees 4- Complete an integrated Demand Side Management (iDSM) audit at all eligible facilities. Gold Level — To quality 1'01 this level, the partner demonsh'nles higher past participation in SCE energy efficiency programs, establishes higher CITY and community program participation and energy savings goals and makes a higher commitment to participate in demand response. Incentive factors are higher for partner facilities' energy efficiency projects. Gold Level provides the Panne - with 9 cents per kWh paid in addition to what is paid io the Partner under SCE's Core progmm. Partner will need to meet the following DR rcqunennents: 1 -Have at least 25'% of eligible facilities' participate in an SCE Demand Response program 2- Conduct co- branded marketing and outreach m residential customers on SCE's Demand Response programs 3 -At least one (1) eligible facility implement a DR measure recommended from the iDSM audit. Platinum Level — to qualify for this level, the pmYner demonstrates even higher past participation in cttcrgy efficiency programs, is innovative and integrates Encrgy Action Plan policies, ordinances and procedures. All facilities are targeted for energy efficiency upgrades- and the partner makes a higher conmoimnent to participate in Demand Response. Incentive factors arc highest lit Pariner lacilities energy efficiency projects and additional incentives arc made available ru cuslomizcd community euergy efficiency projects. Platinum Level provides the Panne with 12 cents per kWh paid in addition to what is paid 10 the Panne under SCEs core program. Partner will need to meet the follorvin, DR requncrnents- I -At least one (I) eligible facility most participate in SCE s Auto Demmnd ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGRE-EMEN1 26 City 2004 City 2004 -2010 Participation/ City's Retrofit Community Baseline Energy Savings Savings Energy Energy Energy Consumption* Percentage Leader Savings Saving Program Required 'Required Level: for next for next Level Level Municipal Facilities 12,046,068 148,405 kWh 1.23% Valued 453,898 N/A kWh net Partner kWh net Community 945,206,627 46,621,649 4.93% Valued N/A 638,682 kWh kWh net Partner kWh 2010-2012 ----- - - - - - ----- Valued 453,898 638,682 Partner kWh net kWh * Baseline numbers are nunually (greed upon far purposes of this APvemenl oid.). Energy Leaders Partnership levels are: valued Partner Level — This level is the entry level for the partner to develop knowledge and establish goals towards the Silver Level. A budget is available for energy savings projects, for marketing, education, and outreach to the community, as well as for technical assistance toward upgrading or retrofitting partners' facilities. SCE's core program incentives will be oflered directly to the partner. The partner will be expected to use the marketing and outreach funds to generate verifiable energy savings in their own facilities and in the community and will participate in demand response at a basic level. Valued Level provides the Partner with 3 cents per kWh paid in addition to what is paid to the Partner under SCE's core program. Partner will need to meet the hollowing DR requirement: Enroll in California's Statewide Flex Alert and implement an internal educational campaign. Silver Level—To qualify for this level, the partner demonstrates past participation in SCE energy efficiency programs, develops an energy action plan, sets community and CITY energy reduction goals, tmgets 25 percent of its iacilkies to complete energy efficiency upgrades, and participates in demand response. An enhanced incentive is paid at the Silver Level. Silver Level provides the Partner with 6 cents per kWh paid in addition to what is paid to the Partner under SCE's core program. Parmn a will need to meet the following DR requirements: I -At least one (I ) eligible facility to participate in one (1) SCE Demand Response program 2 -At least one (I) eligible facility to develop a Demand Reduction Action Plan to be followed during a Flex Alert event 3- Distribute Encrgy Solutions brochure to partner employees 4- Complete an integrated Demand Side Management (iDSM) audit at all eligible facilities. Gold Level — To quality 1'01 this level, the partner demonsh'nles higher past participation in SCE energy efficiency programs, establishes higher CITY and community program participation and energy savings goals and makes a higher commitment to participate in demand response. Incentive factors are higher for partner facilities' energy efficiency projects. Gold Level provides the Panne - with 9 cents per kWh paid in addition to what is paid io the Partner under SCE's Core progmm. Partner will need to meet the following DR rcqunennents: 1 -Have at least 25'% of eligible facilities' participate in an SCE Demand Response program 2- Conduct co- branded marketing and outreach m residential customers on SCE's Demand Response programs 3 -At least one (1) eligible facility implement a DR measure recommended from the iDSM audit. Platinum Level — to qualify for this level, the pmYner demonstrates even higher past participation in cttcrgy efficiency programs, is innovative and integrates Encrgy Action Plan policies, ordinances and procedures. All facilities are targeted for energy efficiency upgrades- and the partner makes a higher conmoimnent to participate in Demand Response. Incentive factors arc highest lit Pariner lacilities energy efficiency projects and additional incentives arc made available ru cuslomizcd community euergy efficiency projects. Platinum Level provides the Panne with 12 cents per kWh paid in addition to what is paid 10 the Panne under SCEs core program. Partner will need to meet the follorvin, DR requncrnents- I -At least one (I) eligible facility most participate in SCE s Auto Demmnd ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGRE-EMEN1 26 Response program 2 -Have at least 50% of eligible facilities participate in an SCE Demand Response program and develop a Demand Reduction Action Plan for the participating facilities 3- Organize a local outreach event during the Spring/Summer season to promote Demand Response /iDSM. ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREENIEN 1 27 EXHIBIT "B" ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM 2010 -2012 GOALS & PARTNER BUDGET Program Cycle Partner Budget and Goals: Minimum Performance % vs. Expenditures of Non - Incentive Partner Budget: Performance Maximutn Partner Budget KWh Energy Savings Goal kW Peak Demand Reduction Goal 2010 -2012: into Program 192,000 KWh Gross 41 kW Gross Incentive: $32,640 Non - Incentive: $28,451 Expended (Marketing, Education & (ME &O) Outreach, Technical Minimum 50% 70% Assistance [and Direct Achieved hnplementation]) Minimum 50% Minimum Performance % vs. Expenditures of Non - Incentive Partner Budget: Performance 12 months 18 Months Category into Program into Program Non- NTE 65% NTE 100% Incentive Budget Expended (ME &O) Minimum 50% 70% kWh Achieved Minimum 50% 70% kW Achieved e. NTE = Not To Exceed Explanation of non - Incentive Partner Budget allocation against goals: Maximum Percent of local non- incentive Partner Budget expended by the end of year I: 65% Minimum kWh achieved by the end of year 1: 50 1X, of3 -year goal In occordance it Section /0 of this Agreement, SCE trserres the right to assess the progress made hY the Col, at ani, time urith respect to the above goals, and met), in Its sole discretion elect to sh fi Jitnds anion, categories or rediso ibute al( or part ofthe Jioaling boelgced herein to other ener,1, efficiency prograol.s or patvreships in accordance mite dic.dgreement. ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT 2S EXHIBIT C PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION PLANS COMMUNITY ENERGY PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT Oranae County Cities Enemy Leader Partnership 1. Program Name: Orange County Cities Energy Leader Partnership 2. Projected Progtnm Budget Table Table I — Refer to Table I in ELPP Master PIP. 3. Projected Program Gross Impacts Table Table 2 — Refer to Table 2 in FLPP Master PIP. 4. Progrmn Element Description and Implementation Plan a) List of Program elements: The three core program elements are those identified in the Energy Leader Partnership Program Master PIP: Element A — Government Facilities, Element B — Strategic Plan Activities, and Element C— Core Program Coordination. Core Program Element A - Government Facilities A.1) Retrofit of county and municipal facilities The four cities participating in the Orange County Cities Energy Loader Partnership (Partnership) with Southern California Edison (SCE) are developing detailed lists of facilities that will be retrofitted during the 2009 -2011 program cycle of the partnership. Many of these facilities and their respective energy savings have been identified and quantified. Other buildings have been audited by the California Energy Commission (CEC) and the partnership is awaiting the GEC's reports. Municipal facilities' energy efficiency is a key component of Newport Beach's local government participation plans. It will consist of numerous projects in two phases: Phase 1 consists of monitoring -based commissioning of the two largest Municipal facilities in Huntington Beach and ff energy saving retrofits such as server virtualization, network energy management software and HVAC retrofits of server rooms; Phase 2 will consist of lighting system redesign & retrofits, IIVAC retrofits, pumping retrofits and building envelope improvements. A.2) Retro- commissioning (of buildings and clusters of buildings) The partnering cities are including this means of achieving significant energy savings in their plans. See A.1 above. A.3) Integrating Demand Response into the audits The ELPP model for all SCE; partnerships includes a requirement for participation in demand response programs. Each partner city plans to increase its participation in domand responsc accordingly. Integrated WDR audits will be conducted in eligible facilities. Swthom CW&.ia Edison 2009 - 2011 Energy Effmienq Mks, 233 NW6 2009 ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT 30 Orange County Cities Energy Leader Partnership AA) Technical Assistance for project management, training, audits, etc. - Each partner city has a specific budget for each of those activities. A.5) On -Bill financing On -bill financing will not be available at the beginning of the 2009 -2011 program cycle; however, it may be added in the future, as each partner city has indicated an interest in using on -bill financing. Core Program Element 13 - Strategic Plan Support B.1) Code Compliance Support The Partnership will support the individual partner cities as they examine ways of increasing compliance with existing codes. Increased enforcement call result in sobstruntial energy savings and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The Partnership will provide training, technical assistance, and additional support from SCE's Codes and Standards Program to build local govennunent capacity to address code compliance issues. B.2) Reach Code 'Ilne partnership will seek to establish mcaningfid CEC- approved Reach codes as part of its effort to add value to energy efficiency in aligmuent with the strategies stated in the Master PIP. ']his activity will follow the proposed path described in the Codes & Standards PIP. B.3) GiddingDoc nnent(s) Support At least one of the partner cities offers information at its building pemnit offiee oil best practices and energy efficiency opportunities through SCE's programs. SCE plans significant enhancements to this practice for the 2009 - 2011 progr.un cycle. Ihe parunership intends to make training. documents - and templates available to help cities develop their own climate and energy action plans, especially relatingto utility energy elements. BA) Financing for the community The partners are aware of the opportunities for financing provided by A,13 811 and will be examining its possibilities. 'the partnership will arrange for an AB 911 presentation for the cities, and technical assisuurec thiough the Peer -to -Peer support network. 13.5) peer-to -,Peer Support The partnership plans to develop an etfeetive approach for sharing information among SCE and partner cities. The program will conduct confcrence calls annong all partners on a routine basis. SoulLun Calif mm Edam 111W -2011 Energy of denty Plauv_ blureh 1019 ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSI -IIP PROGRANI AGREEMENT 31 Orange County Cities Energy Leader Partnership Core Progrmn Element C - Core Progrmn Coordination C.1) Outreach and Education 'lhc partnership has budgeted outreach and education efforts to demonstrate local government leadership and to provide the community with opportunities to provide energy actions and reduce the community's environmental footprint. Marketing, education, and outreach (ME &O) activities will consist of: • Staff training; • Huntington Beach Green Corp Citizen and Environmental Board training; • SCE's Mobile Energy Unit at the Annual Green Expo; • Stipends for HB Green Corp home and business energy, green audits, and onsite relrofnts; • Support for Huntington Reach's annual environmental awards; • Publishing of Huntington Beach's case studies, strategic sustainability, and energy plans; and • Exploring w AB 811 financing mechanism for the Partnership cities' citizens. See the ELPP Master PIP for a further description of these activities. C.2) Residential and Small Business ,Direct Install Currently, there are no plans for promoting direct installations in homes and business: however, market outreach will create awareness of energy services and programs. C.3) Third -pm-ty program coonduurfion The Partnership will conduct community events appropriate for execution by a thh d- party contractor (for cvample, light exchange events). CA) Retrotits 1'm• just. above I.,IEE qualified customers Tlne Partnership will conduct coordination activities as identified hi the ELPP Master PIP. Q5) Technical Assistance for program management, training, audits, etc. The Partnership has budgeted for technical assistance. S'ee Table 6 leer more details. b) Overview 'the Orange County Cities Energy Leader Partnership consists offour central Orange Countv cities: Huntington Bench, Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, and Woatminsten they began working together in early 2008 to loan this partnership. c) Non - incentive services • Train the Iiuntington Beach Cnecn Corps of eitizon volunteers to provide energy efficiency audits for residential, small commercial. and low- income citizens. The program will pay stipends to offset background checks and expenses_ • Study and consider voluntary 'teach" green codes. similar to the pilot projact HB Goes Green Residential Scorecard; Cnlifnmiv rai",n NO- 2111 i D,„zt Enkk q Pia „ Mw d, 21,09 ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT 32 Orange County Cities Eneray Leader Partnership • SCE's Mobile Energy Unit allendanec at the annual I313 Green Expo conference; • Support for the annual Environmental Award; o Publishing case studies, sustainability, and energy /climate plans with support from available prognuus and funding sources; and • Strategic plan support to the city of Costa ivlesa for extending its existing green building permit waiver program. (1) Target audience • All Municipal Facilities: City Halls, Civic Center, Police Departments, Libraries, Social Services, Conmmmity Centers, Sports Fields, Parks, and water infrastructure; and • Citizens, businesses, and city staff are the target audience for partner cities. See ELPP Master PIP for more information. e) Irnplementatiot The partnership's cost-effective implementation will include customized incentives to retrofit and retie- commission municipal facilities. The partnership bases its incentives on SCE's tiered incentive structure. See the ELPP Master PIP for each core element of the program for fi ether infor iaton on the program implementation process. 5. Program Element Rationale and Expected Outcome a) Quantitative Baseline and Market Transformation Infotmmtimt By its nature, market transformation occurs as a result of numerous factors and programs, not single sub - programs. Therefore, all nictrics are proposed at the highest program level. Please refer to the quantitative baseline and market transformation discussion, presented in the overall program PIP. Table 3 — Refer to the overarching program for quantitative baseline metrics b) Market Transformation Information By its nature, market transformation occurs as a result of numerous factors and programs, not single sub- programs. 'therefore, all meh'ics and goals are proposed at the highest program level. Please referto the quantitative baseline and market transformation discussion, presamtcd in the ovoiall program PIP. Table 4 — Refer to the overarching program for market t ansfonnatimr metrics c) Program Design to Overcome Barriers Program barriers, and the mratgias to overcome them. are the traditional resource barriers ofexperlise and funding. as outlined in the ELPP Nlaster PIP. c) Oumyitatve Program Targets: .SUinhem Cnlif."m E"I'ron "09- 2011 IM1.2) Eakimcy R S NhvcL1004 236 ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT 33 Oranl4e County Cities Enerzry Leader Partnership Table 5 Targ et Program Element Progrnnt Target by 2009 Program Target by 2010 Program Target by 2011 I kWh TBD TBD TBD 2 Number of Workshops 2 6 10 3 Number of Ordinances, Codes, Elo. 0 0 0 4 9 of btEO Events conducted that target Residential customers 2 4 6 6. Other Program Element Attributes a) Best Practices Sec the ELPP Master PIP for the Energy Leader Model. h) Innovation Tlne partnership demonstrates environmental stewardship and community leadership supporting the California Long -Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan (Strategic Plan). It will develop a municipal sustavnability template to simplify sustainability reporting for energy efficiency and renewable energy. This template, alternately called a dashboard, will be displayed. c) Interagency coordination Huntington Bench, a PIER program partner, plans to install Bi -level area I i0as and Eaforn a diagnostic software. The city has a materials recovery facility in its ,lurisdiclion, and plans to write it Renewable -based Energy Secure Community (RESCO) grant proposal for the CF,'C. 'Ilse proposal envisions utilizing indigenous renewable energy resources in Fhmtnglon Beach. The paitne-Iship will provide technical assistance and other support though the Codes mad Standards Program, its relationship with PIER, and support from other programs and organizations through its network o,Pconsultants. (1) hntemnted /coordinated Demand Side Management 'Ihe IOUs have identified integrated Demand Side Management (IDSM) as an important priority. Asa result they have proposed the establislmtent of a Statewide Integration Task Force (Task Force). SCE's local government partnerships will monitor the progress of the statewide IDSM efforts and work closely with the "task Force to identify comprehensive integration approaches and to implement best practices. The Orange Coumy partner cities will pursue necessary and cost - effective DSM as identified in the ELPP Master PIP. The Partnership has identified accounts eligible for participation in Demand Response programs. It will facilitate technical support I'm planned renewable energy - related activities by the City of Huntington Beach and other partner cities wishing to pursue si nilar opportunities. Somhmm C >Iif""m G:dison 21109 -2011 lira, Efikkuq Pli,ns 21- ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT 34 Orange County Cities Energy Leader Partnership Huntington Beach will apply for aRESCO grant from the CEC and federal government to utilize indigenous renewable energies. e) Integration across resource types (energy, water, air quality, etc) Phase Two energy projects identified above include smart irrigation controllers for use by irrigation accounts that use significant amounts of water. 0 Pilots • PIER program Bi -level LED area lighting and Enfornna diagnostic software ntthe City of Huntington Beach, as described above. • New city buildings in Costa Mesa will be Leadership in Energy and Envirommiontal Design (LEED) certified, including the Chamber of Commerce and police buildings. g) EM &V Not applicable. Soulbcm (-AfOmin Edk,n 13S 2099 - 2011 Enerv) Efrlml y Plans ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSI -IIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT 35 Orange County Cities Energy Leader Partnership 7. Partnership Program Advancement of Strategic Plan Goals and Objectives Table 6 California Long Term Energy Efficiency Progr:mn Approach to Achieving Strategic Plan (Strategic Plan) Strategy Strategic Plat Coal 1 -1: Develop, adopt and implement model The partnership will evaluate adopting building energy codes (and /or other green more stringent model codes on a voluntary codes) more stringent than Title 24's but rewarded basis, including excess Title requirements, on both a mandatory and 24 perfonna ce in the tee- waiver voluntary basis; adopt one or two additional program, or adopting the new California tiers of increasing stringency. "Green Building Code" on a voluntary basis through 2010, malting it mandatory in 2011, if a sustained funding level is provided by the CPUC to support these activities. Costa Mesa is in the process of adopting new codes. -2: Establish expedited permitting and Through the partnership, Costa Mesa will entitlement approval processes, fee consider expedited permitting based upon structures and other incentives for green reduced valuation in 2009. buildings and other above -code developments. 1 -3: Develop, adopt and implement model point -of -sale and other point -of transactions relying on building ratings. 1 -4: Creale assessment districts or other Through the partnership, itunfington mechanisms so property owners can fund Beach will investigate the adoption of an EE through city bonds and pay off on AB 811 financing mechanism lot its property lases; develop other 1i;E financing jurisdiction. tools. 1 -5: Develop broad education program and peer -lo -peer support to local governments to adopt and implement model reach codes. 1 -6: Link emission reductions from "reach" ! codes and programs to CARB's A 13 32 program. 2 -2: Dramatically improve compliance with and enforcement of Title 24 building code, and of HVAC permitting and inspection requirements (including focus on peak load reductions in inland yeas). sombun C:dlfbrnie Edisan 11109 —2011 Fncrvy Gffuien, Pl:nu M. d, 2609 239 ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREENIEN 1 36 Orange County Cities Energy Leader Partnership Califonatfa Long'rerm Energy Efficiency Program Approach to Achieving Strategic Plan (,Strategic Plan) Str :atcgy Strategic Plan Goal 2 -3: Local inspectors and contractors hired Through the partnership, Iluntinglon by local governments shall meet the Beach already has two energy ser-vice, requirements of the energy component of companies pre - qualified and they are their professional licensing (as such energy energy literate and conscious Sums. Costa components are adopted). Mesa has a service agreement with a certified energy company that is also energy literate. 3.1: Adopt specific goals for efficiency of Due to the efforts of the partnership, local government buildings, including: Huntington Beach will be publishing an environmentally preferred purohasing policy and publishing energy /climalc plans as part of the 2009 -2011 Partnership with SCE. Cosla Mesa is also interested in publishing an energy action plan in partnership. 3 -2: Require commissioning for new The partnership's Phase One energy buildings, and re- commissioning anti retro- projects include I ello-commissioning the commissioning of existing buildings. two largest municipal facilities with significant near term energy savings. The City of Costa Mesa has a high interest in retro- conmmissioning its municipal facilities to nnasimize both energy savings and performance. 3 -4: Explore creation of Ihne item in local Due to the partnership, Huntington Beach government budgets or other options Ihal has devoted a portion of its annual capilat allow EE cost savings to be remmed to the improvement plan to energy efficiency deportment and /or projects that provided the and the savings accrue to the general }'Lund. savings to toad additional efficiency. However, Part of the energy /climate action I plan will track the fiscal impacts (savings) created by the plan. 3 -5: Develop innovation Incubalor that competitively selects initiatives for inclusion in local government pilot projects. 4J: Local governments commit to clean Both the City of Costa Mesa and energy /climate change leadomhip. Huntington Beach have located appropriate sites for large -scale solar installations and both cities are exploring curram funding mechanisms. Huntington Beach is also applying for grants to study ocean and Urban Rind power to meet 2020 AB 32 gods before 2015. HB has signed the US Mayors Climate Protection Agreement fo - further inl'ormation, we �, httpa.ROe.usnuq-or s.ol g /elimateprotectio n - I SnwLemCdiC a,Edixm 21.1.9 — 21.111:11ngy [fliicngy Plnns brunt 2.09 246 ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGILAM AGREEMENT 37 Oranee County Cities Energy Leader Partnership California Long Term Energy Efficiency Progrmn Approach to Achieving Strategic Plan (Strategic Plan) Strategy Strategic Plan Coal 4 -2: Use local govemmeats' general plan Bnntington Beach has deferred investment energy and other elements to promote in general plan updates to include energy efficiency, sustainability and climate energy /climate concerns. change. 4 -4: Develop local projects that integrate The partnership's Phase -Two energy EE/DSkl/water /wastewater end use. projects will include water efficiency projects, including aerators and ET irrigation controllers. Wastewater, storm water runoff, and potable water capital projects are also being pursued. SCE will onsrne that they areas energy efficient as possible. 4 -5: Develop EE- related "carrots" and Huntington Beach is studying zoning and "sticks" using local zoning and development authority changes to comply development authority. with AB 32 and SB 375. Specifically, the Beach /Edinger Con-idor plans and the Downtown Specific plan will be updated to create accessible and walkable neighborhoods that enhance Huntington Beach. Sonllrtm Cnliromin [disco 2099 - N) I Fncwy F1 r"iency Plans M"6 1009 ?II ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT 38 EXHIBIT D U : ' _ ._\I [TO BE ATTACHED WHEN ISSUED BY THE COMMISSION] ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT 39 Exhibit E Reporting Requirements 1. Program Reporting: Consultant will provide SCE with the requisite information for purposes of preparing any reports required of SCE by the CPUC including current Quarterly and Annual Reports. Requirements for these reports may change per the direction of the CPUC or the CPUC's Energy Division. The current reporting requirements are as follows: 2. Quarterly Narrative: For the Program, a description of the Program activities occurring during the quarter. 2.1. Administrative activities; 2.2. Marketing activities; 2.3. Direct Implementation activities; 2.4. Consultant's assessment of Program performance and Program status (is the Program on target, exceeding expectations, or falling short of expectations, etc.); 2.5. Discussion of changes in Program emphasis (new Program elements, less or more emphasis on a particular delivery strategy, Program elements discontinued, Measure discontinued, etc.); 2.6. Discussion of near team plans for Program over the coming months (i.e., marketing and outreach efforts that are expected to significantly increase Program participation, etc.); 2.7. Changes to staffing and staff responsibilities, if any; 2.8. Changes to contacts, if any; 2.9. Changes to Subcontractors and Subcontractor responsibilities, if any; 2.10. Number of Customer complaints received; and 2.11. Program Theory and Logic Model if not already provided in the PIP, or if revisions have been made. Consultant mill provide additional data or in formation as required by the CPUC. 3. Annual Repots: The Consultant will provide the required information and data to be aggregated to the portfolio and reported per the Annual Reporting Requirements Manual Version 4 (RRM4) (Attachment C to Administrative Law Judge Ruling of August 8, 2007) and subsequent revisions for 2010 -2012. Consultant will be required to fulfill these reporting obligations for their Program. Consultant will provide additional data or information as required by the CPUC. 4. Reporting Terminology Definitions 4.1. Adopted Program Budget —The Program budget as it is adopted by the CPUC, inclusive of costs ( + / -) recovered from other sources. 4.2. Operating Program Budget —The Program budget as it is defined by the Program administrators for internal Program budgeting and management purposes, inclusive of costs ( + / -) recovered from other sources. 4.3. Direct Implementation Expenditures — Costs associated with activities that are a direct interface with the Customer or Program participant or recipient (i.e., Consultant receiving training). (Note: This is still an open issue, the items included in this defnition inay be changed by the CPUCpending discussion on the application of the State's Standard Practice Manual.) 4.4. Report Month — The month for which a particular Monthly Report is providing data and information. For example, a report covering the month of July 2010, but prepared and delivered later than July 2010, would still be titled July 2010. 4.5. Program Strategy — The method deployed by a program in order to obtain program participation. 4.6. Program Element —A subsection of a program, or body of program activities within which a single program strategy is employed. (Example: A body of program activities employing both an upstream Rebate approach and a direct install approach represents two discrete program elements.) 5. Measure Classification 5.1. Measure End -Use Classification Each energy efficiency Measure reported should be classified into one of the following end - use categories: Residential End Uses Detailed End Use Aggregated End Use Clothes Dryer Appliances Clothes Washer Appliances Consumer Electronics Consumer Electronics Cooking Dishwasher Other Appliance Building Shell Space Cooling Space Heating Cooking Appliances Appliances Appliances HVAC HVAC HVAC Interior Lighting Lighting Exterior Lighting Lighting Pool Pump Pool Pump Freezers Refrigeration Refrigeration Refrigeration Water Heating Water Healing Other (User Entered Text String Other Description) Lighting Nonresidential End Uses MarketSegruent Detailed End Use Aggregated End Use Building Shell HVAC Space Cooling HVAC Space Heating HVAC Ventilation HVAC Daylighting Lighting Interior Lighting Lighting Exterior Lighting Lighting Office Equipment Office Compressed Air Process Cooking Process Food Processing Process Motors Process Process Cooling Process Process Heat Process Process Steam Process Pumps Process Refrigeration Refrigeration Other (User Entered Text String Other Description) 5.2. Measure Market Sector /Market Segment Classification: Where reports require market sector or market segment classification, the following classification scheme should be used: B ,1a)-ketSector MarketSegruent Residential NA Single Family NA Multi Family NA Mobile Homes NA Nonresidential NAICS CODE (greater than 2 digit not required) Commercial NAICS CODE (greater than 2 digit not required) Industrial NAICS CODE (greater than 2 digit not required) Agricultural NAICS CODE (greater than 2 digit not required) Unknown NA 6. Allowable Costs Allowable Costs Table - The cost items listed on the Allowable Costs sheet are the only costs that can be claimed for ratepayer - funded energy efficiency work. The costs reported should be only for costs actually expended. Any financial commitments are to be categorized as commitments. If the reporting entity does not have a cost as listed on the cost reporting sheet, then no cost is to be reported for that item. These Allowable Cost elements are to be used whenever costs are invoiced or reported to SCE's Program administrator. If there is a desire to include additional Allowable Cost elements, the Program administrator should be contacted in order for the Program administrator to seek approval from the CPUC. 3/30/2006 Cost Categories Allowable Costs - - Administrative Cost Category - - ( - �_ I - Mana erial and Clerical Labm . Consultant Labor - Clerical Consultant Labor - Program Design Consultant Labor - Program Development Consultant Labor - Program Planning Consultant Labor - Program/Project Management Consultant Labor - Staff Management Consultant Labor - Staff Supervision Human Resource Support and Development Consultant Labor- Human Resources_ Consultant Labor - Staff Develo ment and Training [ Consultant Benefits - Administrative Labor Consultant Benefits - Direct Implementation Labor Consultant Benefits - Marketing/Advertising /Outreach Labor__ Consultant Payroll Tax - Administrative Labor Consultant Payroll Tax - Direct Implem_e_ntation Labor _ Consultant Payroll Tax - Marketing /Advertising /Outreachi Labor _ Consultant Pension - Administrative Labor Consultant Pension - Direct Implementation Labor Consultant Pension - Marlceting /Advertising /Outreach Labor Travel and Conference Fees Consultant - Conference Fees Consultant Labor - Conference Attendance Consultant - Travel - Airfare I Consultant- Travel - Lod ink Consultant - Travel - Meals COnSltltaut - Travel - Mileage_ _ Consultant - Travel - Parkm6 Consrdtant- Travel -Per Diem for_Misc. Expenses_ Overhead (General and Administrative) - Labor and Materials Consullan tLlutpmentCommunications Consultant Equipment Computin Consultant EEient Docmuent Reproduction Consultant L�i�ment General Ulhce _ Consultant Equipment Transportation Consultant Food Service Consultant Office Supplies C_onsultantPostage -__ Allowable Costs Table The cost items listed on the Allowable Costs sheet are the only costs that can be claimed for ratepayer - funded energy efficiency work. The costs reported should be only for costs actually expended. Any financial commitments are to be categorized as commitments. If the reporting entity does not have a cost as listed on the cost reporting sheet, then no cost is to be reported for that item. These Allowable Cost elements are to be used whenever costs are invoiced or reported to SCE's Program administrator. If there is a desire to include additional Allowable Cost elements, the Program administrator should be contacted in order for the Program administrator to seek a proval from the CPUC. 3/30/2006 Cost Categories Allowable Costs Consultant Labor - Accounting Support Consultant Labor - Accounts Payable Consultant Labor - Accounts Receivable Consultant Labor - Facilities Maintenance Consultant Labor - Materials Management Consultant Labor - Procurement Consultant Labor -Shop Services Consultant Labor - Administrative Consultant Labor - Transportation Services Consultant Labor - Automated Systems Consultant Labor - Communications Consultant Labor- Information Technology _ Consultant Labor - Teleconmumications Marketing /Advertising/Outreach _Cost Cate or Consultant - Bill Inserts Consultant - Brochures _ Consultant - Door Hangers_ _ Consultant - Print Advertisements Consultant - Radio Spots Consultant -Television Spots - - -- _ Consultant - W ebsite Development Consultant Labor - Marketing __ _ Consultant Labor- Media Production Consultant Labor - Business Outreach Consultant Labor - Customer Outreach Consultant Labor - Customer Relations Direct Implementation Cost Category_ Financial Incentives to Customers Actrvrty - Direct Labor _ Consultant Labor Facilities Audits Consultant Labor Con iculum Development_ _ Consultant Labor Customer Education and Training Consultant Labor - Customer Equipment Testing and jDiagnostics i Installation and Service Labor —� Consultant Labor- Customer Equipment _Repau and Servicing_ � - -- -_- .. Consultant Labor - Cumorrier Equipment Reand Servicing Direct Implementation Hardware and Materials _ Consultant Direct lLnplcnxntation Literature !, Consultant - Education Materials Consultant FneigyMeasurement7ools Consultant - Installation Hardware Consultant Audit Applications and 1 Dims Allowable Costs Table The cost items listed on the Allowable Costs sheet are the only costs that can be claimed for ratepayer - funded energy efficiency work. The costs reported should be only for costs actually expended. Any financial commitments are to be categorized as commitments. If the reporting entity does not have a cost as listed on the cost reporting sheet, then no cost is to be reported for that item. These Allowable Cost elements are to be used whenever costs are invoiced or reported to SCE's Program administrator. If there is a desire to include additional Allowable Cost elements, the Program administrator should be contacted in order for the Program administrator to seek approval from the CPUC. 3/30/2006 Cost Categories Allowable Costs Rebate Processing and Inspection - Labor and Materials Consultant Labor - Field Verification Consultant Labor - Rebate Processing Consultant - Rebate Applications ALJ/ DMG/ ays Decision 10 -04 -029 April 8, 2010 Date of Issuance 4/21 /2010 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Application of Southern California Edison Company (U338E) for Approval of its 2009 -2011 Energy Efficiency Program Plans and Associated Public Goods Charge (PGC) and Procurement Funding Requests. And Related Matters. Application 08 -07 -021 (Filed July 21, 2008) Application 08 -07 -022 Application 08 -07 -023 Application 08 -07 -031 DECISION DETERMINING EVALUATION, MEASUREMENT AND VERIFICATION PROCESSES FOR 2010 THROUGH 2012 ENERGY EFFICIENCY PORTFOLIOS 421073 -1 - A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays TABLE OF CONTENTS Title Page DECISION DETERMINING EVALUATION, MEASUREMENT AND VERIFICATION PROCESSES FOR 2010 THROUGH 2012 ENERGY EFFICIENCY PORTFOLIOS..................................................................................... ............................... 2 1. Summary .................................................................................. ............................... 2 2. Background ............................................................................... ..............................3 2.1. Energy Division Straw Proposal ................................ ..............................5 2.2. Joint Energy Division/ Utility EM &V Plan (Joint Plan) ........................6 2.3. Energy Division Questions and Recommendations ............................. 6 2.4. Additional Issues .......................................................... ..............................7 3. EM &V Budget for 2010 Through 2012 .................................. ..............................7 3.1. Allocation for IOU EM &V Activities ............................ ..............................8 4. The Joint Energy Division /Utility EM &V Plan (Joint Plan) ......................... 12 5. Respective Roles and Responsibilities of ED and IOUs .... .............................14 5.1. IOU - Managed Impact Evaluations ( DEER) ............. .............................15 5.2. ED Managed Process Evaluation .............................. .............................17 5.3. ED- Involvement in IOU Workpaper Development (non -DEER) .....19 5.4. IOU Involvement in ED Projects ............................. ............................... 21 5.5. ED Review of all IOU EM &V Products .................... .............................23 5.6. ED Role in IOU Process Evaluations and Markets Assessments ...... 26 5.7. Stakeholder Involvement in EM &V ......................... .............................26 5.8. Process for EM &V Funded From Program Dollars .............................28 6. Dispute Resolution Mechanism ............................................ .............................29 7. Customer Participation in EM &V as a Condition of EM &V Funding ......... 34 8. Counting Savings from Behavior Based Programs .......... ............................... 36 9. Other Issues Deferred by D.09 -09- 047 ...............................:.. .............................42 9.1. EM &V Contractor Firewall Issues ............................ .............................42 9.2. 2009 Avoided Costs ..................................................... .............................42 9.3. 2009 Bridge Funding Reporting, Budget Allocation, and EM &V .....44 9.4. Codes and Standards .................................................. .............................45 10. Comments on Proposed Decision ....................................... .............................47 Assignment of Proceeding .......................................................... .............................47 Findingsof Fact .................................................................................. .............................47 Conclusionsof Law ........................................................................... .............................51 ORDER.............................................................................................. ............................... 54 -i - A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays Title Page ATTACHMENT 1- 2010 -2012 Joint Energy Division and IOU Evaluation Measurement and Verification Plan. ATTACHMENT 2 - Process for Commission Oversight of IOU EM &V Project Initiation ATTACHMENT 3 - Energy Division EM &V Questions and Recommendations from November 2009 ALJ Ruling _ji_ A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays DECISION DETERMINING EVALUATION, MEASUREMENT AND VERIFICATION PROCESSES FOR 2010 THROUGH 2012 ENERGY EFFICIENCY PORTFOLIOS 1. Summary This decision sets out the roles and relationships among the Commission's Energy Division (ED), California's investor -owned utilities (utilities or IOUs), and stakeholders regarding Evaluation, Measurement and Verification (EM &V) of energy efficiency programs for 2010 through 2012. The roles and responsibilities previously laid out in Decision (D.) 05 -01 -055 are clarified to improve transparency of EM &V activities, minimize conflicts of interest, and reduce duplication of effort and undue expenditure of ratepayer funds for the 2010 through 2012 time period. Credible and effective EM &V requires a clear separation between "those who do" (the program administrators and implementers) and "those who evaluate" the program performance. Accordingly, we do not alter the fundamental division of responsibilities struck in D.05 -01 -055, under which the ED maintains management and contracting responsibilities for all EM &V studies used to measure and verify energy, peak load savings and cost - effectiveness for individual programs, groups of programs and at the portfolio level, while the utilities retain a limited EM &V budget to carry out studies that inform portfolio implementation and process evaluation. On the basis of experience over the past several years of EM &V activity, however, we make several process changes to improve oversight and accountability of EM &V activities carried out by both ED and the utilities. All parties agree that we need to codify more collaborative and transparent processes as an important step towards improving the effectiveness of our EM &V efforts. In this decision we set forth new standards for transparency, -2- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays coordination, and stakeholder engagement relating to EM &V projects carried out by both the utilities and ED. We believe that this more collaborative process will result in greater cost - efficiencies, more reliable results, broader stakeholder buy -in, and fewer disputed issues. In particular, we: • Clarify process for ED review of all IOU EM &V contracting decisions; • Grant IOU authority to develop ex ante values under limited circumstances; • Grant ED authority to conduct process evaluations; • Clarify process for stakeholder input on all EM &V projects; and • Provide a new resolution process for disputes over EM &V processes and findings. This decision finalizes the $125 million budget for EM &V activity over 2010 -2012. We also approve a Joint Plan submitted by the utilities and ED, which lays out a roadmap for the EM &V studies to be performed on the 2010 -2012 energy efficiency portfolios approved in D.09 -09 -047. Finally, we address certain carryover policy issues, including the treatment of savings estimates from behavioral programs and codes & standards. 2. Background The crux of the success of energy efficiency as California's resource of first choice lies in evaluation, measurement and verification (EM &V). EM &V is important for several reasons. First, it is necessary to determine whether and how well current individual programs are working. Second, EM &V is critical in considering how to improve programs and for development of new measures. Third, EM &V is used on a broad level to measure whether the investor -owned -3- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays utilities (IOUs) are meeting, on a portfolio basis, the overall energy savings goals established by the Commission., Fourth, EM &V results are used to determine whether IOUs should receive rewards or pay penalties as part of the Risk Reward Incentive Mechanism (RRIM) adopted by the Commission.2 Fifth, robust EM &V is critical to ensure that the IOUs and the state can depend on energy efficiency as a resource. Decision (D.) 05 -01 -055 returned the state's IOUs to the role of energy efficiency program administrators. That decision provided direction on how EM &V should be structured after 2005. In particular the decision found that credible and effective EM &V required a clear separation between "those who do" (the program administrators and implementers) and "those who evaluate" the program performance. Accordingly, the decision assigned to the Commissions Energy Division (ED) management and contracting responsibilities for all EM &V studies that will be used to (1) measure and verify energy and peak load savings for individual programs, groups of programs and at the portfolio level, (2) generate the data for savings estimates and cost-effectiveness inputs, (3) measure and evaluate the achievements of The most recent energy savings goals were adopted in D.08 -07 -047 '- The structure of shareholder incentives is currently under review in Rulemaking (R.)09- 01 -019. As stated in D.09 -12 -045 at 4 in that docket, "We continue to believe that prospectively, reforms to the existing mechanism should be pursued that reasonably produce meaningful incentives to achieve the Commission's energy efficiency goals through simplified approaches designed to avoid the level of controversy over detailed technical methodologies that have characterized the RRIM process to date." While possible outcomes of that proceeding could 'include de- linking shareholder incentives from EM &V study results, in this decision we will not prejudge any potential outcomes in R. 09 -01 -019. Therefore, we continue to assume the current structure whereby EM &V studies directly impact shareholder incentives. -4- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays energy efficiency programs, groups of programs and/or the portfolio in terms of the "performance basis' established under Commission - adopted EM &V protocols and (4) evaluate whether programs or portfolio goals are met. In recognition that IOU portfolio managers and program implementers need access to market information to perform their responsibilities, D.05 -01 -055 provided that the IOUs could manage "a limited subset of evaluation studies as long as there is no potential for conflict due to the nature of the study, and as long as ED makes the final selection of contractors." As a further safeguard to ensure against conflict -of- interest in EM &V, D.05 -01 -055 prohibited entities from performing these types of EM &V studies at the same time they are under contract for program delivery work -- either as a non -IOU program implementer or subcontractor to an IOU implementer. 2.1. Energy Division Straw Proposal On July 7, 2009, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Ruling sought comment on an ED "Straw Proposal" on EM &V issues for the 2010 -201.2 program cycle. The Ruling asked a number of questions about issues discussed in the Straw Proposal, including potential modifications to the overall goals of EM &V, respective scopes of EM &V responsibilities for Commission and utility staff, stakeholder input process and approval of EM &V projects, and several other issues. Parties commented on July 27, 2009. In the July 7 Ruling, parties in this proceeding were given notice that the Commission may in this proceeding adopt changes that would modify D.05 -01 -055. To that end, the July 7 Ruling with its attachments was served on the service list in R.01 -08 -028 (the proceeding in which D.05 -01 -055 was issued). -5- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays In D.09 -09 -047, the Commission adopted energy efficiency portfolios for 2010 through 2012. The decision addressed certain threshold issues pertaining to EM &V issues for the 2010 -2012 portfolios, including: 1) a preliminary budget for 2010 -2012 EM &V of 4% of total energy efficiency expenditures or $125 million for 2010 -2012, 2) Commission core objectives for EM &V; and 3) a process for adopting detailed EM &V projects, refined EM &V budgets, and remaining EM &V policy issues in a subsequent EM &V Decision.. 2.2. Joint Energy Division /Utility EM &V Plan (Joint Plan) In anticipation of this subsequent EM &V decision, the Commission in D.09 -09 -047 ordered Energy Division and the IOUs to prepare an EM &V plan (the Joint Plan) to be jointly submitted to the assigned ALJ and issued for comment via Ruling. The Joint Plan stated that it was responsive to the Commissions stated desire "...to make near -term improvements in order to streamline EM &V processes, and enhance timeliness, transparency and consistency across EM &V work products" (D.09 -09 -047 at 301) and "to take a fresh look at several aspects of our EM &V activity in California for the upcoming program cycle, to reduce unnecessary burden on staff and other resources, and streamline our EM &V processes." (D.09 -09 -047 at 294.) However, ED and the IOUs were unable to agree on a number of items related to the EM &V plan. 2.3. Energy Division Questions and Recommendations In a November 20, 2009 ALJ Ruling, parties were asked to respond to a number of questions posed by ED on EM &V issues which were not resolved as part of the Joint Plan. The Joint Plan was presented in Attachment 1 to the ALJ Ruling. Attachment 2 to the ALJ Ruling listed a number of questions that need to be considered in the upcoming EM &V decision, along with recommendations of -6- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays ED. The questions and ED recommendations are reprinted in Attachment 3 to this decision for reference. 2.4. Additional Issues D.09 -09 -047 also deferred other issues to a subsequent decision. Comments were filed on these issues in July and August 2009. In this order, we take up outstanding issues including: contractor firewalls; 2009 avoided costs; 2009 bridge funding reporting, budget allocation and EM &V; and Codes and Standards. 3. EM &V Budget for 2010 Through 2012 We approved a budget of $125 million, or 4% of the overall portfolio budgets, for 2010 through 2012 EM &V in D.09 -09 -047, subject to review in this decision. This preliminary budget reflected the expectation that, drawing from the experience of EM &V over the past program cycle, ED and IOU EM &V staff can produce cost efficiencies and streamline the scope and reporting of EM &V projects for 2010 -2012. hi the Joint Plan, ED and the IOUs state that they have taken the Commissions desire to manage costs seriously and will strive to complete a robust research portfolio for under $125 million. However, the Joint Plan notes that the range of studies needed for 2010 through 2012 is substantially greater than the range of studies completed for 2006 -2008, and thus asks that the EM &V decision keep open the option offered in D.09 -09 -047 to request more funding if we determine that sufficiently important projects cannot be funded. No party suggested any change to the overall EM &V budget. We hereby finalize the overall budget level of $125 million for 2010 through 2012 tentatively adopted in D.09 -09 -047. If parties seek to increase the 2010 -2012 EM &V budget, they may file a Motion in R.09 -11 -014, the open energy -7- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays efficiency Rulemaking. The assigned ALJ and /or assigned Commissioner may rule on such a Motion or may prepare a Proposed Decision (PD) for full Commission consideration. In the Joint Plan, ED and the IOUs reconunend that each utility's EM &V budget should be its proportional share of the total EM &V budget approved by the Commission, with the proportion equal to its proportion of total 2010 through 2012 program budgets: 43% for Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG &E); 39% for Southern California Edison Company (SCE); and 9% each for San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG &E), and Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas). We adopt this recommendation. This allocation requires correcting Ordering Paragraph (OP) 42 of D.09 -09 -047, which inadvertently used the program funding proportions from the 2006 -2008 cycle. 3.1. Allocation for IOU EM &V Activities As noted above, our .framework provides that the majority of the EM &V budget will be for studies managed by the Energy Division. However, a limited number of studies, pursuant to D.05 -01 -055 and the direction we give today, will be carried out by the IOUs. An important question is whether this decision should allocate a specific portion of the EM &V budget (set at $125 million as determined above) to the IOUs and, if not, what will be the process and, in particular the role of the Energy Division, in deciding the IOU budget. This issue was raised in Question 5 of the November 20, 2009 Ruling which asked: "Should ED have the authority to allocate the authorized EM &V budget between ED and IOU managed EM &V projects according to the overall EM &V priorities ?" In the Joint Plan at 18, ED and the IOUs agreed that a minimum allocation of 15% of the EM &V budget to the IOUs is appropriate to maintain -8- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays and support necessary EM &V activities until such time as the Commission issues a final EM &V decision and budget. The Joint Plan noted that these costs are currently included as part of the process evaluation, market assessment and early M &V study costs in the budget estimates in Table C of the Joint Plan. ED and the IOUs were not able to reach consensus as to any further pre - allocation of the remaining 85% of the EM &V budget. ED recommends that the Commission grant it authority to approve IOU projects. With this authority and the adoption of the prioritization process discussed in the Joint Plan, ED believes that a specific prior allocation to IOU managed projects above and beyond the 15 % minimum to fund EM &V staff is unnecessary. Nevertheless, ED anticipates that the IOUs will request, and are likely to be granted, responsibility to manage a sizable share of the EM &V work. ED believes that the intention of the following statement on page 301 of D.09 -09 -047, "EM &V plans and budgets for 2010 -2012 should be categorized in accordance with the first four objectives articulated above, and will be prioritized for approval in following with the most pressing needs across each category" is to allocate EM &V resources according to overall research priorities, rather than across organizations responsible for implementing EM &V projects. Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) and The Utility Return Network (TURN) support the ED recommendations with TURN specifically supporting a 15% allocation of EM &V funds to the IOUs. SDG &E /SoCalGas advocate that the monetary split for EM &V projects between ED and the IOUs should be determined directly by the Commission, and should be determined and approved upfront in order to determine work load, study plans and appropriate staffing. SDG &E /SoCalGas would have the -9- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays IOUs and ED each be responsible for their EM &V budgets and activities as set forth in D.05 -01 -055. SCE asks that the Commission grant to the IOUs the same EM &V budgets approved for the 2006 -2008 program cycle. Thus, SCE would modify the ED recommendation by: a) giving ED authority only for expenditures beyond the total EM &V budget granted to the IOUs for the 2006 -2008 program cycle; b) requiring ED to consult with the IOUs before making EM &V expenditure decisions; and c) allowing the IOUs to use a dispute resolution process developed for EM &V. PG &E also calls for the Commission to allocate a specific budget to the IOUs to conduct EM &V. PG &E notes that in the Joint Plan at 18, ED and the IOUs clarified that the Commission should allocate an EM &V budget to each IOU based on the IOU's proportional share of the total program budget. PG &E also notes that the Joint Plan at 18 estimated $49.5 million would be needed for process evaluation, market analysis and early EM &V. As IOUs are principally responsible for this category of EM &V, PG &E suggests that the allocation made to the IOUs should be equal to that sum. There is no dispute that at least 15% (or $18.75 million) of the $125 million EM &V budget for 2010 through 2012 should be allocated to the IOUs to maintain staffing levels. This works out to approximately $1.5 million per utility per each of the tluee years. This appears to be a reasonable funding level for utility staffing. The question before us is whether the IOUs should be granted, as SCE puts it, discretion to use additional funds for particular categories of EM &V projects, specifically program design and market assessment -10- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays studies, and early EM &V. This could result in up to $49.5 million of the $125 million total allocated to the IOUs by PG &E's estimate.3 Using SCE's methodology, the IOUs would be allocated the same $45 million allocated in D.05 -11 -011,4 including staffing costs. However, in D.05 -11 -011, this $45 million was 27.5% of the total EM &V budget of $163 million; the same amount would be 36% of the current $125 million budget for 2010 through 2012. Our resolution of this issue relies on the overall context of this decision. There is agreement among parties that IOUs should conduct most or all of the program design and market assessment studies and early EM &V activities to assist in determining work load, study plans, and appropriate staffing. However, as we discuss below, the allocation and expenditure of these funds will be subject to limited ED review. In 2006 -2008, the IOUs received 27.5% of the total EM &V budget. We will again allocate this proportion of the budget to the IOUs - that is, an additional 12.5% beyond the 1.5% agreed to in the Joint Plan to maintain IOU staffing levels. 27.5% of $125 million is $34.3 million; this will be the initial allocation to the IOUs. We require the IOUs to submit a report to ED within 15 days of the effective date of this Decision which documents the amount unspent as of the effective date of D.09 -09 -047. 3 It appears that PG &E's $49.5 million level is inclusive of the $18.75 million needed to maintam IOU staffing level. A D.05 -11 -011, Attachment 3, Table 1 ( "IOU managed evaluation projects" line item). -11- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays 4. The Joint Energy Division /Utility EM &V Plan (Joint Plan) The Joint Plan is included as Attachment 1 to this decision.5 ED and the IOUs agreed that we needed to develop a more collaborative and transparent working relationship as an important step towards improving the EM &V process. IOU and ED staff agree to work together on shared EM &V projects, and to follow mutually agreed upon standards for transparency, respect, and communication while working on separate EM &V projects. ED and the IOUs believe that this more collaborative process will result in greater cost - efficiencies, more reliable results, broader stakeholder buy -in, and fewer disputed issues. ED and the IOUs agree that the optimal approach to EM &V for 2010 -201.2 is to define an EM &V planning framework and retain flexibility to fund EM &V projects as needs arise, rather than to adopt from the outset a detailed plan covering the full scope of EM &V needs over a three year period. ED and the IOUs state that they will plan and implement EM &V projects with the goal of achieving the highest benefit for the EM &V expenditure, while minimizing interference with the programs and utility customers. To that end, EM &V projects will be designed to avoid duplication of effort, consolidated across all activities in a streamlined manner, and planned to comply with the Commission's schedule requirements. The Joint Plan and its proposed budget allocations represent ED and the IOUs' current best judgment on the appropriate allocation of the authorized EM &V budget to EM &V projects needed to accomplish tectonically credible, 5 As sponsors (along with ED) of the Joint Plan, there was no need for the IOUs to provide comments on this document. -12- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays quality work products that will comply with the Commissions requirements and goals stated in D.09 -09 -047. The Joint Plan presents a 2010 through 2012 EM &V Budget, with an estimated allocation of funding authorized by D.09 -09 -047 EM &V Projects. The estimated budget is shown on page 19 of the Joint Plan, also in Attachment 1 of this decision. DRA generally supports the Joint Plan as long as ED's recommendations on other EM &V issues are incorporated into the EM &V framework (DRA's specific comments on issues other than the Joint Plan are discussed in sections below). DRA believes the Joint Plan needs improvement in the areas of transparency, and should include more opportunities for stakeholder input. TURN supports generally the overall direction for EM &V set forth in the Joint Plan. TURN supports the Joint Plans emphasis on a flexible and phased approach for the 2010 -2012 portfolio period. TURN agrees with the Joint Plan's requirements that all IOU Phase 1 (immediately implementable) EM &V projects should be done in collaboration with ED to reduce the risk of such studies not being done in a timely manner. There is no opposition to the Joint Plan. The Joint Plan presents a reasonable set of procedures to guide ED and the IOUs in formulating and carrying out EM &V studies. However, the Joint Plan does not address all outstanding issues. We will adopt the Joint Plan as presented in Attachment 1, subject to the discussion on remaining issues addressed herein. In approving the EM &V plan, we wish to clarify that we intend for our staff to coordinate with other pertinent state agencies wherever such coordination enhances the state's overall energy policy goals. For example, we intend for the EM &V function to be supportive and responsive to the state's energy loading order policies and climate policy goals. We specifically direct our -13- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays staff to coordinate with the CEC on the implementation of the energy consumptions surveys described in the EM &V plan as "EM &V Project Number 12;' since the CEC has historically managed. In the following sections we address additional issues which were not resolved as part of the Joint Plan. The determinations made here are informed by the ED Recommendations put forth in the November 20 ALJ ruling, and party comments that followed.6 We address these issues by topic, rather than by specific question as framed in the ruling. 5. Respective Roles and Responsibilities of ED and IOUs Many of the questions in the November 2009 ALJ ruling pertain to the division of EM &V roles and responsibilities between IOUs and ED, and the extent to which they should be modified. We have learned much since we addressed these topics in D.05 -01 -055. In concept, the division of EM &V responsibilities articulated in that decision remains sound. In practice, however, we have discovered a need for greater transparency and coordination than current processes have wrought. In some cases, ambiguity about roles and inadequate coordination have led to duplication of efforts at ratepayer expense. For example, SDG &E conducted a study using ratepayer funds to measure Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFL) interactive effects, an activity beyond the scope of IOU EM &V responsibilities outlined in D.05 -01 -055, and which was 6 To the extent that there are differences between the ED Straw Proposal and the combination of ED's positions in the Joint Plan and its recommended resolution of outstanding EM &V issues, we consider the latter views to supersede the Straw Proposal. -14- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays ultimately duplicative of an on -going ED study.? In addition, ED has found a number of other instances of duplicative studies performed by the IOUs with ratepayer funds, as well as studies arguably beyond the role of the IOUs set forth in D.05 -01 -055.8 As discussed below, we find that it is appropriate to make certain modifications to the roles set forth in D.05 -01 -055 and subsequently implemented for the 2006 - 2008 portfolio cycle, in order to minimize conflicts of interest, reduce duplication, and ensure transparency of information. 5.1. IOU - Managed Impact Evaluations (DEER) Question 1.i of the November 20 Ruling asked: "Are the IOUs permitted to manage any impact evaluation or M &V projects that develop ex -ante savings estimates which may be used for determining portfolio performance, reporting accomplishments, or calculating incentives? If so, what are the Commissions expectations for rules and procedures for oversight of these projects ?" ED recommends that the IOUs should be permitted to manage projects to develop energy savings estimates9 in the specific case where there is no 7 The McNulty Study was filed by SDG &E in an IOU Petition for Modification of D.07 -09 -043 and D.08 -01 -042, which effectively challenged ED's first Verification Report of 2006 and 2007 energy savings. 8 ED has e -mail documentation of a duplicate study by PG &E involving CPL interactive effects, a duplicative study by PG &E of evaluation of oil field efficiency measures, and an SCE process evaluation study on upstream lighting which partially duplicated an ED impact evaluation (without going through the process set out in D.05 -01 -055). 9 Ex -ante estimates are forecasted assumptions for energy savings and cost - effectiveness parameters, which are used to evaluate energy efficiency program proposals submitted by the utilities in their periodic energy efficiency portfolio Footnote continued on next page -15- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays existing ex -ante estimate, or where the IOUs believe that an existing estimate is out of date and needs testing and ED is not already conducting or planning to conduct a project to develop estimates for the same measure. ED recommends that the IOUs be required to seek approval from ED before initiating such work and should proactively provide opportunities for ED to review project milestones and provide input directly to the project manager. ED seeks authority to oversee such projects, including authorization to deny approval of projects that are not in the ratepayers' interest. PG &E agrees that it is generally the role of ED to conduct program and portfolio impacts - related studies, consistent with D.05 -01 -055. PG &E cautions against interpreting this provision to limit the IOUs' authority to conduct early EM &V studies. SDG &E /SoCalGas support the ED recommendations, with the caveat that the recommendations relate solely to studies that generate ex -ante savings estimates (as opposed to process evaluations and market assessments). Also, SDG &E /SoCalGas add that the approval process should be limited to no more than two weeks. SCE proposes specific language changes to ED's recommendations, which would have the effect of not giving ED sole authority to determine which studies may be done and when. For example, SCE would allow the IOU to proceed with a project if an ED project is scheduled to be completed more than three months later, as long as there is not duplication between projects. We agree that IOUs should be allowed, under ED oversight, to manage projects to develop energy savings estimates in the specific case where: applications. Ex -ante estimates are also used to report energy savings from energy efficiency measures prior to determining ex post, or actual, energy savings. -16- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays 1. There is no existing ex -ante estimate; or 2. An existing estimate is out of date and needs testing and ED is not already conducting or planning to conduct a project to develop estimates for the same measure. Consistent with our policy to minimize conflicts of interest and conserve ratepayer funds, we will require the IOUs to seek approval from ED before initiating EM &V ex ante studies. ED shall have the authority to deny approval of projects. However, this authority is limited to situations where: 1. There is a conflict of interest with a contractor the IOU wishes to hire;10 or 2. There is duplication or significant overlap with studies already planned or carried out by ED; or 3. ED can specifically articulate why a study is unnecessary or inappropriately conducted by the IOUs. We are sensitive to the need for timely oversight of ED. The proposal of SDG &E /SoCalGas that the approval process should be limited to no more than two weeks is reasonable and is adopted. Further, ED shall specify all decisions in writing, both to the IOU and posted on our website, and include its rationale for any denials. 5.2. ED Managed Process Evaluation Question Lii of the November 20 Ruling asked: °Is Energy Division expected and therefore permitted to initiate and manage evaluations that may be considered process or formative evaluations ?" 11 10 In the situation where a proposed contractor would simultaneously be engaged by both the IO'U and Energy Division, this should not per se be considered a disqualifying conflict. Energy Division should consider whether limited availability of qualified conh'aetors would override any such conflict. -17- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays ED recommends the Commission authorize it to conduct any type of EM &V consistent with management of research projects that support the development of data, information, and tools needed to conduct regulatory oversight as well as to improve the Commission's energy efficiency policies. This may include the following types of research: • Summative /ex -post impact evaluations. • Evaluations and M &V conducted for the purpose of developing savings estimates. • Evaluations and audits used to develop conclusions about program performance. • Market studies required to inform Commission energy efficiency policies. SCE reconunends adding the following to the ED recommendation: "In cases where the IOUs are already conducting or planning to conduct process or formative evaluations on the same program or same topic, ED must coordinate with the IOUs to either conduct the study jointly under IOU management or to avoid duplication of data collection and attempt to make maximu.rn. use of the other's work in the later- starting study." PG &E does not object to ED's request for authority to conduct market studies required to inform Commission energy efficiency policies, provided that such a request is not intended to restrict the IOU's ability to conduct market studies in accordance with their authority to do so under D.05 -01 -055. "A process evaluation is the systematic analysis of the development, design, and actual implementation of a strategy or program; an assessment of whether program activities were implemented as planned; and an assessment of whether expected outputs were actually produced. -18- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays We agree with parties that the fundamental purpose of process and formative evaluations is to inform program design and implementation, and that as program administrators it makes sense that the principal responsibility for managing such EM &V work lie with the IOUs. However, as the Commission takes a more involved role in program planning and improvement, and the development and tracking of program performance metrics as directed in D.09 -09 -047, we note that the ED should be permitted to manage evaluations that may be considered process or formative evaluations. This does not, however, imply a change from the original authority granted to ED EM &V work in D.05 -01 -055, which assigned to the ED management and contracting responsibilities for EM &V studies that will be used to "evaluate whether programs or portfolio goals are met." 5.3. ED- Involvement in IOU Workpaper Development (non -DEER) Question 1.iii. of the November 20 Ruling asked: "Should ED have the authority to be involved in projects that develop ex -ante savings estimates, such as the non -DEER work papers, which are currently managed by the IOUs without any ED involvement ?" -19- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays ED recommends that the IOUs should be required to notify ED of all workpaperrz development activities and should proactively provide opportunities for ED to review methodologies and provide input to the workpaper authors. ED contends that its involvement at this stage will streamline the review of final workpapers and will ensure greater reliability of workpaper savings estimates. ED recommends that its involvement in workpaper projects follow the process outlined in ED's recommendations for questions 4, 5 and 6 (see Attachment 3). PG &E states that IOU workpapers regarding ex ante savings estimates are already subject to Commission oversight through the ED review and approval process, as set forth in an ALJ Ruling of November 18, 2009 in this docket. PG &E contends this level of review is sufficient and does not need to be enhanced as set forth in the ED recommendation. The November 18, 2009 Ruling involved ED review of workpapers after submission to ED. We agree with PG &E that the process set forth in the November 18, 2009 ALJ Ruling is sufficient to provide Commission review of these workpapers after they are completed. ED seeks increased transparency in the initial development of the non -DEER workpapers. TMs is a valuable goal. We will require the IOUs to cooperate and collaborate with ED in the development of these workpapers. r- "Wort papers" refers to documentation prepared by the program administrators or program implementers that documents the data, methodologies, and rationale used to develop ex -ante estimates that are not in already contained in the Database for Energy Efficiency Resources (DEER). -20- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays 5.4. IOU Involvement in ED Projects Question 7 of the November 20 Ruling asked: How extensively should IOUs be involved in ED EM &V projects? ED recommends adoption of its recommendations in Section C of the ED Straw Proposal "Stakeholder Input Process and Approval of EM &V Projects," Bas well as the informal interactions proposed in the Joint IOU/ ED EM &V Plan. Overall, ED recommends that the Commission consolidate existing requirements for stakeholder input and restate those requirements in a comprehensive stakeholder input protocol for all ratepayer funded EM &V activities managed by either the IOUs or ED. The stakeholder input protocol would cover procedures for stakeholder and public review and input on EM &V project planning, development of savings estimates, publication of research findings, and the use of results produced by EM &V research projects. The stakeholder input protocol would include allowing time for stakeholder input in the overall EM &V project schedule, because, in the ED's view, the existing schedule and scope requirements do not allow sufficient time for interactions and information sharing. SCE contends that only the portion of Section C of the ED Straw Proposal entitled "EM &V Project Implementation and On -Going Feedback" (at 8 -9) is relevant to this question. This section of the Straw Proposal lays out the following process: is See July 7, 2009 ALJ Ruling, Attachment A, at 7 -12. -21- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays 1. Energy Division and the IOUs will convene a meeting among their staff, EM &V contractors, stakeholders, and any interested member of the public to share key results and EM &V findings that might lead to improvements in the portfolio and identify best practices and possible improvements to evaluation methods. This meeting will take place sometime around the middle of the program cycle or at such time when significant results from various EM &V projects are available. If so requested by parties or members of the public, ED or IOUs, or both, should hold short informal meetings with groups or individual organizations, to discuss EM &V work progress and results. 2. ED and IOUs will convene ad hoc meetings (approximately quarterly) among ED staff, EM &V contractors, IOU EM &V staff and IOU program managers to discuss work progress and results. These meetings are to provide for timely feedback to program design and implementation. The IOUs can request meetings with ED to discuss work progress and results at any time. 3. When significant results are produced by the EM &V work, and a technical report is not immediately pending, the ED and /or the IOUs will provide informal written sununaries of the results to the IOUs and other stakeholders. These written summaries will be posted on the same website used for posting EM &V work plans and comments. PG &E and SDG &E /SoCalGas recommend retaining the process set forth in D.05 -01 -055 at 115 -118. PG &E cites the Joint Plan's agreement that informal ED /IOU interactions based on general principles should not "impose formal or specific obligations on the ED or the IOUs and do not define the formal division of EM &V roles and responsibilities." PG &E thus argues that the level of participation by IOUs in ED projects should not be spelled out as proposed in the straw proposal by ED. -22- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays SCE is correct that only one portion of Section C of the Straw Proposal is relevant to this question. ED's recommendations in this portion of Section C are reasonable, and should be adopted. While these recommendations provide a certain amount of detail, they are not onerous or burdensome. The recommendations provide significant leeway in timing and detail necessary to carry out these responsibilities. D.05 -01 -055 did not formally adopt a process for IOU involvement in ED EM &V projects. D.05 -01 -055 did hold that ED should involve program implementers (which mostly consist of IOUs) in technical discussions concerning ED's projects. ED's recommendations are intended to accomplish the goals envisioned in D.05 -01 -055: to ensure that stakeholders have access to EM &V results in an orderly and timely manner, in order to improve energy efficiency portfolios. We adopt the ED recommendations regarding stakeholder input, which modify and supersede the process adopted in D.05 -01 -055. 5.5. ED Review of all IOU EM &V Products Questions 2, 3, and 4 of the November 20 Ruling asked: "Should ED be responsible for approving IOU EM &V projects? Should there be exceptions to this process for expedited projects ? "; "Current policy requires ED to approve all IOU EM &V contractors in order to manage contractor conflicts of interest. Should this process continue or be modified ? "; and "Should ED have the authority to be involved in IOU EM &V projects ?" ED recommends that ED's involvement in authorizing and reviewing IOU EM &V projects, including ex -ante savings estimation projects, should be managed according to procedures adapted from the ED Straw Proposal. The ED Straw Proposal on this point is included as Attachment 2 (as modified by the discussion below). ED also suggests that it would exercise the authority granted -23- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays to Commission staff under Public Utilities Code § 314 (a),14 as needed, to review process evaluation plans and results. PG &E argues that ED should not be responsible for approving IOU EM &V program design and market assessment studies, for which explicit management authority was delegated to the IOUs in D.05 -01 -055. PG &E claims the IOUs cannot be expected to meet program goals if they do not retain sufficient authority to evaluate their ongoing programs as they deem necessary. Regarding management of contracts, PG &E requests that the Commission clearly state which criteria are appropriate to support a finding that a conflict of interest exists, and which are severe enough to support rejection of a proposed contractor. PG &E proposes creation of a pre- approved contractor list to minimize conflicts. SDG &E /SoCalGas generally agree with PG &E. SDG &E /SoCalGas recommend that if ED's recommendation is nevertheless adopted, the time frame referenced in Section 4.2 above (notification to the IOU if ED intends to hold the project) should be decreased from two weeks to one week. 14 Public Utilities Code Section 314 (a) provides that Commission staff may, at any time, inspect the accounts, books, papers, and documents of a public utility. -24- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays SCE is willing to accept ED's recommendations with three provisos. First, SCE would change ED's authority regarding studies from "review and approve' to simply "review." Second, SCE wishes to reserve the right to use a dispute resolution process if there are repeated instances of studies being substantially delayed without good reason. Third, SCE would clarify that the reason for overturning an IOU's selection of a preferred contractor must be due to ED's identification of a meaningful conflict of interest for the proposed contractor, with a description of the alleged conflict of interest, before a final contractor is selected. This would allow a full discussion of the conflict issues between the IOU and ED, so that any problem could potentially be resolved at that point. SCE and SDG &E /SoCalGas also state that some project reporting documentation may be confidential and should not automatically be made public. We will accept the ED recommendations, with modifications. As is current practice, we agree that material properly designated to be confidential should be kept confidential by ED. Consistent with the review process adopted for ex ante studies above, we will streamline the process to adopt a review period of two weeks for ED determine if ED needs to hold approval of a project. We agree with SCE that ED should provide the IOU with a written statement explaining the specific conflict problem behind rejection of a proposed contractor, and should provide an opportunity for discussion or conflict resolution before a final contractor decision is made. However, consistent with streamlining the process, the IOU shall have two weeks from the date of receiving the written statement of contractor rejection to discuss the issue, or file -25- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays a "Motion for EM &V Dispute Resolution' as adopted herein. Otherwise, ED may finalize the selection of contractor. Attachment 2 sets forth the process we adopt today. 5.6. ED Role in IOU Process Evaluations and Markets Assessments SDG &E /SoCalGas recommend that IOU process evaluations and market assessments should not require approval from ED, but agree that ED could have input to a list of possible contractors for the studies. As we have discussed above, we are altering the delineation of roles as spelled out in D.05 -01 -055 to minimize conflicts, avoid duplication and improve transparency. Placing ED in the role of reviewing what EM &V studies should be conducted by the IOUs and what studies should be conducted by ED fits squarely within our policy. However, we are not making a determination here that IOUs should not manage or conduct certain studies, or that ED should manage or conduct certain studies; in other words, we do not determine that there necessarily should be any change in who manages or conducts process or formative evaluations. There are good reasons why the IOUs have taken the lead in these areas in the past; the IOUs may conduct such studies in a more timely mariner, and can use the results to help improve development of or implementation of energy efficiency measures. As with IOU EM &V studies, if ED rejects an IOU proposal for a study, it should reject the request by providing the IOU, within two weeks of the IOU request, with a written statement indicating rejection due to duplication, lack of necessity or conflict of interest. 5.7. Stakeholder Involvement in EM &V Question 8 of the November 20 Ruling asked: "What is the appropriate level of public involvement in EM &V projects? Should certain EM &V project be -26- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays exempted from a full public process? How will the exempted EM &V projects be determined ?" ED recommends a comprehensive stakeholder input protocol for all ratepayer funded EM &V activities managed by either the IOUs or ED. ED's recommendations are laid out on pages 8 -11 of the Straw Proposal. In their comments on the ED Straw Proposal, the IOUs expressed concerns that engaging with the public on every EM &V project would be ineffective and would slow down the implementation of time - sensitive projects. ED believes that there will be IOU EM &V projects that will not require an intensive public vetting process, but does not believe the project budget is a reasonable indicator of the need for public vetting. Additionally, ED believes that ratepayers and the Commission are key stakeholders for process evaluations. To ensure that the appropriate EM &V projects are publically vetted and that time - sensitive projects are not delayed, ED recommends that the Commission grant ED authority to determine which EM &V projects should and should not undergo public vetting. DRA recommends an annual public overview of program design and implementation for stakeholders, including a feedback opportunity. PG &E asks the Commission to clarify the criteria that would be used to determine what public input should be required on EM &V projects, as opposed to allowing ED to make a case -by -case determination. SCE would accept the ED recommendation, except that SCE would allow disputes on this topic to be resolved via the dispute resolution process adopted herein. TURN would also allow the dispute resolution to be used to challenge whether a certain subject should be exempted from further public vetting. SDG &E /SOCa1Gas agree with the ED -27- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays recommendation, except that they argue the size of the project should be a good criterion for determining the need for public vetting. While we agree in principle with PG &E that specific criteria should be established to determine the level of public vetting for EM &V projects, it is very difficult (and there is not a sufficient record) to determine such criteria. Parties are correct to point out that project size is not a good proxy for need for public input, but no other specific criterion has been put forth. In general, public involvement should be sought to the maximum degree feasible, yet the cost and time involved may make such effort unproductive in some cases (such as small or short timeframe projects). Thus, it makes sense to delegate to ED the responsibility to make such determinations. Consistent with our policy that timeliness should be taken into consideration, ED should weigh the value of public input versus the extra time such input `mould entail. With this caveat, we will adopt the language in the ED recommendation from the Straw Proposal with the addition that a party may file an EM &V Motion as described herein. 5.8. Process for EM &V Funded From Program Dollars Question 9 of the November 20 Ruling asked: "Should all IOU EM &V related projects, regardless of funding source (such as projects that develop savings estimates for non -DEER measures funded out of program funds), be required to follow the same policies and procedures that are required for EM &V funded projects ?" ED recommends that the Commission require that all EM &V- related projects, regardless of funding source, adhere to the same policies and procedures as EM &V funded projects. TURN agrees with the ED proposal, arguing that this will counter any incentive that exists for IOUs to make small changes to a DEER measure and -28- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays present it as a new non -DEER measure which may receive less scrutiny. DRA and SDG &E /SoCalGas agree with the ED recommendation. PG &E agrees that all EM &V projects should be funded from the EM &V budget, not the program budget. PG &E contends that IOU research projects which are properly designated as program implementation activities (and thus paid for with program implementation dollars) should not be subject to rules and procedures designed for EM &V. SCE similarly argues the ED language is too broad, claiming that the term "EM &V- related" could be attached to many projects not usually considered as EM &V projects. We will adopt the ED recommendation, with the caveat that the EM &V processes adopted herein should not apply to projects not previously considered to be in the EM &V category. For example, non -DEER studies would be considered EM &V projects, while (as SCE suggests) developing initial workpapers using existing data sources would not be considered as EM &V. 6. Dispute Resolution Mechanism Question 6 of the November 20 Ruling asked: "How should major disputes arising out of the EM &V work be managed? When should these disputes be elevated to the full Commission for resolution ?" In the Joint Plan at 8, ED and the IOUs state: "(i)t may not always be possible or productive to reach consensus between ED and IOU staff during the planning and implementation of EM &V projects or interpretation and use of EM &V results. ED and the IOUs will seek to achieve consensus through informal processes. If consensus cannot be reached informally, ED and the IOUs will follow the applicable dispute resolution processes in effect wherever a formal resolution is necessary." ED has recommended the following in the ED Straw Proposal: -29- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays For Project- Specific EM &V Plans, if parties continue to take issue with the final work plans, a party or parties may file a motion with the assigned ALJ and provide a rationale for why the plans should be changed and how. The ALJ will resolve the dispute and direct ED and /or the IOUs to revise the plans accordingly via ruling. • For EM &V Technical Reports, if parties continue to take issue with the final EM &V technical reports, a party or parties may file a motion with the assigned ALJ and provide a rationale for why the report is deficient and what changes to the report would be necessary to correct the deficiency. The ALJ will resolve the dispute and direct ED and /or the IOUs, via ruling, to prepare an addendum to the report correcting the deficiency. The addendum will be posted on the same website where the draft reports are posted. DRA and TURN support the ED's recommendations. NRDC recommends formulation and implementation of one or more formal dispute resolution mechanisms specifically tailored to EM &V. SCE advocates that dispute resolution should be attempted through informal processes before being elevated to ALJ or Commission resolution, and that major disputes be resolved tluough Commission decisions. PG &E proposes initial submission of disputes, which are often technical in nature, to an independent, expert evaluation body for resolution. Unlike ED, PG &E would allow for escalation of disputes concerning project - specific plans and review of technical reports to the full Commission, not just the assigned ALJ. SDG &E /SoCalGas propose that major disputes should lead to an ALJ PD, with final determination by the full Commission. Currently, disputes between the IOUs and ED regarding EM &V studies are resolved by ED, with no specific process for appeal. This is consistent with the relationship that ED has with the IOUs: ED as an arm of the regulatory body -30- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays is carrying out the Commission's policy through delegated authority. IOUs have been frustrated at times with this model. Without a formal appeal process, IOUs would need to use another mechanism to challenge ED determinations, such as was done in a filing a Petition for Modification of D.07 -09 -043 and D.08 -01 -042 in 2008 in effect to appeal ED's first Verification Report of 2006 through 2007 energy savings.15 As PG &E points out, the process surrounding contractor selection and determination of EM &V study topics involves many technical issues. Certainly, the determination of energy savings involves a variety of technical assumptions and calculations, with a high potential for differing opinions. It is reasonable for certain disputes regarding complex and controversial EM &V matters to be resolved by ALJs and /or Commissioners instead of by ED staff. All parties, as well as ED, now agree there is a need for a new dispute resolution process with regard to EM &V studies. The first priority should be to minimize any formal disputes. The best way to do so is to ensure open and full communications between ED and IOUs, as well as transparency for the public. Avoiding misunderstandings, developing trust, and providing transparency should go a long way toward avoiding or resolving potential issues before there 15 ED's November 2008 draft first Verification Report recommended rewards and penalties of under $10 million for each of the four IOUs. Before the first Verification Report was completed, the IOUs filed a Petition for Modification of D.07 -09 -043 and D.08 -01 -042 arguing, among other things, that there were fundamental flaws in the underlying data and analysis used in the ED's verification process for 2006 and 2007 energy savings. The IOUs collectively sought shareholder incentive rewards for energy savings in the amount of over $150 million. Ultimately, the Commission in D.08 -12 -059 determined that the IOUs should be awarded an interim amount of $82 million, with a 65% holdback of claims for future review. D.09 -12 -045 awarded the IOUs $61 million of their subsequent claim, with 35% holdback for f urther review. -31- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays is a need to escalate to a formal dispute resolution process. The rules for ED review adopted herein and set forth in Attachment 2 provide an orderly process which should help minimize disputes upfront. ED is not a formal party to our proceedings. This means that ED does not present witnesses, file formal comments, present sworn testimony or have other rights or obligations of parties. Yet, at this time, for EM &V ED serves in a dual role of independent evaluator and (in the case of a formal dispute) advocate to Commission decision - makers for its analysis and decisions. We do not wish to confer party status on ED for these purposes. To do so would be to compromise the ability of ED to perform its essential function of impartially and confidentially advising the Commission. It would be impractical to set up an "advocacy' portion of ED to engage in EM &V dispute resolution, apart from the overall "advisory" portion of ED, if for no other reason than the same personnel would have to wear two hats (or additional staff would be required). To find our way through this issue, we look to previous efforts in the energy efficiency area. In recent years, ED proposals have at times been issued for comment by ALJ and /or assigned Commissioner Ruling. This has provided parties a formal opportunity to continent on such proposals.16 As with a. Motion or Petition for Modification, ED does not have an automatic right to reply to comments on the Ruling, 17 However, there has been no prohibition on ED 16 There have also been ED proposals issued for informal comment 17 Unless ED is a party, any response to a formal filing would not be part of the record unless placed in the record by Ruling or other Commission action. It is not clear whether ED could be made a party to a proceeding. In any case, ED has never sought to file such a reply or become a party to an energy efficiency proceeding. -32- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays advising the ALJ, assigned Commissioner or other decision - makers on these matters. We do not agree with ED that the assigned ALJ should be the final arbiter of all formal disputes. This approach would put an undue burden on the ALJ and would place too much delegated authority to one individual. Instead, we will provide multiple avenues for dispute resolution. We will provide for the following dispute resolution methods for those matters which cannot be resolved informally. A party may file a "Motion for EM &V Dispute Resolution" (EM &V Motion) with the assigned ALJ in R.09 -11 -014 or its successor for resolution of an EM &V matter. The EM &V Motion must include a statement from ED giving its side of the dispute.us The ALJ may undertake any appropriate process to gather further information. The ALJ may issue a Ruling to resolve the dispute. Alternatively, in an EM &V Motion, the filing party or the ED may ask that the matter be resolved by the assigned Commission or the full Commission. In that case, the ALJ will consult with the assigned Commissioner to determine the appropriate course of action. This may include an ALJ Ruling, an assigned Commissioner Ruling, or a Commission Decision. If the ALJ and assigned Commission decide to bring the matter to the full Commission, the ALJ or assigned Commissioner will issue a PD and allow for comment under Rule 14 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. The EM &V Motion may be used for the following purposes only: us To the extent that an EM &V Motion would be delayed past the deadlines required by this Decision in order to include a statement from ED, the filing party should ask the assigned ALJ for leave to late -file the EM &V Motion. -33- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays • Disputes over results of EM &V studies or reports; • Dispute over selection of an EM &V contractor; • Disputes about project- specific final EM &V work plans; • Disputes regarding final EM &V technical reports; and • Disputes concerning public vetting of EM &V projects. The EM &V Motion process does not apply to any dispute over results of ED Verification Reports, either draft or final. SCE, NRDC, and SDG &E /SoCalGas in comments to the PD recommend that EM &V process and /or EM &V disputes should include review by non - Commission experts. We do not adopt this proposal. ED and its EM &V consultants are inherently independent of any parties' interests. Review of ED EM &V work by non - Commission experts would be redwldant, costly, time - consuming, and would only serve to undermine public confidence in ED's efforts. The new dispute resolution process will be a better way to address any technical concerns. 7. Customer Participation in EM &V as a Condition of EM &V Funding Question 10 of the November 20 Ruling asked: "Should the IOUs modify program eligibility rides to require very large customized program participants to participate in evaluations if selected in a sample, as a condition for receiving energy efficiency funding ?" ED has found that many large project participants have refused to participate in evaluations. ED believes it is reasonable to require participants who receive a large stun of energy efficiency funding and services to participate in evaluations, if needed. This participation would include on -site measurement and verification, as well as surveys of key participant personnel. ED proposes to -34- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays review past projects with the IOUs to determine the energy efficiency incentive threshold above which participation in evaluations would be obligatory. ED pledges to reduce the burden of participating in evaluations by coordinating with the IOU implementation and inspection process. ED recommends that the Commission require the IOUs to cooperate with ED in this regard. SCE sees this as a program issue, not an EM &V issue. SCE asserts that the IOUs already require such customers who receive energy efficiency program funds to sign a statement acknowledging that they may be required to participate in evaluation studies. If this issue needs to be considered further, SCE would defer this issue to R.09 -11 -014. PG &E and SDG &E /SoCalGas agree with SCE that large customized program participants are already subject to evaluation requirements, but PG &E notes that this obligation is limited to calculated savings programs (as opposed to deemed savings programs).79 SDG &E /SoCalGas recommend that ED and the IOUs improve coordination in this area to ensure better customer participation in the evaluation process. DRA agrees that streamlining the EM &V process and accommodating customer needs is important. 4his issue appears to be one of enforcement of existing obligations. While all customers receiving energy efficiency program funds are obligated to submit 19 "Calculated savings programs" refers to programs that offer rebates for custom projects (typically for large commercial and industrial customers), for which the rebate and ex -ante energy savings are calculated for each individual project. "Deemed savings programs" refers to programs that offer predetermined rebates and assume a predetermined energy savings for a range of conditions (i.e. climate, building type, etc.) for a predetermined set of energy efficiency products and services. Ex-ante deemed rebates and savings assumptions are not adjusted for each individual project. -35- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays to evaluation studies, some customers apparently refuse to do so. This may be because, as SDG &E /SoCalGas point out, customers may find the studies to be redundant, to require too much effort, or to be intrusive. Nevertheless, we emphasize to both IOUs and customers that our energy efficiency program relies on accurate information about programs and we expect all participants to adhere to evaluation requirements. We find no specific policy that needs to be changed here; the current requirements simply need to be enforced. We encourage the efforts of ED (including its EM &V consultants) and the IOUs to work with customers to both ensure necessary and required cooperation and to limit the burden on customers. 8. Counting Savings from Behavior Based Programs In D.09 -09 -047 we directed an investigation into the feasibility of crediting savings from behavior -based energy efficiency programs. In following with this directive, Question 10 of the November 20 Ruling asked: "Should the Commission allow the IOUs the opportunity to count savings from behavior based programs? Flow should the Commission develop EM &V methodologies to verify savings driven by behavior -based efficiency programs? What analytical issues are raised by changing policy to allow credit and require measurement of savings driven by behavior -based efficiency programs (i.e. savings persistence, potential double- counting of savings by other resource programs, potential double- counting of savings claimed as part of the conservation benefits assumed to underlie Advanced Meter Infrastructure (AMI) business cases [I'G &E D.09 -03 -026; SCE D.08 -09 -039; SDG &E D.07 -04- 043]) ?" ED believes that the categories of behavior -based programs must be well - defined and measurement issues clarified before categorically recommending savings credit from behavior based programs, stating that if -36- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays defined too broadly, evaluation resources could become unduly tied up in measuring savings from which represent a small fraction of overall portfolio savings. In addition, ED believes there are significant intersecting issues with the IOUs' AMI programs. For instance, ED believes it is the intent of the AMI program to provide customers with usage data to help them manage their energy consumption through conservation. Comparative usage reporting and benchmarking could be provided as part of the bundle of AMI services. Thus, crediting these savings in the context of energy efficiency programs will require careful accounting to ensure that they have not been either counted, or paid for, twice. ED recommends that the Commission consider forming a working group, facilitated by ED, to explore these issues. For the purpose of this Decision, we will restrict the definition of behavior based programs to the "comparative energy usage disclosure programs' defined in SB 488. As defined by SB 488, comparative usage programs are specifically programs "...pursuant to which an electrical corporation or gas corporation discloses information to residential subscribers relative to the amount of energy used by the metered residence compared to similar residences in the subscriber's geographical area." We understand that certain non - residential market sectors may offer opportunities for comparable or greater savings under similar programs, and thus do not restrict our definition to residential applications. -37- A.08 -07 -021. et al. ALJ /DMG /ays PG &E points out that Senate Bill (SB) 48820 encourages the pursuit of comparative home energy reporting, a specific type of behavior based program, which should be evaluated using experimental design approaches. PG &E and OPower suggest that the use of experimental design can help prevent double- counting from behavior based programs and other initiatives, such as AMI. OPower provides two examples of completed experimental studies of their program as well as a proposed protocol, which PG &E and Sempra recommend be added to our evaluation protocols. PG &E, SCE, and OPower point out that experimental design is already a method accepted by the Commission and is included in the California Evaluation Protocols.21 DRA recommends that ED develop a methodology to isolate behavior based savings from EE resource programs, non -EE programs, AMI influences, as well as energy efficiency messages from sources outside of the utilities. DRA is concerned that measurement of behavior based savings without improved methods will be daunting, costly, and controversial; and questions whether such methods can be implemented objectively. TURN believes that extensive research is still needed before the Commission should commit to allowing the counting of 20 SB 488 was approved by the Governor on October 11, 2009. The statute requires IOUs that have comparative energy usage disclosure programs to report program energy savings to the Commission and requires the Commission to use experimental design evaluations to determine net energy savings from these programs and report to the Energy Commission and the Legislature the evaluation results and any action undertaken by the Commission in response to the evaluation. 2'1 The California Evaluation Protocols provide standard procedures and methodological choices for conducting various types of evaluations. Itp.epuc.ca. gov / puc / energy/ electric/ energy +efficiency / em +and +v / Ev ahratorsPro toc ols Final AdoptedviaRuling 06- 19- 2006.doc. NOT A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays savings from behavior based programs. PG &E believes that the Commission must act quickly with existing methods and not wait to develop any new methods or protocols. SCE requests that the Commission to create a regulatory environment that encourages behavior based programs, emphasizing that behavior change and conservation are critical to achieving market transformation and reductions in energy use. SCE recommends a performance incentive mechanism that tracks and credits behavior and conservation goals, including the measurement of energy savings from behavior based programs. OPower states that the IOUs have indicated that they want to operate behavior -based efficiency programs at scale, and that they are waiting for this Commissions approval before they do, and in at least in one case, will only proceed with such a plan if the Commission recognizes behavior as an efficiency resource. SCE argues that the greatest uncertainty with measuring behavior based programs is savings persistence. SCE therefore suggests that savings .from behavior based programs be estimated with shorter ex -ante effective useful lives while ED and the utilities identify and develop more reliable methods for estimating energy savings created by programs focused on changing energy user behavior. NRDC suggests that behavior based programs be assumed to provide savings only during the period that the program is in place. SDG &E /SoCalGas supports the estimation of savings from behavior based programs, so long as the savings are reliable and verifiable. SDG &E /SoCalGas advises that the full value of benefits resulting from California's Smart Meter (also known as advanced metering infrastructure or AMI) investment must be recognized and quantified to encourage effective utility programs. -39- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays In D.09 -09 -043, we indicated our intent to consider EM &V methodologies to account for behavior based programs. We reasoned that because many of the programmatic directives in that decision marked a shift towards market transformation consistent with Strategic Plan objectives, the Commission should consider ways to credit savings from new programmatic approaches focused on generating measured energy use reductions through behavioral motivation. We agree with the utilities that it is within our energy efficiency programs best interest to create a regulatory environment that encourages behavior change and conservation. Such a regulatory environment necessarily includes the measurement and crediting of energy savings from programs that focus on behavioral motivations to generate measurable savings. We also understand ED's concern that if defined too broadly, this pursuit could consume many resources and distract away from other priority EM &V activities. As DRA warns, we must be cautious not to commit to an overly complex, costly, and controversial measurement system. All parties recognize the need to avoid double- counting, with which we agree. Given the parties' comments and testimony submitted on this issue, we are persuaded that it is reasonable to measure savings from certain behavior based programs. To the extent that any program holds potential to produce significant verifiable savings, it is appropriate to attempt to estimate such savings, particularly when consistent with the overall policy direction we have adopted for energy efficiency. We thus adopt a policy to measure and count savings from comparative usage programs, as defined in this Decision, using experimental design methodologies contained within the California Evaluation Protocols. We defer to the prioritization process described in the EM &V Plan adopted in this decision to MOOR A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays make decisions regarding which behavior based programs will be evaluated and specifically how those programs will be evaluated. These programs have intersections with several other categories of program activities already underway, such as ANII. As such we must take special care to ensure that savings credited to these programs do not represent double- counting. The experimental design method, as described in the California Evaluation Protocols, and spelled out in greater detail in parties' comments, is well equipped to deal with most of the analytical issues raised by the overlap of the savings targeted by comparative energy use reports, and programs already under way through Commission directive. So long as the evaluation is set up to compare two populations which in statistical terms are in no way different except for the treatment of the program, the measured savings should be those attributable to the program, provided the experiment is properly designed. As shown in the record, deployments of comparative energy use programs have yielded savings on the order of 1.5 to 3.5 percent across sample populations. However, due to overlap with other initiatives targeting behavior change, measurable savings from service areas within our jurisdiction may differ, lending uncertainty to any savings we may project for these programs. We thus, propose a slightly different process for the crediting of savings from these programs for 2010 -2012. Utilities will not be allowed to submit workpapers for ex ante numbers which draw from other sources to project savings for these programs. Our policy determination in D.09 -09 -047 to freeze ex ante values could potentially lock in overly optimistic savings projections for this novel brand of resource program. Instead we commit only to crediting ex post savings for behavior programs in the 2010 -2012 program cycle. As such, the onus is on -41- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays the program provider to make the case to the utility that the program provides added value to efforts already underway, and that projected savings will materialize as real and verifiable. 9. Other Issues Deferred by D.09 -09 -047 9.1. EM &V Contractor Firewall Issues In D.05 -01 -055 at 122 we established a policy that prohibited firms engaged in energy efficiency work from performing both program impact evaluations and program implementation: "Specifically, we will prohibit entities from performing any program and portfolio impacts - related studies at the same time they are under contract for program delivery work. As defined in this decision, these are the types of studies that are designed to produce findings (that may be favorable or. unfavorable) on program or portfolio accornplishments." In the Straw Proposal, ED proposed making case by case exceptions to this firewall policy in order to recruit program implementers to collect data needed for EM &V, following strict protocols.. All parties except SDG &E /SoCalGas support ED's proposed modifications, while SDG &E /SoCalGas opposed any changes to the current regimen. ED's approach is reasonable because it will allow a more efficient use of resources in certain situations where otherwise multiple implementers or evaluators would be needed to conduct site measurements. We will modify the firewall to allow ED, on a case by case basis, to use program implementers as a vehicle for collecting EM &V data when this would clearly be more efficient. 9.2. 2009 Avoided Costs In the Straw Proposal, ED proposed changes to the avoided costs adopted in D.06 -06 -063 for the purpose of calculating benefits from the 2009 bridge funding period. Specifically, ED proposed the development of a new set -42- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays of electric avoided costs using the Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) costs from the Market Price Referent (MPR), including transmission and distribution costs and an update to the gas price forecast based upon the following options: 1. the 2006 -2008 interim avoided costs from D.06 -06 -063 and an escalation factor for years not covered in the interim values; or 2. current market values (consistent with the approach authorized in D.06 -06 -063); or 3. using the market values obtained for the 2009 -2011 planning values. In comments to the proposed decision, SCE suggests a fourth option using the gas prices and capacity values that are contained in the 2008 MPR specifically for 2009 programs. SCE further recommends that ED use current gas prices (option 2) for purposes of updating the 2008 MPR's natural gas prices for evaluation of the 2010 -2012 programs. We direct ED to update the avoided costs using the best of the proposed options at the time of the update. ED also recommends that the greenhouse gas (GHG) adder be updated using the 2008 MPR value of $30 per tonne. No party opposed ED's proposal to update the avoided costs for 2009. SCE expressed concern that the GHG adder levelized cost calculation over- values short lived measures, but provided no further detail or examples. ED should ensure, to the extent possible, that the carbon adder calculation methodology does not over -value short -lived measures. D.06 -06 -063 is modified to adopt a new set of electric and gas avoided costs to be applied to energy efficiency from 2009 forward. The electric and gas avoided cost should include a modified CO2 emissions adder of $30 /tonne in 2009 using generation cost inputs from the most recently adopted Market Price Referent as of the date of this Decision and updating the natural gas cost forecast using data as of the date of this Decision. -43- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays 9.3. 2009 Bridge Funding Reporting, Budget Allocation, and EM &V In the Straw Proposal, ED proposed using results from the final 2006 -2008 evaluation reports as inputs for calculating the energy impacts of 2009 programs, for those measures and programs that were evaluated during the 2006 -2008 period and also extended during 2009. PG &E believes that DEER 2008 values rather than the 2006 -2008 ex -post values should be used as inputs for calculating the impacts of the 2009 programs. PG &E argues that the DEER 2008 values are the most appropriate inputs for calculating the energy impacts because these were the values available to the IOUs when planning their 2009 -2011 programs. SCE agrees, but recommends that ED extend the 2006 -2008 evaluation contracts to gather representative samples for the 2009 programs. TURN and DRA agree with ED's proposal. TURN, DRA and PG &E disagree with SCE's proposal to conduct additional field work on 2009 programs for the purpose of calculating the energy impacts of 2009 programs. We adopt ED's proposed approach to calculating the energy impacts of 2009. While PG &E cites language in D.08 -10 -027 that directed the use of 2008 DEER in calculating the savings and cost - effectiveness of 2009 programs, that directive was put into place to address discrepancies between IOU filings and certain DEER values, and not to limit the applicability of 2006 -2008 evaluation results to 2009 programs. The determination to "freeze" cost and savings assumptions in D.09 -09 -047, cited by SCE, was made well after D.08 -10 -027, and was meant to apply on a forward looking basis. We therefore reject proposals not to evaluate 2009 programs using 2006 -2008 EM &V studies. The energy impacts of the 2009 programs shall be reported by ED before the end of 2010, or as otherwise required by R.09 -11 -014, R.09 -01 -019, or other applicable energy efficiency docket. -44- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays D.08 -10 -027, which authorized the 2009 bridge funding, did not make clear how much of the authorized funding would be allocated between ED and IOU managed projects. We find that it is appropriate to use the same allocation between ED and IOUs for the 2009 EM &V funding as was used in the decision approving 2006 -2008 EM &V budgets (D.05 -11 -011). The allocation rate adopted in that decision is 27.5% to the IOUs and 72.5% to ED.' -z 9.4. Codes and Standards In D.09 -09 -047 at 205, the Commission deferred four energy efficiency policy rule modifications related to measurement of the codes and standards program (C &S) proposed by the IOUs in their second amended application for approval of 2010 -2012 portfolios: In their July, 2009 Second Amended Application, the utilities propose to: 1) count 100 percent of gross savings from all proceedings including pre -2006 advocacy efforts towards minimum performance standard and performance earnings basis; 2) gain credit for savings achieved tfrrough the Compliance Enhancement and Reach Code sub - programs, 3) clarify the calculation methodology of gross savings for C &S; and 4) reconsider and calculate savings resulting from non - utility territories. These issues will be deferred to the forthcoming decision in this docket on EM &V issues. D.09 -09 -047 provides a summary of the parties' comments on the IOUs second amended applications and in response to questions posed in the June 9, 2009 ALJ Ruling issued in Application (A.) 08 -07 -021. " S'DG &E /SoCalGas allocated 75% to ED and 25% to the utilities in Advice Letters 2034- E/1809 G and 3912, respectively. This decision supercedes those Advice Letters. -45- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays We make changes to the way we measure codes and standards for the 2010 -2012 program cycle. In D.07 -10 -032, it was ordered that the current Commission policy will continue for the 2009 -2011 (now 2010 -2012) program cycle; i.e., we will count 50% of verified savings from the IOUs pre -2006 C &S advocacy work towards achievement of goals for 2010 -2012, and 100% of verified savings from post 2006 -08 C &S advocacy work. We are convinced by the IOUs and NRDC that 100% of verified savings from pre -2006 C &S advocacy work should count toward achievement of 2010 -2012 goals. As PG &E points out, better technical data about savings is now available as compared to when the original 50% determination was made in D.05 -09 -043, including Evaluation Protocols and elimination of concerns about double- counting and base case forecasts. We clarify that this accounting is only for savings occurring within the IOU service areas. We also clarify that gross savings should be calculated using the Unit energy savings for each standard or measure adjusted for installation rates and non - compliance. The baseline for gross savings should be the previous standard or the prevailing market practice. Net savings should be the gross savings adjusted by the rate of "naturally occurring market adoption" (NOMAD) and the attribution level for each IOU within the IOUs service territories. It is important to clarify what is involved in the concept of a "Reach Code." By their nature, the code must be formally adopted by an enforcement jurisdiction. The code must be legally enforceable and enforced by the jurisdiction, and it must apply to all entities within the adopting jurisdiction. It may cover extensions beyond current Title -24 and Title 20 standards, or it may involve new technologies or practices. By the nature of Reach codes, all -46- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays measures adopted wouldn t necessarily have to be currently cost - effective. We direct ED staff to conduct pilot evaluations of the Compliance Enhancement and Reach Code sub - programs. 10. Comments on Proposed Decision The proposed decision of the ALJ in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Section 311 of the Public Utilities Code and comments were allowed under Rule 14.3 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. Conunents were filed on March 29, 2010, and reply comments were filed on April 5, 2010. Assignment of Proceeding Dian M. Grueneich is the assigned Commissioner and David M. Garrison is the assigned Administrative Law Judge in this proceeding. Findings of Fact 1. EM &V is an important part of the Commissions energy efficiency program for several reasons. First, it is necessary to determine whether and how well current individual programs are working, both in terms of saving energy and in comparison to projections. Second, EM &V is critical in considering how to improve programs and for development of new measures. Third, EM &V is used on a broad level to measure whether the IOUs are meeting, on a portfolio basis, the overall energy savings goals established by the Commission. Fourth, EM &V results are used to determine whether IOUs should receive rewards or pay penalties as part of the energy efficiency shareholder incentives plan developed by the Commission_ 2. D.05 -01 -055 and D.05 -11 -01.1 set forth the miles for EM &V for the 2006 through 2008 energy efficiency program. -47- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays 3. D.09 -09 -047 adopted energy efficiency portfolios for 2010 through 2012 for SCE, SoCalGas, SDG &E, and PG &E. That decision established the Commissions goals and core objectives for EM &V for the 2010 through 2012 portfolios. 4. On July 7, 2009, an ALJ Ruling sought comment on an ED "straw proposal" on EM &V issues. In the July 7 Ruling, parties in this proceeding were given notice that the Commission may in this proceeding adopt changes that would modify D.05 -01 -055. To that end, the July 7 Ruling with its attachments was served on the service list in R.01 -08 -028 (the proceeding in which D.05 -01 -055 was issued). 5. A budget of $125 million, or 4% of the overall portfolio budgets, for 2010 through 2012 EM &V was adopted in D.09 -09 -047, subject to review in this decision. 6. In previous energy efficiency cycles, each utility's EM &V budget was determined by its proportional share of the total EM &V budget approved by the Commission, with the proportion equal to its proportion of total program budgets. For the 2010 through 2012 energy efficiency cycle, these proportional amounts are: 43% for PG &E; 39% for SCE; and 9% each for SDG &E and SoCalGas. 7. ED and the IOUs prepared an EM &V plan which was jointly submitted to the assigned ALJ and issued for comment via Ruling. The Joint Plan is responsive to the Commission's stated desire in D.09 -09 -047 to make near -term improvements in order to streamline EM &V processes, and enhance timeliness, transparency and consistency across EM &V work products and to take a fresh look at several aspects of our EM &V activity in California for the upcoming program cycle, to reduce unnecessary burden on staff and other resources, and streamline our EM &V processes. -48- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays 8. Both ED and IOUs should have specific and defined roles in EM &V. 9. IOUs continue to have a vested interest in the outcome of EM &V studies, as these studies are used to determine the level of energy efficiency shareholder incentives. 10. As program administrators and implementers, the IOUs have the data and the expertise to provide critical input to EM &V studies. IOUs also have a role, along with other energy efficiency constituents, to use the data gathered in EM &V efforts to improve program development and implementation. 11. There is evidence of overlap between IOU and ED EM &V activities that reduces the effective use of ratepayer funds. 12. EM &V studies should help form the basis for improvement of energy efficiency programs by showing what works well and what does not. It is important that this information be made available to stakeholders to the greatest degree feasible without compromising confidential information. 13. The IOUs require 15% (or $18.75 million) of the $125 million EM &V budget for 2010 through 2012 to maintain staffing levels. 14. $34.3 million is a reasonable estimate for the funding needed for IOUs to perform EM &V studies in 2010 through 2012, including the amount needed to maintain staffing levels. 15. IOUs have in the past conducted some or all of the program design and market assessment studies and early EM &V activities. 16. The determination of energy savings involves a variety of technical assumptions and calculations, with a high potential for differing opinions. 17. Currently, disputes between the IOUs and ED regarding EM &V studies are resolved by ED, with no specific process for appeal. All parties agree that -49- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays increasing contentiousness in this area requires the Commission to create a new EM &V dispute resolution process. 18. ED is not a party to Commission proceedings. If an EM &V dispute is made formal through a Motion or other action by a party, ED would not have a right to file continents disputing the party's version of the dispute. 19. ED provided recommendations regarding IOU involvement in ED EM &V studies in Section C of the ED Straw Proposal "Stakeholder Input Process and Approval of EM &V Projects," which are complemented by the informal interactions proposed in the Joint Plan. 20. ED provided recommendations regarding determining the level of public vetting for EM &V projects. 21. ED recommends that the Commission require that all EM &V- related projects, regardless of funding source, adhere to the same policies and procedures as EM &V funded projects. 22. ED recommends that it review past projects with the IOUs to determine the energy efficiency incentive threshold above which customer participation in evaluations would be obligatory. 23. D.05 -01 -055 established a policy that prohibited firms engaged in energy efficiency work from performing both program impact evaluations and program implementation. This policy at times limits the ability to recruit program implementers to collect data needed for EM &V. 24. Avoided costs adopted in D.06 -06 -063 need to be updated for the purpose of calculating benefits from the 2009 bridge funding period, including an updated GHG adder, and for 2010 and forward. -50- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays 25. There are significant intersecting issues with the IOUs' AMI programs and energy efficiency behavior -based programs, which could lead to double- counting of benefits. 26. It is reasonable to attempt to measure savings from certain behavior based programs. 27. The experimental design method, as described in the California Evaluation Protocols, and spelled out in greater detail by OPower's testimony, is well equipped to deal with certain analytical issues and policy concerns raised by the overlap of the savings targeted by comparative energy use reports, and programs already underway through Commission directive. 28. The policy determination in D.09 -09 -047 to freeze ex ante values could potentially lock in overly optimistic projections for behavior -based programs. 29. Results from the final 2006 -2008 evaluation reports can be used as inputs for calculating the energy impacts of 2009 programs for those programs that were evaluated during the 2006 -2008 period and also extended during 2009. Using these results would conserve resources and ensure consistency with the evaluation of the 2006 -2008 programs from which the 2009 bridge - funding portfolios were derived. 30. Concerns about counting of Codes and Standards savings pre -2006 have been sufficiently resolved to allow 100% of savings to be counting toward energy savings goals. Conclusions of Law 1. Proper notice was given to parties that the Commission may in this proceeding adopt changes that would modify D.05 -01 -055. 2, The Joint IOU /ED EM &V Plan is reasonable and should be adopted. -51- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays 3. Experience with EM &V since D.05 -01 -055 requires that the Commission strengthen ED's management role for EM &V in order to minimize conflicts of interest, reduce duplication, and ensure transparency of information. 4. D.05 -01 -055 should be modified to provide specific oversight responsibilities for ED's management role for EM &V. 5. ED's management role for EM &V should include timely responses to IOU requests, including specific timefrarnes. 6. A budget of $125 million for EM &V for 2010 through 2012 is reasonable. 7. OP 42 of D.09 -09 -047 should be corrected to use the current program funding proportions for the 2010 through 2012 energy efficiency program cycle to determine EM &V funding for each utility. 8. $18.75 million of the $125 million EM &V budget for 2010 through 2012 should be allocated to the IOUs to maintain staffing levels. 9. It is reasonable to expect that IOUs should perform some or all of the types of EM &V studies that they have performed in the past. 10. $34.3 million of the $125 million EM &V budget for 2010 through 2012 should be allocated to the IOUs to perform EM &V studies (including staff costs). 11. It is reasonable for disputes regarding complex and controversial EM &V matters to be considered by the formal decision- makers in the Commission, after attempts at informal resolution. 1.2. The ED's recommendations as laid out in part of Section C of the ED Straw Proposal for IOU involvement in ED EM &V studies are reasonable. 13. It is reasonable to delegate to ED the task of determining the level of public vetting for EM &V projects. 14. ED's recommendation that all EM' &V- related projects, regardless of funding source, adhere to the same policies and procedures as EM &V funded -52- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays projects is reasonable, with the caveat that the EM &V processes should not apply to projects not previously considered to be in the EM &V category. 15. While ED and the IOUs should work with customers on evaluation surveys to both ensure necessary cooperation and to limit the burden on customers, there is no need to change any specific policy in this area. 16. It is reasonable to allow case -by -case exceptions to the Commission's firewall policy adopted in D.05 -01 -055 in order to recruit program implementers to collect data needed for EM &V. 17. It is reasonable to adopt a new set of electric and gas avoided costs for energy efficiency resources, including an updated GHG adder of $30 /tonne in 2009 using generation cost inputs from the most recently adopted Market Price Referent as of the date of this Decision, and updating the natural gas cost forecast using data as of the date of this Decision. 18. It is reasonable to credit savings from certain proven behavior -based programs, using methodologies contained within the California Evaluation Protocols. 19. It is reasonable to use the results from the final 2006 -2008 evaluation reports as inputs for calculating the energy impacts of 2009 programs, for those measures and programs that were evaluated during the 2006 -2008 period and also extended during 2009. 20. 100% of pre -2006 Codes and Standards savings should be counted toward IOU energy savings goals. - 53 - A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays O R D E R IT IS ORDERED that: 1. Southern California Edison Company, Southern California Gas Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company shall adhere to the "2010 - 2012 Joint Energy Division and IOU Evaluation Measurement and Verification Plan" in Attachment A. 2. The budget of $125 million for Evaluation, Measurement and Verification (EM &V) for 2010 through 2012, tentatively adopted in Decision 09 -09 -047, is affirmed. A party seeking to increase the 2010 -2012 EM &V budget may file a Motion in Rulemaking 09 -11 -014, the open energy efficiency Rulemaking. 3. Ordering Paragraph 42 of Decision 09 -09 -047 is corrected to read: "An initial Evaluation, Measurement and Verification budget of $125 million is adopted, subject to review in the follow -up Evaluation, Measurement and Verification decision in this docket. $88 million in remaining funds shall be used for these purposes, with $37 million in additional funds approved for 2010 -2012. Evaluation, Measurement and Verification funds shall be allocated as follows: Pacific Gas and Electric Company 43 %; Southern California Edison Company 39 %; San Diego Gas & Electric Company 9 %; and Southern California Gas Company 9 %." 4. The process for Evaluation, Measurement and Verification for the 2010 through 2012 energy efficiency portfolios adopted in Decision 09 -09 -047 for Southern California Edison Company, Southern California Gas Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (collectively, IOUs) shall supersede the process adopted in Decision 05 -01 -055 regarding the following processes: -54- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays An IOU shall seek approval from Energy Division before initiating Evaluation, Measurement & Verification (EM &V) ex -ante studies, or EM &V process or formative evaluations. The IOU management role for developing ex -ante savings estimates or EM &V process or formative evaluations shall be under the oversight of Energy Division, who shall have the authority to deny approval of projects. This authority is limited to situations where there is a conflict of interest with a contractor the IOU wishes to hire, where there is duplication or significant overlap with studies already planned or carried out by Energy Division, or where Energy Division can specify why a study is unnecessary. Energy Division's approval process for IOU's ex -ante studies, or EM &V process or formative evaluations, is limited to no more than two weeks. Any Energy Division denial of approval shall be in writing to the IOU requesting approval. If Energy Division expects to take three months or more to complete an ex ante estimate study, Energy Division shall approve an IOU request to develop ex -ante estimate in order to ensure timely information, or reject the request by providing the IOU, within two weeks of the IOU's request, with a written statement indicating that such rejection is due to duplication, conflict of interest or other specific rationale. Review of completed IOU workpapers regarding ex -ante savings estimates are subject to Energy Division review and approval, as set forth in an Administrative Law Judge Ruling of November 18, 2009 in Application 08 -07 -021, et al. Each IOU shall cooperate with Energy Division to allow upfront consultation regarding such workpapers. Energy Divisions role for approval and involvement in IOU EM &V projects shall be as set forth in Attachment 2 of this decision. • Energy Division may make case -by -case exceptions to the Commission - adopted firewall policy regarding program implementers in order to collect data needed for EM &V. -55- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays 5. Decision (D.) 06 -06 -063 is modified to adopt a new set of electric and gas avoided costs for energy efficiency resources, including a greenhouse gas adder of $30 /tonne, using generation cost inputs from the most recent Commission- adopted Market Price Referent as of the date of this order. Energy Division shall update the natural gas avoided cost for energy efficiency resources using natural gas price data as of the date of this order. 6. A total of $34.3 million for Evaluation, Measurement and Verification (EM &V) studies for 201.0 through 2012, including staffing costs, allocated among Southern California Edison Company, Southern California Gas Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company consistent with Ordering Paragraph #3 of this order. Following the process in Attachment 2 to this order, Energy Division shall determine if other EM &V funds shall be allocated to these utilities. 7. A party to Rulemaking (R.) 09 -11 -014 may file a "Motion for Evaluation, Measurement and Verification Dispute Resolution' (EM &V Motion) with the assigned Administrative Law Judge for resolution of an EM &V matter. The EM &V Motion must include a statement from Energy Division giving its side of the dispute and documentation of an attempt at informal dispute resolution. The Administrative Law Judge may issue a Ruling to resolve the dispute. 8. In a Motion for Evaluation, Measurement and Verification Dispute Resolution filed pursuant to Ordering Paragraph 7 of this order, the filing party or the Energy Division may ask that the matter be resolved by the assigned Commission or the full Commission. In that case, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) will consult with the assigned Commissioner to determine the appropriate course of action. In this situation, the assigned Commissioner or ALJ may issue a Ruling to resolve the dispute. If the assigned Commissioner determines the -56- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays matter should be brought before the full Commission, the ALJ or assigned Commissioner shall issue a Proposed Decision and allow for comment under Rule 1.4 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. 9. A Motion for Evaluation, Measurement and Verification (EM &V) Dispute Resolution filed pursuant to Ordering Paragraph 7 of this order may be used for the following purposes only: • Dispute over selection of an EM &V contractor; • Disputes about project- specific final EM &V work plans; • Disputes over results of EM &V studies or reports (except for Energy Division Verification Reports, which are issued via draft resolutions per D.08 -12 -059); • Disputes regarding final EM &V technical reports; and • Disputes concerning public vetting of EM &V projects. 10. The process for Southern California Edison Company, Southern California Gas Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (investor -owned utilities or IOUs) involvement in Energy Division (ED) Evaluation, Measurement and Verification (EM &V) studies shall supersede the process adopted in Decision 05 -01 -055, and shall be as follows: ED and the IOUs will convene publicly- noticed meetings among their staff, EM &V contractors, and stakeholders to share key results and EM &V findings that might lead to improvements in the portfolio and identify best practices and possible improvements to evaluation methods. Such meetings will take place sometime around the middle of the program cycle or at such time when significant results from various EM &V projects are available. If so requested by parties or stakeholders, ED or IOUs, or both, should hold short informal meetings with groups or individual organizations, to discuss EM &V work progress and results. ED and IOUs will convene ad hoc meetings (approximately quarterly) among ED staff, EM &V contractors, IOU EM &V 57- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays staff and IOU program managers to discuss work progress and results. These meetings are to provide for timely feedback to program design and implementation. The IOUs can request meetings with ED to discuss work progress and results at any time. • When significant results are produced by the EM &V work, and a technical report is not immediately pending, the ED and /or the IOUs will provide informal written summaries of the results to the IOUs and other stakeholders. These written summaries will be posted on the same website used for posting EM &V work plans and comments. 11. Energy Division shall determine which Evaluation, Measurement and Verification projects should be publicly vetted, and shall follow the process laid out in the Energy Division Straw Proposal, pages 8 -11, issued by Ruling in this proceeding on July 7, 2009. 12. All Evaluation, Measurement and Verification (EM &V) - related projects undertaken by Southern California Edison Company, Southern California Gas Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company, regardless of funding source, shall adhere to the same policies and procedures adopted in this Order as EM &V- funded projects, except that such EM &V policies and procedures do not apply to projects not previously considered to be in the EM &V category. 13. Savings from behavior -based energy efficiency programs, defined as comparative energy use reporting contemplated in Senate Bill 488, shall be eligible for counting, if evaluated consistent with experimental design methods contained within the California Evaluation Protocols. The prioritization process described in the Joint Energy Division / Utility Plan for energy efficiency Evaluation, Measurement & Verification in 2010 through 2012, adopted in Ordering Paragraph 1 of this decision, shall be used to make decisions regarding -58- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays which programs will be evaluated and specifically how those programs will be evaluated. 14. Savings for behavior -based energy efficiency programs shall be credited solely on an ex post basis. 1.5. Results from the final 2006 -2008 evaluation reports shall be used as inputs for calculating the energy impacts of 2009 programs, for those measures and programs that were evaluated during the 2006 -2008 period and also extended during 2009. The energy impacts of the 2009 programs shall be reported by Energy Division before the end of 2010, or as otherwise required in Rulemaking (R.) 09 -11 -014, R.09 -01 -019, or other applicable energy efficiency docket. 16. 100% of pre-2006 verified savings from Codes and Standards advocacy work shall count toward achievement of Commission energy savings goals for the 2010 through 2012 energy efficiency program cycle. Verified Codes and Standards savings pre and post -2006 shall count only for savings within the utility's service territory. -59- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays 17. Applications (A.) 08 -07 -021, A.08 -07 -022, A.08 -07 -023, and A.08 -07 -031 are closed. This order is effective today. Dated April 8, 2010, at San Francisco, California. I will file a concurrence. /s/ TIMOTHY ALAN SIMON Conunissioner -60- MICHAEL R. PEEVEY President DIAN M. GRUENEICH JOHN A. BOHN TIMOTHY ALAN SIMON NANCY E. RYAN Coimnissioners A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays ATTACHMENT 2010 — 2012 Joint Energy Division and IOU Evaluation Measurement and Verification Plan 1. Introduction and Scope of Joint EM &V Plan Energy Division (ED) and the Investor -Owned Utilities (IOUs) submit this Joint Evaluation, Measurement and Verification (EM &V) / Policy and Planning (PP)' Plan ( "EM &V Plan ") pursuant to Commission Decision 09 -09 -047, "Decision Approving 2010- 2012 Energy Efficiency Portfolios and Budgets," issued on October 1, 2009. The EM &V Plan represents a cooperative effort by ED, Southern California Edison (SCE), Southern California Gas (SCG), San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG &E), and Pacific Gas and Electric (PG &E) staff to present a joint EM &V planning proposal and budget for the 2010 -2012 energy efficiency portfolios authorized in Decision 09 -09 -047. In Decision 09 -09 -047, the California Public Utilities Commission ( "CPUC" or "Commission ") addressed certain EM &V issues and policies and deferred resolution of others to a subsequent EM &V Decision. In anticipation of the subsequent EM &V decision, the Commission ordered ED and the IOUs to prepare an EM &V plan to be jointly submitted to the assigned AU and issued for comment via ruling. The plan presented herein is responsive to the Commission's stated desire "...to make near -term improvements in order to streamline EM &V processes, and enhance timeliness, transparency and consistency across EM &V work products" (D. 09 -09 -047 at p. 301) and "to take a fresh look at several aspects of our EM &V activity in California for the upcoming program cycle, to reduce unnecessary burden on staff and other resources, and streamline our EM &V processes." (D.09 -09 -047 at p. 294). In D.09 -09 -047, the Commission adopted "1) a budget for 2010 -2012 EM &V, 2) Commission goals for EM &V, and 3) a process for adopting detailed EM &V projects, refined EM &V budgets, and remaining EM &V policy issues in a subsequent EM &V Decision expected in the final quarter of 2009." The Commission clarified that the I Throughout this document "EM &V;' if not otherwise indicated, is understood to refer to both traditional Evaluation, Measurement and Verification work as well as the Energy Division's policy and planning activities. (See Decision 09 -09 -047 pages 295 -298 and 387 for more on policy and Planning as included in the EM &V budget and activities). - 1 - A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays subsequent EM &V decision would include, but would not be limited to the following issues: o Approval of the joint Energy Division and utility EM &V plans and Budgets o Clarification of the respective scope of responsibilities for IOU and ED staff o Recommendation on improved stakeholder input process for EM &V projects o Improvements to the cost - effectiveness calculation tool and tracking and reporting requirements for EM &V related data o Frequency and Scope of DEER Updates o Consideration of methodologies to verify savings driven by behavior based energy efficiency programs (D.09 -09 -047 at pp.301 -04) This EM &V Plan presents the ED and IOU joint proposals with respect to EM &V planning and budgeting. 2. Guiding Principles The EM &V plan is guided by the Commission's Goals for EM &V, as articulated in Decision 09 -09 -047: "EM &V activities shall be planned and implemented to achieve the following core objectives in order to support the Commission's oversight function of ensuring the efficient and effective expenditure of ratepayer funds within the energy efficiency portfolios. All activities should be undertaken to meet the overarching goals of clarity, consistency, cost - efficiency, and timeliness. The core objectives are: 1. Savings Measurement and Verification - Measurement and verification of savings resulting from energy efficiency measures, programs, and portfolios serve the fundamental purpose of developing estimates of reliable load impacts delivered through ratepayer- funded efficiency efforts. Measurement and verification work should reflect a reasonable balance of accuracy and precision, cost, and certainty, and be designed for incorporation into in procurement planning activities. 2. Program Evaluation - Evaluation of program- specific qualitative and quantitative measures, such as the program performance metrics discussed earlier in this decision and process evaluations, serves a key role in providing feedback for the purposes of improving performance and supporting forward- looking corrections to utility programs and portfolios. In order to maximize return on ratepayer dollars, program evaluations must be completed on a -2- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays timeline which informs mid - course corrections and /or program planning for the following cycle. 3. Market Assessment -Ina constantly evolving environment, market assessments are an essential EM &V product needed to set the baseline for strategic design and improvement of programs and portfolios. Saturation studies, surveys of emerging technologies and other such analyses which inform estimates of remaining program potential and forward - looking goal - setting are key aspects of market assessment. 4. Policy and Planning Support - Consistent with prior program cycles, it is essential to reserve funding to support overarching studies and advisory roles which support Commission policy goals. Over the last program cycle this has been inclusive of potential and goals studies, maintenance of DEER database, developing databases of best practices for program design and delivery, program design mix, and other means which support the Commission's oversight role, but do not fall under the core EM &V categories described above. Financial and Management Audit- Supporting the Commission's oversight function of ensuring the efficient and effective expenditures of ratepayer funds within the utilities' energy efficiency portfolios is another objective of EM &V activities. Rigorous financial and management audits overseen by Commission staff will be critical in ensuring that the utilities' general and administrative costs, and other program expenditures are prudent and reasonable. 3. Informal Goals and Guiding Principles for Increased ED /IOU Collaboration Staff from ED and all four IOUs met for fours days of working meetings to develop EM &V budgets and a joint EM &V plan. During these meetings we agreed that we needed to develop a more collaborative and transparent working relationship as an important step towards improving the EM &V process. "Collaboration" in this document is defined as IOU and ED staff working together on shared EM &V projects, as well as working on separate EM &V projects following mutually agreed upon standards for transparency, respect, and communication. We believe that this more collaborative process will result in greater cost - efficiencies, more reliable results, broader stakeholder buy -in, and fewer disputed issues. The following are informal goals for the purpose of fostering a working relationship built upon mutual respect and transparency. They represent an informal Energy Division and -3- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays IOU staff -level agreement on general principles to guide staff -level collaboration and interaction on EM &V projects. These are not intended to impose formal or specific obligations on the ED or the IOUs and do not define the formal division of EM &V roles and responsibilities. a. Transparency ED and IOU EM &V staff will conduct EM &V projects in a transparent manner wherever possible. i. Open Communication — In order to cultivate better collaboration and make more productive use of EM &V results, ED and the IOU staff will engage in open and truthful communication regarding EM &V projects. ii. Regular Communication — ED and IOU staff will hold regular meetings to provide each other updates on their respectively managed EM &V projects. Upon issuance of the decision, ED and IOU staff will collaborate to determine an appropriate schedule for these meetings. iii. Joint Participation —An effort will be made to include both ED and IOU EM &V staff in all stages of all EM &V projects. iv. Sharing of EM &V Data and Information — All data and work products resulting from all EM &V projects should be made available to both ED and IOU EM &V staff when the data becomes available. Tracking of EM &V Projects — All EM &V projects will be disclosed and tracked in an easily accessible tracking system. V. Timeliness— Communication regarding EM &V plans and results, and actions based on those results, will be conducted in a timely manner. b. Consensus Although ideal, it may not always be possible or productive to reach consensus between ED and IOU staff during the planning and implementation of EM &V projects or interpretation and use of EM &V results. ED and the IOUs will seek to achieve consensus through informal processes. If consensus cannot be reached informally, ED and the IOUs will follow the applicable dispute resolution processes in effect wherever a formal resolution is necessary. c. Cost - efficiency ED and the IOUs will plan and implement EM &V projects with the goal of achieving the highest benefit for the EM &V expenditure, while minimizing interference with the programs and utility customers. To that end, EM &V projects will be designed to avoid duplication of effort, consolidated across all activities in a streamlined manner, and planned to comply with the Commission's schedule requirements. This document and the proposed budget allocations represent ED and the IOUs' current best judgment on the appropriate allocation of the authorized EM &V budget to EM &V projects needed to accomplish technically credible, quality work -4- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays products that will comply with the Commission's requirements and goals stated in Decision 09 -09 -047. d. Time for collaboration EM &V projects will be scheduled in a manner that allows sufficient time for input and participation between ED and IOU staff, as well as other stakeholders as required by the Commission. ED and the IOUs recognize that the time needed to implement and complete EM &V projects may generally be longer as a result of this effort. ED and the IOUs also recognize the possibility that the desired time allotment for collaboration on some EM &V projects may not be possible due to superseding requirements, such as adherence to Commission mandated schedules or the need to take advantage of a time sensitive field situation. e. Ethical standards and technical best practices EM &V projects will always be conducted in accordance with the laws of the State of California, Commission established policies, and Commission adopted technical standards (such as the California Evaluation Protocols). Additionally, ED and the IOUs intend to manage EM &V projects following guidance from the relevant professional societies' standards for ethics and technical best practices. Such standards include the International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocols (IPMVP); the American Evaluation Association's Guiding Principles for Evaluators;2 the National Society of Professional Engineers Code of Ethics for Engineers;' and the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air - Conditioning Engineers Code of Ethics.' 4. EM &V Planning Framework At the time of this EM &V Plan, the 2010 — 2012 IOU portfolios are just recently adopted by the Commission, and program plans are expected to undergo additional refinement over the next four to six months through the final stages of the program planning process and compliance filings ordered by Decision 09 -09 -047. Additionally, as the adopted EE portfolio is implemented, program plans will necessarily evolve to adapt to changing circumstances, program funding may be shifted around, new programs may be 2littt ): / /www.eval.org /uublicatioiis/ uidingprinciples.asp. s littp:// www. nspe. org/ Etliics ZCodeofEtliics /iiidex.htn-il. I littl2://www.-,islii-ae.org/j)ublicationsLLictiil�16451. -5- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays designed and fielded, and some programs may be terminated. For these reasons, ED and IOU staff have agreed that the optimal EM &V plan for the Commission to adopt at this time is an EM &V Planning Framework guided by existing Commission policy and ED & IOU staff experience and expertise that gives EM &V the needed flexibility, rather than a detailed plan that makes assumptions about the full scope of EM &V needs over a three year period. This document outlines the basic elements of this proposed EM &V Planning Framework, and ED /IOUs jointly request party input primarily on this proposed Framework and proposed areas of work, not on specific draft EM &V /PP project budgets. Given the many Commission required EM &V projects, multiple possible EM &V needs, and constraints on EM &V staff and consulting resources, there is a need to prioritize and optimize across EM &V research areas and individual projects, as well as a need to plan and implement EM &V project in phases. To accomplish the next three years worth of EM &V as effectively and efficiently as possible, ED and IOU EM &V staff propose the following EM &V Planning Framework: a. Phased and ongoing project planning and transparent project implementation ED and IOU EM &V staff believe it is necessary to commit funding, staff, and consulting resources to fully planning and implementing EM &V projects in phases and as priorities change, rather than to develop plans for all EM &V projects first and then subsequently implement all EM &V projects, as was the practice for impact evaluations during the 2006 — 2008 cycle. ED and the IOUs therefore recommend that the Commission adopt a process that provides the EM &V staff with the flexibility to plan and implement EM &V in phases and on an ongoing basis, rather than committing to a three year plan for all EM &V projects at this time. In lieu of a full three year EM &V plan, ED and the IOUs recommend that the Commission clearly articulate standards for transparency and stakeholder participation which ED and the IOUs will follow during the course of the 2010 -2012 EM &V projects. b. Continuous optimization and prioritization of EM &V work One of the first projects that ED and the IOUs will initiate is a review of previous EM &V work, particularly EM &V projects conducted during 2006 -2008, and a gap analysis to optimize EM &V activities and determine priorities across all EM &V research areas. The gap analysis will first create an inventory of recent and ongoing EM &V projects and compare this information with EM &V needs moving forward. Continuous optimization will be done via an ongoing status review and prioritization exercise facilitated by the phased implementation of EM &V projects, as well as flexibility in EM &V planning and implementation that allows FM &V to be responsive to contextual changes over time. EM &V projects will emphasize the -6- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays flow of EM &V findings to program managers for the purpose of program improvement. c. Integration of EM &V projects across functions One of the goals of the proposed EM &V planning framework is to look for opportunities to create synergy and integration across different EM &V research objectives and needs, rather than viewing individual needs as disparate elements competing for limited resources. This includes avoiding the creation of unnecessary silos of EM &V activities, avoiding unnecessarily duplicative data collection and analysis, and identifying ways in which EM &V can be organized and implemented to meet multiple needs in a cost - effective manner. 5. Initial EM &V Plan As discussed above, ED and the IOUs plan to design and implement EM &V in phases by order of project priority. The First Phase of EM &V projects is work that needs to be immediately initiated in order to set up a more efficient EM &V "infrastructure" that makes cost - effective improvements on the use of all EM &V resources, data, and processes. The First Phase will also include some research projects that are immediately needed by the IOUs in order to make rapid adjustments to the new program portfolio. ED and the IOUs intend to begin work on projects in this First Phase using previously approved 2009 bridge- funding for EM &V. The First Phase projects will need to begin prior to a final Commission Decision approving EM &V plans and budgets, hoped for in late 2009. Several of the First Phase projects will be ongoing and may continue through 2012. The Second Phase and Third Phase projects are briefly describe at the end of section 5. ED and the IOUs expect the First Phase to consist of the following projects: a. EM &V inventory, priority analysis, and gap analysis Upon completion of this draft EM &V plan, ED and the IOUs will immediately begin a review of EM &V work conducted since 2004 for the purpose of creating an inventory of recent EM &V work. This analysis will include an assessment of the quality and usefulness of the research products. A simultaneous effort will be undertaken to create a similar inventory of research required by the Commission in D. 09 -09 -047 and anticipated as needed by ED and the IOUs. The IOU EM &V staff will discuss potential immediate research needs with the IOU program staff and will develop research proposals for statewide and utility specific EM &V projects. ED staff will develop proposals for research projects that are considered necessary in order to accomplish the Commission's EM &V -7- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays goals stated in D. 09 -09 -047 (pgs. 299 -301), as well as other specific research goals mandated by the Commission in that Decision. ED and the IOUs will compare potential projects to identify areas where efficiencies can be gained by consolidating projects. The proposed projects will then be placed in an order of priority according to criteria such as uncertainty of program impacts, relative magnitude of impacts, future program and market potential, and implicit or explicit importance attributed to the project by the Commission. The prioritized list of projects will then be compared to the inventory of previous EM &V research to determine where the previous research can be used in lieu of conducting new analysis, or where the previously completed research can be leveraged to make any new analysis more robust and reduce costs. Once this gap analysis step is completed, the prioritized list of projects will be updated and the projects will be implemented in order of priority. Expected Timeline 2009 December — 2010 January ......... Review and inventory of recent EM &V work 2010 January - February .....................Inventory of proposed research 2010 February - March ......................... Project consolidation and prioritization 2010 March- April .... ............................Gap analysis and revised priorities b. Reporting standards and reporting tools improvements. In D.09 -09 -047 the Commission requested that Energy Division "...review further all existing and new energy efficiency reporting requirements and report on possible ways to streamline these requirements." Additionally, the IOUs were specifically instructed to report gross savings relative to goals, progress towards accomplishing performance metrics goals, and additional information related to the administration of local government partnership programs. Energy Division has also begun the development of a new cost effectiveness tool (CE Tool) for the purpose of enforcing data quality controls, streamlining the review of cost effectiveness inputs, and making the IOUs' savings reports directly traceable to the program tracking systems. To accomplish these objectives, ED will conduct a review of all energy efficiency reporting requirements, existing and planned reporting tools related to EM &V and will prepare and implement a comprehensive plan to create a reporting system that is more streamlined, cost - effective, and useful. Expected Timeline 2010 January — 2010 March ............... Review of existing reporting requirements 2010 March .......... ............................... ED report on reporting requirements -8- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays 2010 April ...................... .....................Commission action on ED report 2010 May Onward ............. .................Implementation of new reporting requirements c. Program evaluability assessment and data collection enhancements. This project will take initial steps towards addressing the issues specifically raised in Attachment C of the July 7`h AU Ruling issued in A. 08 -07 -021. While this project will focus specifically on improvements to the data systems needed for conducting the detailed EM &V work, it is related to, and will be done in conjunction with the reporting standards and reporting tools improvements project described above. The project will consist of a review the data availability problems encountered in the 2006 -2008 program evaluations and the program designs and tracking systems in place for the 2010 -2012 program portfolios. The project will aim to develop data collection and data transfer protocols as well as tracking system enhancement procedures. The goal is to assure that the data needed for EM &V will be efficiently available to the ED and IOU EM &V staff and their contractors. Expected Timeline 2010 January — 2010 March ............... Review of existing data systems 2010 April ......................... .................. Comprehensive long -range data management plan 2010 May ............. ............................... Data collection and data transfer protocols 2010 May Onward ............. .................Implementation of data system improvements d. Development of a process for integrating project inspection, M &V, and process evaluation for larger program participants. IOUs require the largest customized nonresidential projects to submit to pre - project and post - project implementation inspections. While there are comparatively few of these larger projects, the expected savings from these projects are quite significant, which means they are more likely to be sampled for both M &V and process evaluations. Furthermore, the larger projects are typically quite complex, requiring more time for the utility inspectors and ED evaluators to be on the participant's site. From the participant's perspective, the impact of multiple seemingly redundant inspections can be an unanticipated burden; and from the CPUC's perspective, this redundancy can be a potentially inefficient use of ratepayer expenditures. ED and the IOUs will work cooperatively to make the evaluation of large energy efficiency projects more cost - effective and less disruptive to the customer by jointly developing procedures to identify large projects early and include the ED evaluators in the pre- and post- project inspection process. ED and the IOUs will make efforts to consolidate evaluation surveys so as to minimize customer inconvenience. -9- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays Expected Timeline 2010 January— February .................... Review of IOU project inspection procedures 2010 March .......... ............................... Review of expected evaluation needs 2010 May ........................ ....................Integration plan e. Development of plans to gather necessary market baseline data. This project will identify key market indicators that have been or can be influenced by a program intervention. The primary purpose of this early market baseline project is to develop and implement a work plan that provides a basis for later comparisons of the status of the key markets after program intervention, in order to help assess the impact of the program or programs. More than one program can impact a market, and a program can impact more than one market. ED and the IOUs will therefore carefully identify the "markets" that need to be researched early in the cycle, with timely collection of appropriate market data that will serve as the baseline. The evaluation needs to address the period over which the market effect will remain, the level of effect experienced in the market over time, the degree to which the program's efforts caused the market effect, and the amount of energy savings provided by the effect. All this presumes the appropriate market data collected before the program effects occur. In general, any key market indicator that the program theory predicts will be changed by the program should be considered for inclusion in either a market characterization or a baseline study. However, markets are constantly in a state of change, so we will seek to identify not only those market indicators that are important under the initial program theory, but also those that could become important later. Steps in this Activity 1. For each program, identify key market indicators that the program theory predicts will be changed by the program. a. Clearly define the targeted market(s); b. Develop a detailed description of market operations and factors that contribute to their status; c. Describe the market hypothesis on which the various program activities and the expected effects rely; d. Describe the baseline condition that is expected to occur without program intervention including impacts from other external factors that affect the market; and -10- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays e. Describe the causal linkages that lead from program activities to the accomplishment of the program's goals in isolation from other external market effects. 2. Develop sets of indicators for each market that will provide efficient but effective measurements of the identified market effects. Include a plan to isolate external market effects in order to gain a true perspective of identified program related market indicators. 3. Collect baseline values for these indicators, before the program effects begin to take place. Expected Timeline 2010 January ....... ............................... Develop scopes of work for RFPs 2010 February ........... ..........................Issue RFPs and select contractors 2010 March - February . ........................Analyze statewide programs 2010 May ............. ............................... Develop indicator systems 2010 June onward .............................. Collect data for indicator systems f. Procurement of management and technical consulting services for ED. Given the complexity and workload involved in managing EM &V projects, ED staff expect to rely on a team of expert consultants to assist with oversight, management, and advisory functions. ED will conduct competitive solicitations for this work towards the end of 2009 and expects to have a new team of consultants available to assist ED in early 2010. Expected Timeline 2010January ....... ............................... Develop scopes of work for RFPs 2010 February ........... .......................... Issue RFPs 2010 March ................ ......................... Select consultants g. Development of a detailed plan for ED and IOU coordination. Once the upcoming EM &V Decision is finalized, ED and the IOUs will develop a coordination plan that incorporates and implements the policies, rules, and any specific projects required therein. The coordination plan will be a guidance document for ED and IOU staff and can be made publicly available if the Commission desires. We expect the coordination plan to be completed within 30 days of the final EM &V Decision. In the meantime, ED and the IOUs will prepare an interim coordination plan which sets out our mutually agreed process for collaborating on First Phase projects. Expected Timeline 2009 January - February ......................interim ED /IOU coordination pion 2010April — May .. ............................... Final ED /IOU coordination plan h. Behavioral Energy Savings estimation methods In D.09 -09 -047 the Commission indicated its intent to "...consider expedited approval of new EM &V methodologies to verify savings driven by behavior -based Efficiency programs (currently considered non - resource programs)." And that the EM &V work "...should_ ensure synergies and leveraging of any new behavior -based -11- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays approaches with the residential programs approved herein..." On October 11, 2009, the Governor signed SB 488 into law, which requires the CPUC to evaluate certain residential benchmarking programs using an experimental design approach. Energy savings from behavior programs have traditionally been measured with a billing or consumption analysis. ED and the IOUs will review best practices in billing analyses as well as the data requirements that would be needed to support robust billing analyses. ED and IOU EM &V staff will coordinate with program managers for IOU residential benchmarking programs to ensure that participants are randomly assigned to treatment and control groups (or comparison groups) to ensure that an experimental design billing analysis can be completed, at least on a pilot basis. ED has been conducting a review of different types of behavior intervention programs as well as some pilot EM &V projects and will extend this effort into full program evaluations wherever it makes sense to do so. ED and the IOUs will also work on ways to tightly coordinate the delivery and evaluation of behavior based energy efficiency programs with the ongoing advanced meter infrastructure roll -out and eliminate any redundant and overlapping efforts. Expected Timeline 2009 February .......................Review of billing analysis methods and data requirements 2010 March — April ............... EM &V protocols and methods for behavior programs L IOU market assessments, early EM &V, and process work The first phase projects include IOU projects that need to start immediately due to the time - sensitive nature of data collection as well as the criticality of information needs for program implementation in 2010. All the IOU Phase 1 projects will be conducted in collaboration with the Energy Division. Early M &V: • Assessment of savings from server virtualization and data centers. • Window film lifetime and replacement practices. • Lighting baseline usage for selected applications lacking this data (preschool, pool lighting etc). • Pool pump usage. • Remaining Useful Life assessment for selected technologies. • Heating /Ventilating /Air conditioning maintenance savings - Phase 1 (secondary research) and Phase 2 (controlled /quasi - experimental research). • Retrocommissioning measure energy savings /prediction tools research for most common measures. • Single family residential new construction energy savings and incremental measure cost update. -12- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays . Market Assessment: • Advanced Lighting Market Assessment - to help guide the Advanced Lighting program and provide information on the current state of the market for technologies such as LED as well as the ways in which the market is changing both from the supply side and the demand side. • Market Study of Deep Energy Reduction for the Whole House Market - to assess the availability of infrastructure and technologies to help in planning, market awareness, knowledge and acceptance of deep energy reduction strategies, and how to overcome these barriers for homes. • Market Study of Water Energy Savings -to assess the current penetration /potential for water energy savings technologies within the residential and commercial segments. • Plug Load Market Potential Study - to assess the size of the market opportunities (will be coordinated with any Energy Efficiency Potential Study update plans). • Industrial EE Program Market Assessment Study for customers with either high gas and /or electric loads- to determine customer sectors most sensitive to the current challenges and opportunities. • Residential New Construction Customer Decision Study —to assess the "decision triggers" and current levels of awareness of the various existing carbon /low energy labels and associated lower energy home opportunities. • Market Assessment on Code Compliance - to identify areas of weak code compliance and highlight market barriers that can be addressed through the Compliance Enhancement Sub - Program. • Baseline Studies for Partnership Programs - to document existing practices and characterize the needs of the customers and their likelihood of program participation. • Strategic Industrial Research - to look at market segmentation /dynamics and decision making processes for energy efficiency projects. • The "Invisible" (Hard -to- Reach) Data Centers —to assess where opportunities exist and develop program strategies to reach these opportunities. • Pool Vendor Market Assessment —to inform training strategies. • Agricultural Market Assessment and Energy Efficiency Potential. Process Evaluation: • Evaluability Assessments for selected smaller programs not covered by Energy Division's Program Evaluability Assessment Project, to determine if the program outcomes are sufficiently well defined and measurable via data tracking processes, as well as identify any early M &V needs. -13- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays • Detailed Program Theory and Logic Model - development where needed for the programs. • Enhanced Inspection Plan - development for selected programs, including baseline documentation requirements. • Rapid Feedback Evaluations - for selected programs and specific marketing activities to help provide early feedback and recommendation on program design changes (initial list includes: new construction programs, WE &T, and ME &O targeted marketing campaigns). • Effectiveness impact of behavioral energy use "peer comparisons" tools (i.e. Home Energy Reports) for residential customers. • Impact of In -Home Displays: to drive customer participation in EE, effectiveness of marketing and outreach activities associated with real -time usage data. • Cost effectiveness of solar water heating technologies in utility programs. Timeline Varies by Specific Project j. Portfolio Cost Effectiveness Methodology This category of analysis will include a review of existing cost - effectiveness methodologies and development of new methodologies that seek to measure cost effectiveness at the program and portfolio level. This methodology should reflect the California Long -Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan goal for market transformation by not only considering program costs in relation to savings realized, but also include an analysis of program costs in relation to market transformation objectives and goals. Timeline TBD k. Goals /Potential analysis Analytic consistency is an essential starting point in setting aggressive yet realistic goals for EE programs while also developing "stretch" goals for energy efficiency savings. Setting stretch goals require a consideration of additional technologies, measures, and savings potential available to the utilities but not reflected in the current potential study informing current goals. This category of analysis will reexamine goals and potential to inform the development of stretch goals while at the same time not reducing the rigor by which current goals exist. This analysis will inform forward - looking goals on the basis of updates to measure savings parameters. Timeline TBD A Second Phase of projects will be planned and implemented as soon as assignments are made and work is underway on the First Phase projects, but no later than the first quarter of 2010. The Second Phase projects will include the formative M &V, process evaluation, and market research that is needed to provide early assessments of the soils A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays programs and make decisions about program modifications, but which were not launched as part of the First Phase. We anticipate that the Second Phase projects will be initiated during the first and second quarters of 2010. Finally, a Third Phase of EM &V projects will be planned and implemented when ED and IOU staff are convinced that Second Phase projects are successfully underway and likely to achieve project goals. The Third Phase projects will primarily be the summative, or ex -post, evaluations that have been employed by the Commission to establish retrospective statements of portfolio accomplishments. Additional formative work may also be implemented during the Third Phase of EM &V projects, if needed. We anticipate that the Third Phase projects will be initiated between the second and fourth quarters of 2010, after the Commission rules on the incentive mechanism for 2010 -2012 in Rulemaking09 -01 -019. 6. Proposed EM &V Budget Below we present the proposed allocation of authorized budget for all ED and IOU EM &V projects, as well as ED staff Policy and Planning projects. In D.09 -09 -047, the Commission indicated a desire to keep the EM &V budget at 4% (approximately $125 million) with the expectation that the ED and IOU EM &V staff can produce cost efficiencies and streamline the scope and reporting of EM &V projects. While the Commission also indicated a possibility that it would consider changes to the initial EM &V funding based on proposals for additional funding brought forth in the EM &V plan, ED and the IOU EM &V staff have taken the Commission's desire to manage costs seriously and will strive to complete a robust research portfolio for under $125 million. While we are confident that the authorized budget will be sufficient to complete a reasonably comprehensive set of EM &V projects, the range of studies needed for 2010- 2012 is substantially greater than the range of studies completed for 2006 -2008. We are therefore compelled to emphasize that some potentially important research projects may not be implemented if we are to prioritize effectively. Thus, we ask that the EM &V decision keep open the option offered in D.09 -09 -047 to request more funding if we determine that sufficiently important projects cannot be funded. 2006 -2008 were start -up years for both the ED and the IOU EM &V groups, with many start -up difficulties and new systems that did not function optimally. As a result, a number of the important planned studies could not be completed. The experiences of 2006 -2008 uncovered some weaknesses in current utility and CPUC tools that need to be strengthened. These include the EM &V structure itself, utility tracking and reporting systems and their ability to meet EM &V data needs, as well as multiple concerns surrounding ex -ante savings parameter updating and documentation, and cost- -15- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays effectiveness issues. Finally, the adoption of the California Long Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan pushes programs, planning, and coordination in far - reaching new directions. This necessitates a major investment in coordinating with market actors and state agencies, policy analysis, and planning for the 2013 -2015 cycle and beyond, in each of the strategic areas of focus, and it creates a host of new information needs. a. Overview and rationale of budgeting process The IOU EM &V team solicited input from program staff regarding the programs that will be offered during the 2010 -2012 cycle. The EM &V team also reviewed the process evaluations, market assessments, and early M &V projects performed during the 2006- 2008 cycle to identify additional research requirements. In collaboration with the program staff, the EM &V team compiled a list of market assessment and early M &V needs and process evaluations related to the programs that are being offered in 2010- 2012. Based on previous experience, the EM &V team then estimated the cost of performing these studies, including the costs related to the EM &V staff. ED staff developed budgets for impact evaluations, performance metric evaluations, and overarching and support projects using expert judgment and experience managing similar projects during the 2006 -2008 timeframe. These estimates take into consideration expected efficiencies to be gained from the proposed prioritization and optimization process, as well as the fact that the projects will be managed by staff (both IOU and ED) that have gained considerable additional experience managing the 2006- 2008 EM &V projects. b. Request for full fund shifting flexibility The specific studies and their associated budgets listed in the Table in Section 6c below are ED and the IOU's current estimate of the optimal allocation of the authorized EM &V budget. Section 5 of this plan describes the multi -stage process that ED and the IOUs will go through for determining and prioritizing what studies will be done, when, and with what level of project budget. The process will include making decisions about which organization will contract for each project, who will take primary project management responsibility for it, and the level of involvement of the Commission staff in overseeing each project. In order to allow ED and the IOUs to respond to changes in the market and to new insights in evaluation, fund - shifting flexibility is needed within the EM &V budget. This includes not only shifting funds between projects, but also, to some extent, between funds managed by the IOUs and those managed by ED, as they mutually agree. ED and the IOUs agree that a minimum allocation of 15% of the EM &V budget to the IOUs is appropriate to support necessary EM &V activities until such time as the Commission issues a final EM &V decision and budget. These costs are currently included as part of -16- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays the process evaluation, market assessment and early M &V study costs in the budget estimates in Table C. ED and the IOUs were not able to reach consensus as to any further pre - allocation of the remaining 85% of the EM &V budget. ED and the IOUs agree that it is appropriate for the IOUs to include any specific proposals for allocation of the remaining 85% of the EM &V budget in their comments to this EM &V Plan. As during the 2006 -2008 cycle, the utilities will be responsible to pay the Energy Division - approved costs for all projects contracted and /or managed by Energy Division. Each utility's EM &V budget will be its proportional share of the total EM &V budget approved by the Commission, with the proportion equal to its proportion of total program budgets: 43% for PG &E; 39% for SCE; and 9% each for SDG &E and SoCalGas. This requires correcting Ordering Paragraph 42 of D.09 -09 -047, which inadvertently used the program funding proportions from the 2006 -2008 cycle. Each utility will pay for its studies that are determined to be acceptable utility- specific studies, out of its overall EM &V budget. This EM &V fund - shifting flexibility request is consistent with Commission practice for at least the last two decades, and probably for the entire history of EM &V funding for EE programs. The Commission has always recognized the benefits of setting an overall budget but allowing EM &V decision - makers to determine EM &V priorities and budget allocations for the costs to meet them in an ongoing process, rather than assuming that needs and priorities are all known in advance and will be unchanged over a program funding cycle. -17- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays c. Budget Table Eval j Metric EVal I Pmcefe Evm Market Analysis] Early M &v I .TOTAL 11 Selmleszvm6csrmaron M&VS1S "' " °'a °19e1e °e " " ° " "Pm °' ^'n EM & °5 " ° " °'e` $ago d. Description of budget categories &bavoml $900 MctAnd°Inpy Jevelupmentfw albibm nalysis 5300 The EM &V area Improved MmssfiM analysis processes $1,000 general project "' EOIISp1rob " ^' csuL 11.1 CIPSS I IEn I Kwo $1.500 descriptions below provide summaries v5ap p CI US Commercial E . Cmerr Sesnrvey inc suLmelers 51.W0 of the categories of work used to set SonJm&WEnd Dm SUrae, ,, 504 Pydmllnre &Wafer Sect°rs Lnergy USe serve "" $SUO Ener, C—snmprmnTrac9mgPro, $doo the EM &V budget proposed herein. 135 Market Sbars t re0mg Study $n00 >3 PoAfolipFina lA i,dMonagO tAudiU E$3,Po0 While these project areas are .10 ED Maslei Evalwtr, CmAm Ci Team ys$3,000 $ CPDCStipifi to °Jed by EM &�, . $1000 considered necessary preliminarily, they Overarching and Policy So pport Projects Total $46,100 are provided for illustrative purposes Grand TOlal slZS,000 and are subject to change as ED and the IOUs continue with the prioritization process. Final research project goals, scope, timing, and deliverables will be determined during development of detailed statements of work included in the contracting process. _18_ A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays EM &V Project Number 1. M &V and Impact Evaluation M &V is the process of gathering data on energy efficiency technologies and practices from the building and facility where the technology or practice is implemented or typically in use. M &V activities will consist of on -site review and measurement of program activities and energy consumption behavior that can be physically inspected and measured at a customer site or project, as well as the analysis of site level and measure level data through engineering and building simulation models. Site visits will be performed on a probability sample of IOU customers, buildings, or facilities drawn from IOU program tracking databases, IOU billing systems, or the general population. Some M &V data may be collected through remote surveys or by using pre- existing data, if circumstances warrant. Given the enormous scale of energy efficiency program activities, the M &V work will focus on program components selected on the basis of the overall uncertainty of that component's contribution to the total portfolio savings, including potential future savings. These component level evaluations will be conducted at the technology measure level (referred to as high - impact measures, or HIMs). A subsidiary of M &V activity is the physical inspection of installations to estimate measure installation rates. Impact evaluation consists of evaluation activities designed to measure savings at the program level, such as analyses using utility bill data to produce gross realization rates and net -to -gross studies. Net -to -gross values will be developed for major measure /program strategy combinations and will incorporate reliable attribution for spillover and market effects where data are available and where consistent with Commission policy. Impact evaluations may also include some indirect impact evaluation activity that addresses those programs or program components primarily designed to obtain behavior changes that eventually lead to energy and demand savings, but not as a direct result of the program intervention. Indirect impact evaluations are used for situations where the primary uncertainty lies in the program's ability to obtain the behavior change targeted by the program. Indirect impact evaluations will therefore be linked to energy or demand savings estimates measured through the HIM M &V, program specific impact evaluations, and /or approved ex -ante estimates. EM &V Project Number 2. Performance Metrics Program performance metrics are indicators of the progress of a program toward the short and long -term market transformation goals and objectives in the Strategic Plan. Energy Division developed a process for developing program performance metrics that the utilities shall use when developing these metrics. According to D.09- 09 -047, the utilities will request approval for their proposed logic models and -19- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays metrics via an advice letter filing within 120 days of the effective date of that decision. Additionally the utilities will track their program performance metrics using the EEGA or a similar database and will need to develop the tools to submit and track these parameters. The analysis under this category will help complete these tasks. Market transformation metrics require the identification of indicators to track, the identification of data sources, and agreement on the frequency of data collection, analysis and use. In order to develop these metric recommendations there will need to be analysis on specific market transformation ultimate and proximate indicators, as well as data collection and tracking processes, for a subset of portfolio programs or measures that have the most impact in terms of their importance, such as the Big Bold Programmatic Initiatives, their savings potential or dollars spent. This analysis may consider qualitative factors as necessary and appropriate. It is both necessary and possible to begin the work of gathering baseline data immediately. The IOUs will need to include key data sources and indicators for which to begin collecting market transformation baseline data in their Advice Letters on Utility Program Performance Metrics (see description of performance metric analysis). A process for tracking external market conditions that affect program performance metrics and baseline information will be further developed in the umbrella energy efficiency rulemaking proceeding, or its successor. In that proceeding, we will also consider the appropriate timing for the commencement of the system of market transformation metrics. Market transformation data analysis will inform this effort. Program Performance Metrics and market conditions data serve the following purposes: • To track California's progress towards achievement of the Strategic Plan objectives, specifically the Big Bold Programmatic Initiatives and other key Plan goals and objectives; • To inform portfolio development and necessary modifications in future portfolio decisions, including improving program design or eliminating non- performing programs; and • To target the next generation of improvements and thus continue the cycle of market transformation. These metrics will be used to track the progress of the programs towards the California Energy Efficiency Strategic Planning market transformation goals. EM &V Project Number 3. Process Evaluation The California Evaluation Framework states "a process evaluation is a systematic assessment of an energy efficiency program for the purposes of (1) documenting program operations at the time of the examination, and (2) identifying and recommending improvements that can be made to the program to increase the program's efficiency or effectiveness for acquiring energy resources while -20- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays maintaining high levels of participant satisfaction." While impact or "summative" evaluations provide an accounting of a program's effectiveness, process evaluations provide insight into program operations that can guide mid - course corrections and future program design. Process evaluations look at both the program's design and its implementation. This allows program managers to pinpoint where and how whether future effectiveness can be increased by improving program design, program implementation, or both. Process evaluations also provide the valuable function of capturing the story of the program, to share and compare lessons learned with other implementers. Process evaluations can articulate how proximal indicators based on the program's theory (e.g., changes in attitudes) can show whether progress is being made toward long- term goals such as acceptance of emerging technologies. Process evaluations will typically document a program's theory in both detailed narrative form and through a schematic (e.g., "program logic model ") that graphically links program resources and inputs to program activities to program outputs to short -, mid -, and long -term outcomes. Process flow narratives and diagrams may also be used to capture program operations, and to identify gaps in program implementation. The logic model and program theory help program evaluators identify gaps in the program's theoretical underpinning, and study these further, to develop recommendations that will likely enhance future success. Process evaluations use a variety of social science research methods including telephone surveys, in- person interviews, social network analysis, review of program activities and participation data, review of program marketing plans and materials, and field observations. New programs generally undergo an early and more comprehensive process evaluation designed to provide timely feedback on how well the program is being managed and implemented, how well project partners are communicating, and whether initial participants are satisfied with the program's ease -of -use and understandability. Later process evaluations are used to confirm that program design and implementation are still effective. EM &V Project Number 4. Early M &V Evaluation Early M &V, managed by IOUs or ED, seeks to validate key savings assumptions and to better understand how savings are achieved for the purpose of improving programs. Early M &V research occurs at the measure -level or parameter -level to: o Provide in -cycle feedback to programs on savings assumptions o Correct mutually agreed upon errors in savings estimates o Improve accuracy of savings estimates for custom calculated projects o Contribute to future cycle ex ante revisions -21- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays • Gather data for developing savings estimates for new measures • Guide future research to reduce savings uncertainty Early M &V will be carried out as necessary and results incorporated in program design and planning as soon as feasible. EM &V Project Number S. Market Assessment The Market Assessment studies that will be conducted by ED and the IOUs will include two different study types: market characterization and market baseline measurement. Market Characterization is a quantitative and qualitative assessment of the structure and functioning of a market, the primary purpose of which is to understand key components and magnitudes of a market, and how the market operates. The study also provides information on how to effectively change the way in which the market functions. Market Baseline Measurement is the quantification of key market indicators that have been or can be influenced by a program intervention. The primary purpose of the baseline measurement is to provide a basis for later comparisons of the status of the market after program intervention, in order to help assess the impact of the program. This study can also include quantification of size of a particular market so we can monitor the share of market as a result of program intervention. EM &V Project Number 6. Strategic Plan This budget category is created to track spending with regard to regulatory support for Energy Division and utility strategic planning efforts. It would include staff time and additional help from consultants. External consultants will provide logistical support with regard to task force / workshop / stakeholder meeting planning, coordination, and staffing. These consultants will work with ED / IOU staff to develop agendas, take meeting minutes, maintain contact information for interested stakeholders, arrange meeting venues and times, communicate with the public, production of task force / workshop / stakeholder meeting material for public dissemination, and all aspects of providing support for task force / workshop / stakeholder meeting planning. -22- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays EM &V Project Number 7. Strategic Plan Update Studies This category of analysis will inform ongoing strategic planning goals and objectives by providing funding for evaluation efforts that are not currently anticipated but will be critical to maintaining continuous forward progress toward meeting these stated goals and objectives. Examples of this kind of analysis are evaluations of portfolio wide leveraging efforts with ARRA investment opportunities that have the potential to allow for the most efficient usage of ratepayer funds while propelling progress towards strategic planning goals and objectives. Other areas that will benefit from evaluation projects not yet fully identified are strategic planning efforts in the area of emerging lighting strategies. EM &V Project Number 8. Energy Efficiency Potential A bottom -up assessment of measure /end use savings and program participation levels is needed to inform a new EE potential study for the years 2013 -2015 and beyond. This study will build as feasible on existing data and models utilized in the 2008 California Potential Study. New data collection /modeling will be gathered and utilized to ensure the accuracy of the inputs and projections. New methodologies will include a review of best practices and examination of potential as proposed through various existing building strategies in the California Strategic Plan. With an updated EE Potential Study in hand, a new Goals Study as required in D. 08- 07 -047 will be undertaken. New methodologies will be examined, to allow the identification of goals based on assumptions of achievements of existing building and other targets as contained in the California Strategic Plan. Review will examine costs associated with these new strategies, and possible offsets to program costs with societal benefits, such as job creation. EM &V Project Number 9. Ex -Ante Estimates Development All ex ante measure parameters used to determine savings accomplishments and for future energy efficiency portfolio planning will come directly from the DEER database , which will include both DEER measures and "non- DEER" measure work papers. All ex —ante estimates are proposed to be updated by the end of 2010 for use in planning the portfolios that will be implemented in 2013. The ex -ante estimates will be developed using the best available data and methodologies. The budget for this category includes (1) ex ante parameters updates, (2) statistical analysis for developing ex ante updates, (3) deemed measures cost studies, (4) customized project cost analysis, and (5) useful lives and technical degradation analysis. -23- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays EM &V Project Number 10. Data Management The Energy Division proposes to continue its management and quality control of data, evaluation activities, and parameters used to calculate energy savings and cost - effectiveness. The budget for this category includes (1) a Data Quality and Data Management consultant contract, (2) updates and maintenance of energy efficiency websites (DEER, EEGA, CMS, CALMAC, etc.), (3) cost - effectiveness tool development, (4) avoided costs and GHG emissions updates, (5) data tracking and reporting system enhancements, and (6) Energy Division reporting. EM &V Project Number 11. Best Practices and Methodology improvements Four studies are planned in this area, two being mandated by D.09 -09 -047. • EM &V Technical and Institutional Framework. Ordering Paragraph 59 states that "Energy Division may hire a contractor to initiate in 2010 a comprehensive review of current Evaluation, Measurement & Verification technical and institutional frameworks." This is further described on pages 9 and 305 of the Decision: "The main purpose of this review will be to set a course to develop effective EM &V going forward, post -2012. However, to the extent this review will allow us to improve the 2010 -2012 program cycle, we will do so." • Behavioral Energy Savings Estimation Methods. Ordering Paragraph 60 requires 2010 -2012 EM &V to undertake "consideration of methodologies to verify savings driven by behavior -based energy efficiency programs." This study will search for, review, identify, and develop as necessary solid methods for estimating the energy savings created by programs focused on changing energy user behavior. • Methodology Development for Attribution Analysis. Closely related to behavioral energy savings measurement, improved methods for determining the attribution of energy savings are needed. The concepts of energy efficiency programs competing in forward capacity markets, of additionality in greenhouse gas emissions markets, and of free ridership and spillover in the energy efficiency programs arena need comparison, further analysis, and further development to meet the increasing needs for identifying causality in all these areas, and to identify what roles (if any) energy efficiency programs can play in the new markets. • Improved Statistical Analysis Processes for Energy Efficiency Savings Estimation. By the end of this cycle, the utilities will have interval energy usage data for virtually all of their customers. With this vastly increased information about energy usage, statistical analysis of energy usage and other data becomes an increasingly powerful method of developing not only program energy savings estimates, but also ex ante estimates of measure savings. Savings estimates based on actual energy usage data have the advantage of incorporating effects of -24- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays customer behavior in relation to installed measures. It is critical to prepare for the maximum effective use of this new data. EM &V Project Number 12. Energy Consumption Surveys The California Commercial End -Use Survey (CEUS) is a comprehensive study of commercial building sector end -use energy use. The survey captures detailed building systems data, building geometry, electricity and gas usage, thermal shell characteristics, equipment inventories, operating schedules, and other commercial building characteristics. Commercial premises are weighted and aggregated to building segment results. Available study results include floor stocks, fuel shares, electric and natural gas consumption, energy -use indices, energy intensities, and 16- day hourly end -use load profiles estimated for twelve common commercial building type categories. The California Industrial End -Use Survey (ZEUS) is a comprehensive study of industrial sector energy end -use energy. The mail, internet and on -site surveys and metering of some large process loads are expected to produce: Equipment saturations (including EE levels, vintages, and cogeneration), End use characteristics, Building characteristics, Space heating /cooling, Lighting, General production equipment, Industry specific process equipment, Energy Use (electric and gas) by INFORM (industrial forecasting model) end -use categories and industry groups and Load Profiles by utility area and industry group. The California Lighting and Appliance Saturation Study (CLASS) database provides baseline information on residential appliance, equipment and lighting saturations and efficiencies. The overarching goal for the studies is to provide an accurate baseline in order to understand future energy savings potential and past accomplishments in the residential sector. The original study was completed in 2000 and repeated in 2005 to see what changes had taken place over the 5 year period. Repeating this study for a third time in 2010 will show the continuing effects of residential energy efficiency in California. The Residential Market Share Tracking (RMST) study has monitored the market penetration of energy efficient appliances and lighting measures in California since 1999. RMST measures statewide and utility milestones for promoting short -term adoption of measures and long -term market acceptance of energy efficient technologies. In addition to the program implementers, beneficiaries of this research include federal and state agencies, regional and state energy efficiency organizations, trade organizations, equipment manufacturers, distributors, and retailers. -25- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays A total energy consumption evaluation pilot study will be conducted to assess the reduction in energy consumption resulting from the various energy efficiency programs and efforts in California. The value of individual energy efficiency efforts is uncertain without the measurement of performance of the whole system to link the efforts to actual reduction in energy consumption. Issues that arise from field measurements are that the actual energy performance of an energy efficiency measure does not align with the initial specification of the design intent. Some of the factors that contribute to these inconsistencies are the lack of system integration in design and operation, and the lack of training and work force necessary for the appropriate installation and maintenance of equipment. Energy efficiency should be used in conjunction with performance metrics such as energy intensity in describing the mathematical relationship between energy use and service output. The intensity component, the energy use rate, is the ratio of the total consumption to a unit of measurement (e.g. Btu /square- foot -hour, million Btu /household, energy /gross output, energy /industrial production etc.). A decrease in energy intensity overtime may correspond to an increase in energy efficiency depending on the level other structural and behavioral effects. A good measure of energy intensity should identify (or remove from a measure) as many of the behavioral and structural changes that affect the energy intensity (but are generally agreed upon to be unrelated to energy efficiency) as is computationally feasible within budget limitations and data availability. The study will design and implement an EM &V approach for the assessment of energy consumption for the different end -use sectors in California including: a. Defining energy intensity indicators for the different end -use sectors; b. Identifying behavioral and structural factors that can affect energy intensity but not related to energy efficiency improvements. c. Identifying the effects of the IOUs programs in the reduction of energy consumption for a given end -use sector; EM &V Project Number 13. Portfolio Financial and Management Audits The CPUC Utility Audit, Finance, and Compliance Branch (UAFCB) staff and ED staff will perform an evaluation of the IOU energy efficiency portfolio financial administration and management systems. A financial audit will consist of a review of the financial statements of each utility's energy efficiency operations to determine if the statements are accurate, complete, and consistent with Commission policy and standard accounting practices. The management audit will be a systematic -26- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays assessment of each utility's management procedures and the effective use of resources in implementing the energy efficiency portfolios. EM &V Project Number 14. ED Master Evaluation Contractor Team Please refer to section 5f "Procurement of management and technical consulting services for ED." EM &V Project Number 15. CPUC staffing funded by EM &V Consistent with current practice, a small portion of the EM &V funding will be set aside to fund a portion of the Energy Division's energy efficiency staff positions. (END OF ATTACHMENT 1) -27- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays Attachment 2 Process for Commission Oversight of IOU EM &V Project Initiation 1. Project Formation: IOUs notify ED of their intention to conduct an EM &V project and solicit input from ED on the shaping of the project. ED may choose to waive this opportunity to participate if it chooses. The point of this step is to minimize potential delays in the following steps. 2. Project Description: Once the need for a project has been determined, the IOUs will prepare a project description (basically a high level scope of work, following reporting standards to be developed). 3. Project Tracking: The project description will be uploaded to the Energy Divisions project tracking system. 4. Project Review and Approval: the project description will be available for review and approval by Energy Division for one calendar week. 4.1. ED will prioritize its review of projects and will reserve its review for projects of high importance (such as evaluations of strategic plan programs, "Big Bold Energy Efficiency Strategy' programs, and programs/ measures with high forecasted savings) or projects that are clearly good candidates for coordination between IOUs and ED. 4.2. Within two weeks, ED will notify the IOUs if they intend hold the project to conduct a more detailed review and /or if ED requires more information on the project from the IOUs before approval can proceed. ED will provide the IOU with a letter of contractor rejection stating the specific conflict problem behind rejection of a proposed contractor, and provide an opportunity for discussion or conflict resolution before a final contractor decision is made. The IOU shall have two weeks from the date of receiving the letter of contractor rejection to discuss the issue, or file a "Motion for EM &V dispute resolution" or request for ADR. Otherwise, ED may finalize the selection of contractor. 4.3. If two weeks pass and ED has not already indicated that the project is approved or ED has not already held the project for further review, then the project will be considered approved and Energy Division's opportunity to review the project will be considered waived. -28- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays 5. Project Initiation: Once the ED review and approval is completed (or waived) the IOUs may begin implementing the project in accordance with the project description. 6. Project RFP and Proposals: If the project requires competitive bidding, the IOUs will upload the RFP to the Energy Division project tracking system. If the project involves consultant proposals, the proposals will be uploaded to the Energy Division project tracking system. 7. Contractor Selection: If the project involves hiring a contractor, whether by competitive or directed bid, the IOUs will notify ED of their preferred contractor and other contractors who were considered and /or who submitted bids. ED will make the final selection of all EM &V contractors. Process for Commission oversight of IOU EM &V project implementation 1. Project Reporting: The IOUS will upload project documents to the Energy Division project tracking system. The required project documents and standards for timing will be determined at a later time. Project documents will include EM &V work plans, schedules, methodologies, analyses, draft reports, and interim findings. 2. Project Briefings: The IOUs will provide briefings on all EM &V projects to ED at regular intervals. Project Advisory Meetings: Certain projects will be selected by ED as requiring the opportunity for regular ED participation. For these projects, the ED liaison will be notified of project meetings. (END OF ATTACHMENT 2) -29- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays Attachment 3 — Energy Division EM &V Questions and Recommendations From November 2009 ALJ Rulinq 1. What are the respective roles of Energy Division and IOU EM &V staff for conducting EM &V projects? L Are the IOUs permitted to manage any impact evaluation or M &V projects that develop ex -ante savings estimates which may be used for determining portfolio performance, reporting accomplishments, or calculating incentives? If so, what are the Commission's expectations for rules and.procedures for oversight of these projects? Energy Division Recommendation — Question 1.i. The IOUs should be permitted to manage projects to develop energy savings estimates in the specific case where there is no existing ex -ante estimate or the IOUs believe that an existing estimate is out of date and needs testing AND Energy Division is not already conducting or planning to conduct a project to develop estimates for the some measure. The IOUs should be required to seek approval from Energy Division before initiating such work and should proactively provide opportunities for Energy Division to review project milestones and provide input directly to the project manager. The,Commission should clearly and explicitly authorize Energy Division to oversee such projects, including authorization to deny approval of projects that are not in the ratepayers interest. Energy Division's project approval will follow the process outlined in Energy Division's recommendations for questions 2,3, and 4. ii. Is Energy Division expected and therefore permitted to initiate and manage evaluations that may be considered process or formative evaluations? Energy Division Recommendation — Question I.H. The Commission should clearly and explicitly authorize Energy Division to conduct any type of EM &V consistent with the following guidelines, which are adapted from the ED Straw Proposal Issued by AU Ruling on July, 7th, 2009 in A.08 -07 -021. • Management of research projects that support the development of data, information, and tools needed to conduct regulatory oversight as well as to improve the Commission's energy efficiency policies. This may include the following types of research: 30- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays o Summative %x -post impact evaluations. o Evaluations and M &V conducted for the purpose of developing savings estimates. o Evaluations and audits used to develop conclusions about program performance. o Market studies required to inform Commission EE policies. iii. Should ED have the authority to be involved in projects that develop ex- ante savings estimates, such as the non -DEER work papers, which are currently managed by the IOUs without any ED involvement? Energy Division Recommendation — Question 1.iii. The IOUs should be required to notify Energy Division of all workpaper development activities and should proactively provide opportunities for Energy Division to review methodologies and provide input to the workpaper authors. ED involvement at this stage will streamline the review of final workpapers and will ensure greater reliability of workpaper savings estimates. Energy Division's involvement in workpaper projects will follow the process outlined in Energy Division's recommendations for questions 2,3, and 4. 2. Should ED be responsible for approving IOU EM &V projects? Should there be exceptions to this process for expedited projects? 3. Current policy requires ED to approve all IOU EM &V contractors in order to manage contractor conflicts of interest. Should this process continue or be modified? 4. Should ED have the authority to be involved in IOU EM &V projects? Energy Division Recommendation — Questions 2,3, and 4: Energy Division proposes that its involvement in authorizing and reviewing IOU EM& Vprojects, including the ex -ante savings estimation projects discussed in 1.i. and 1.iii. above, be managed according to the following procedures, adapted from the ED Straw Proposal: Process for Commission oversight of IOU EM &V project initiation 8. Project Formation: IOUs notify ED of their intention to conduct on EM &V project and solicit input from ED on the shaping of the project. ED may choose to waive this opportunity to participate if it chooses. The point of this step is to minimize potential delays in the following steps. -31- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays 9. Project Description: Once the need for a project has been determined, the IOUs will prepare a project description (basically a high level scope of work, following reporting standards to be developed). 10. Project Tracking: The project description will be uploaded to the Energy Division's project tracking system. 11. Project Review and Approval: the project description will be available for review and approval by Energy Division for two calendar weeks. 11.1. ED will prioritize its review of projects and will reserve its review for projects of high importance (such as evaluations of strategic plan programs, BBEES programs, and programs /measures with high forecasted savings) or projects that are clearly good candidates for coordination between IOUs and ED. 11.2. Within two weeks, ED will notify the IOUs if they intend hold the project to conduct a more detailed review and /or if ED requires more information on the project from the IOUs before approval can proceed. 11.3. If two weeks passes and ED has not already indicated that the project is approved or ED has not already held the project for further review, then the project will be considered approved and Energy Division's opportunity to review the project will be considered waived. 12. Project Initiation: Once the ED review and approval is completed (or waived) the IOUs may begin implementing the project in accordance with the project description. 13. Project RFP and Proposals: If the project requires competitive bidding, the IOUs will upload the RFP to the Energy Division project tracking system. If the project involves consultant proposals, the proposals will be uploaded to the Energy Division project tracking system. 14. Contractor Selection: If the project involves hiring a contractor, whether by competitive or directed bid, the IOUs will notify ED of their preferred contractor and other contractors who were considered and /or who submitted bids. ED will make the final selection of all EM &V contractors. Policy Issue #3 (part of C. in ED Straw Proposal) Process for Commission oversight of iOU EM &V project implementation 4. Project Reporting: The IOUS will upload project documents to the Energy Division project tracking system. The required project documents and standards for timing will be determined at a later time. Project documents will include EM &V work plans, schedules, methodologies, analyses, draft reports, and interim findings. 5. Project Briefings: The IOUs will provide briefings on all EM &V projects to ED at regular intervals. 6. Project Advisory Meetings: Certain projects will be selected by ED as requiring the opportunity for regular ED participation. For these projects, the ED liaison will be notified of project meetings. -32- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays Finally, ED will exercise the authority granted to Commission staff under Public Utilities Code Section 314 (a), as needed, to review process evaluation plans and results. 5. Should ED have the authority to allocate the authorized EM &V budget between ED and IOU managed EM &V projects according to the overall EM &V priorities? Energy Division Recommendation — Question 5: The Commission should grant ED authority to approve IOU projects as discussed in the recommendation on questions 2,3, and 4 above. With this authority and the adoption of the prioritization process discussed in the Joint IOU /ED EM &V Plan, ED believes that a specific prior allocation to IOU managed projects above and beyond the 15% minimum to fund EM &V staff is unnecessary. Nevertheless, ED anticipates that the IOUs will request, and are likely to be granted responsibility to manage a sizable share of the EM &V work. ED believes that the intention of the following statement on page 301 of Decision 09 -09 -047, "EM &V plans and budgets for 2010 -2012 should be categorized in accordance with the first four objectives articulated above, and will be prioritized for approval in following with the most pressing needs across each category" is to allocate EM &V resources according to overall research priorities, rather than across organizations responsible for implementing EM &V projects. 6. How should major disputes arising out of the EM &V work be managed? When should these disputes be elevated to the full Commission for resolution? Energy Division Recommendation — Question 6: Energy Division maintains its recommendations articulated in the ED Straw Proposal, excerpts reproduced below: Project- Specific EM &V Plans: If parties continue to take issue with the final work plans, a party or parties may file a motion with the Assigned AU and provide evidence for why the plans should be changed and how. The AD will resolve the dispute and direct Energy Division and /or the IOUs to revise the plans accordingly via ruling. -33- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays EM &V Technical Reports If parties continue to take issue with the final EM &V technical reports, a party or parties may file a motion with the Assigned AU and provide evidence for why the report is deficient and what changes to the report would be necessary to correct the deficiency. The AU will resolve the dispute and direct Energy Division and /or the IOUs, via ruling, to prepare an addendum to the report correcting the deficiency. The addendum will be posted on the some website where the draft reports are posted. 7. How extensively should IOUs be involved in ED EM &V projects? Energy Division Recommendation — Question 7: Energy Division maintains its recommendations articulated in Section C of the ED Straw Proposal "Stakeholder Input Process and Approval of EM &V Projects," as well as the informal interactions proposed in the Joint IOU /ED EM &V Plan. S. What is the appropriate level of public involvement in EM &V projects? Should certain EM &V project be exempted from a full public process? How will the exempted EM &V projects be determined? Energy Division Recommendation — Question 8: In their comments on the ED Straw Proposal, the IOUs expressed concerns that engaging with the public on every EM &V project, as proposed in the ED Straw Proposal, would be ineffective and would slow down the implementation of time - sensitive projects. At least one utility has proposed that projects under a specific budget should be exempt from the type of public process proposed in Section C of the ED Straw Proposal and that the key stakeholders for process evaluations are limited to program administrators and implementers. ED believes that there will be IOU EM &V projects that will not require an intensive public vetting process, but we do not believe the project budget is a reasonable indicator of the need for public vetting. Additionally, ED strongly believes that ratepayers and the CPUC are in fact key stakeholders for process evaluations. To ensure that the appropriate EM &V projects are publically vetted and that time - sensitive projects are not delayed, ED recommends that the Commission grant ED authority to determine which EM &V projects should and should not undergo public vetting. Should all IOU EM &V related projects, regardless of funding source (such as projects that develop savings estimates for non -DEER measures funded out -34- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays of program funds), be required to follow the same policies and procedures that are required for EM &V funded projects? Energy Division Recommendation — Question 9: Energy Division recommends that the Commission clearly require, without exception, that all EM &V related projects, regardless of funding source, be required to adhere to the some policies and procedures as EM &V funded projects. 10. Should the IOUs modify program eligibility rules to require very large customized program participants to participate in evaluations if selected in a sample, as a condition for receiving EE funding? Energy Division Recommendation — Question 10: Many large project participants have either refused to participate in evaluations or have Energy Division believes it is reasonable to require participants who receive a large sum of EE funding and services to participate in evaluations, if needed. This participation would include on -site measurement and verification, as well as surveys of key participant personnel. Energy Division proposes to review past projects with the IOUs to determine the EE incentive threshold above which participation in evaluations would be obligatory. Energy Division will endeavor to reduce the burden of participating in evaluations by coordinating with the IOU implementation and inspection process. Energy Division recommends that the Commission require the IOUs to cooperate with ED in this regard. 11. Should the Commission allow the IOUs the opportunity to count savings from behavior based programs? i. How should the Commission develop EM &V methodologies to verify savings driven by behavior -based efficiency programs? ii. What analytical issues are raised by changing policy to allow credit and require measurement of savings driven by behavior -based efficiency programs (i.e. savings persistence, potential double- counting of savings by other resource programs, potential double- counting of savings claimed as part of the conservation benefits assumed to underlie Advanced Meter Infrastructure (AMI) business cases (PG &E - D.09 -03 -026; SCE — D.08 -09- 039; SDG &E - 07 -04- 043))? -35- A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays Energy Division Recommendation — Question 11: Energy Division believes that the categories of behavior based programs need to be more specifically defined and measurement issues need to be clarified before categorically recommending savings credit from behavior based programs. Energy Division believes there are significant intersecting issues with the IOUs' AMI programs. For instance, we believe it is the intent of the AMi program to provide customers with usage data to help them manage their energy consumption through conservation. Comparative usage reporting and benchmarking could be provided as part of the bundle of AMI services and may thus be considered AMI generated conservation savings. ED will evaluate the IOUs comparative usage programs using experimental design consistent with SB 488. ED proposes to refine the reporting required of IOUs by SB 488 with IOU input. Measuring and quantifying savings from other behavior based programs, such as Marketing, Education, and Outreach may be complicated and developing protocols for this measurement approach may take some time. Energy Division recommends that the Commission consider forming a working group, facilitated by Energy Division, to explore these issues. (END OF ATTACHMENT 3) -36- A.08- 07- 021/D.10 -04 -029 Concurrence of Commissioner Timothy Alan Simon Decision Determining Evaluation, Measurement, and Verification Processes for 2010 Through 2012 Energy Efficiency Portfolios A.08- 07- 021/D.10 -04 -029 Effective Evaluation, Measurement, and Verification (EM &V) is absolutely critical to the success of our Energy Efficiency programs in measuring peak load savings and the cost- effectiveness of our programs and portfolios. I support this Decision as it seeks to increase transparency, efficiency, and accountability in our EM &V processes while minimizing conflicts of interest. I am optimistic that the dispute resolution process adopted by this Decision will result in greater collaboration between program implementers and evaluators.' I am also very supportive of the Decisions clarification of contracting processes for EM &V consultants. Maximizing competition for contracts in EM &V and other energy efficiency program evaluation and implementation activities will ultimately result in greater cost - effectiveness of our programs and portfolios. I recognize that expertise in EM &V may be somewhat limited, but I believe we should conduct small business outreach to promote supplier diversity in this area. With a $125 million approved EM &V budget for 2010 through 2012, I expect the coordination efforts ordered by this Decision to be taken seriously so as to avoid duplication of data collection and evaluation efforts.z I look forward to monitoring our progress through this program cycle to ensure that we are adhering to performance metrics, improving outreach and procurement for EM &V contract opportunities, and getting the most out of the ratepayer dollars in our EM &V budget. Dated April 20, 2009, at San Francisco, California. /s/ TIMOTHY ALAN SIMON TIMOTHY ALAN SIMON Commissioner i Decision Determining Evaluation, Measurement, and Verification Processes for 2010 11nough 2012 Energy Efficiency Portfolios (D.10 -04 -029), March 9, 2010 at 29 -34. 2 Id. at 7. EXHIBIT E [REPORTING REQUIREMENTS] ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT RESOLUTION NO. 2011- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH DECLARING THE CITY'S SUPPORT FOR AN ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON AND THE CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH WHEREAS, local demand for electricity has grown substantially, and it is expected that demand for electricity will continue to grow in the future; and WHEREAS, energy efficient programs enhance our environment by improving air quality, reducing pollution, and conserving natural resources; and WHEREAS, there is national movement to incorporate energy efficiency into our everyday practices to create more sustainable and "greener" lifestyles; and WHEREAS, the City Council of City of Newport Beach supports a commitment to sustainable practices through energy efficiency, and to provide leadership in promoting and facilitating such practices in the community. WHEREAS, the City of Newport Beach has identified the programs within Southern California Edison's Local Government Partnership Program as being consistent with the City of Newport Beach's energy goals, and as a funding source to implement energy efficiency projects. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of City of Newport Beach will support Southern California Edison's Local Government Partnership Program, with the goal to support energy efficiency initiatives and to improve energy efficiency throughout the City of Newport Beach. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Newport Beach will partner with Southern California Edison and the cities of Westminster, Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach, and Fountain Valley to form the Orange County Cities Energy Leader Partnership to help meet long -term community economic and environmental energy goals. Adopted this 13th day of September, 2011. Michael F. Henn Mayor r,TJNr� -Jn Leilani I. Brown City Clerk