HomeMy WebLinkAboutC-4981 - Agreement to Jointly Deliver the 2010-2012 Orange County Energy Leader Partnership ProgramFIRST AMENDMENT
THIS FIRST AMENDMENT ( "FIRST AMENDMENT") TO THE AGREEMENT TO JOINTLY
DELVER THE 2010 -2012 ORANGE COUNTY ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM
dated Septemberl3, 2011 (the "Agreement ") is effective as of January 1, 2013 (the First Amendment
Effective Date) by and among SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY ( "SCE "), AND The
City of Newport Beach ( "The City ") Terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed
to them in the Agreement. SCE may be referred to individually herein as the "Utility", SCE and The City
may be referred to herein individually as a "Party" or collectively as the "Parties."
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the Parties previously executed the Agreement to Jointly Deliver the 2010 -2012
ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM effective January 1, 2010 ( hereinafter referred to as
the "2010 -2012 Program ");
WHEREAS, on May 18, 2012, the Commission issued a Decision Providing Guidance on 2013-
2014 Energy Efficiency Portfolios and 2012 Marketing, Education, and Outreach ("Final Guidance
Decision") guiding the Utility to continue the ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM, which
included the Orange County Cities Energy Leader Partnership Program, through a two year 2013 -2014
transition period (hereinafter referred to as the "2013 -2014 Program ");
WHEREAS, on July 2, 2012, the Utility submitted its application ( "2013 -2014 Application") for
the implementation of energy efficiency programs to be delivered to California utility customers for the
years 2013 through 2014, which included the 2013 -2014 Program, a continuation of the 2010.2012
Program;
WHEREAS, on November 15, 2012, the Commission issued a Final Decision approving the
2013 -2014 Application as submitted ("Final Decision "), thereby approving continuation of the Energy
Efficiency Partnership Programs, which includes the 2013 -2014 Program, and the Parties desire to extend
the Agreement through 2014 under the terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement, except as
otherwise provided in this First Amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Parties desire to further
authorized budget for the 2013 -2014 Program and
extended 2013 -2014 Program cycle.
amend the Agreement as necessary to provide an
to update the Agreement as required to reflect the
NOW THEREFORE, for valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:
1. Except as provided herein, and to the extent applicable, any reference in the Agreement to the "2010-
2012 Program" shall hereby include both the 2010 -2012 Program and the 2013 -2014 Program.
2. Section 1.13 of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
1.13 PIP or Program Implementation Plan: The most recent Commission decision approved and
publicly available plans for implementing the Program in each Utility's service territory
3. Section 12 of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
SCE CONFIDENTIAL I of 6
32 Eneray 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 a level of participation 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. Section 11 of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
I I . 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, 2015, and all Direct Implementation and Marketing & Outreach activities by no later
than December 31, 2014.
5. Section 12 of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
12. FINAL INVOICES
The City must submit final invoices to SCE no later than March 31, 2015.
6. Section 25.1 of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
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, 2015 unless otherwise terminated in
accordance with the provisions of Section 25.2 or 30 below.
7. Section 26 of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
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
his Lee, Senior Civil Engineer Bernard Adebayo -Ige, Program Manager
3300 Newport Blvd 1515 Walnut Grove Avenue
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. PST (or PDT, as
applicable), 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
SCE CONFIDENTIAL 2 of 6
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.
8. This First Amendment 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.
9. Exhibit A (ENERGY LEADER. PARTNERSHIP — PROGRAM LEVEL DATA) and Exhibit B
(ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM 2010 -12 GOALS & PARTNER BUDGET) of
the Agreement are hereby deleted in their entirety and replaced with the versions of Exhibit A
(ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP — PROGRAM LEVEL) and Exhibit B (ENERGY LEADER
PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM 2013 -14 GOALS & PARTNER BUDGET FOR Orange Coun,Citt'gs
attached to this First Amendment, which attached versions are incorporated herein by reference and
made a part of the Agreement.
10. General. From and after the First Amendment Effective Date, any reference to the Agreement
contained in any notice, request, certificate or other instrument, document or agreement shall be
deemed to mean the Agreement, as amended by this Fist Amendment. In the event of any conflict
between the Agreement and this First Amendment, this First Amendment shall prevail. All remaining
provisions of the Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. Each party is fully
responsible for ensuring that the person signing this First Amendment on that party's behalf has the
requisite legal authority to do so.
[SIGNATURES FOLLOW ON NEXT PAGE]
SCE CONFIDENTIAL 3 of 6
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this First Amendment to be executed by their
duly authorized representatives as of the First Amendment Effective Date.
The City:
City of Newport Beach
By:
Name Printed: Dy e_IL',4
Title:
Date: at
SCE:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDLSON COMP
B .
Name Printed: Erwin Furukawa
Title: Senior Vice President, Customer Service
Date:
ATTEST:
Date:
By: ghP , &"
Leilani I. Brown k"Vpo
City Clerk
APPROV D A TO FORM:
Date:
By:
Aaron C. Harp
City Attorney
SCE CONFI DENTIAL 4 of 6
EXHIBIT A
ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP - PROGRAM LEVEL
Energy Leader 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
offered 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 tinder SCE's core program.
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 municipal energy reduction goals, targets 25 percent of its facilities 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.
Cold Level — To qualify for this level, the partner demonstrates higher past participation in SCE energy efficiency
programs, establishes higher municipal 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 Partner with 9 cents per kWh paid in addition to what is paid to the Partner under SCE's core
program
Platinum Level —To qualify for this level, the partner demonstrates even higher past participation in energy efficiency
programs, is innovative and integrates Energy Action Plan policies, ordinances and procedures. All facilities are targeted for
energy efficiency upgrades and the partner makes a higher commitment to participate in Demand Response. Incentive
factors are highest for Partner facilities' energy eif'iciency projects and additional incentives are made available for
customized community energy efficiency projects. Platinum Level provides the Partner with 12 cents per kWh paid in
addition to what is paid to the Partner under SCE's core program.
SCE CONFIDENTIAL 5 of 6
ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM
2013 -14 GOALS & PARTNER BUDGET
FOR OC Cities
Program Cycle Partner Budget and Goals:
*(Marketing & Outreach, Technical Assistance and Direct hnplementation)
SCE CONFIDENTIAL 6 of 6
Maximum Partner
Budget
Energy Savings
Goal
(kWh)
Peak Demand
Reduction Goal
(kW)
Total:
$1,533,703
4,602,923KWh
129 kW
Incentive:
$ 5883,703
*Non- Incentive:
$ 650,000
*(Marketing & Outreach, Technical Assistance and Direct hnplementation)
SCE CONFIDENTIAL 6 of 6
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM; Public Works Department
David A. Webb, Public Works Director
949 -694- 3328, dawepb(&newo.ortbeachea.gov
PREPARED BY: Iris Lee, Senior Civil Engineer
949- 644 -3323, flee r(x3, newportheaehca,gov
APPROVED; ,.u.. .
TITLE: Energy Leadership Partnership between Southern California Edison
and the City of Newport Beach
ABST _6CT:
The 2013 -2014 Energy Leader Partnership Program agreement between the City and
Southern California Edison for the Orange County Cities Energy Leader Partnership
(Partnership) has been Issued to extend program activities. Staff requests approval of the
"First Amendment to the Agreement to Jointly Deliver the 2010 -2012 Orange County Energy
Leader Partnership Program" allowing for the City to participate in the 2013-2014 program
cycle.
RECOAAMENDATiONS:
1. Authorize the City Manager to execute the "First Amendment to the Agreement to
Jointly Deliver the 2010 -2012 Orange County Energy Leader Partnership Program ".
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute future Energy Leader Partnership Program
agreements.
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
There are no funding requirements related to this item. The City, however, will directly benefit
from SCE's allocation to supplement funding for the City's energy efficiency goals.
DISCUSSION:
On September 13, 2011, the City entered into a joint partnership with Southern California
Edison via the Orange County Cities Energy Leader Partnership for 2010 -2012 funding
period. The Partnership was established to provide integrated technical and financial
assistance to help local governments effectively lead communities to increase energy
i Of
Energy Leader iartnership between Southern California Edison and City of Newport Beach
March 26, 2013
Page 2
efficiency, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, protect air quality and ensure that communities
are more livable and sustainable. Since participation, the City has leveraged the program to
implement energy efficiency measures in municipal facilities, such as LED streetlights,
Central Library NVAC retro - commissioning, and variable frequency drives at water production
facilities; while providing marketing, outreach, education, and community sweeps to connect
the community with opportunities to save energy, costs, and promote the environment The
2010 -2012 program cycle is now entering into the 2013 -2014 program cycle.
On November 15, 2012, the California Public Utilities Commission issued a final decision
approving the continuation of the Energy Efficiency Partnership Program for a two -year 2013 -
2014 program cycle. Staff recommends City Council authorize the City Manager to execute
the "First Amendment to the Agreement to Jointly Deliver the 2010 -2012 Orange County
Energy Leader Partnership Program ", to allow the City to continue utilizing Partnership
funding to invest in energy savings projects and outreach efforts for the City.
As the Partnership framework is not expected to experience critical changes over the
upcoming program years, staff recommends Council authorize the City Manager to execute
future Energy Leader Partnership Program agreements.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIE
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 director 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:
.� —�
,r la /
David A. Webb
Public Works Director
Attachment: A. First Amendment to the Agreement to Jointly Deliver the 2010 -2012
Orange County Energy Leader Partnership Program
2 of
ATTACtIMENT A
FIRST AMENDMENT
TF S FIRST AMENDMENT ("FIRST AMENDMENT") TO THE AGREEMENT TO JOINTLY
DELIVER THE 2010.2012 ORANGE COUNTY ENERGY LEADER. PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM
dated September13, 2011 (the "Agreement ") is effective as of January 1, 2013 (the First Amendment
Effective bate) by and among SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY ( "SCE "), AND The
City of Newport Beach ("The City ") Towns not otherwise. defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed
to them in the Agreement. SCE may be referred to individually herein as the "Utility "' SCE and Tire City
may be referred to herein individually as a "Party" or collectively as the "Parties"
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the Parties previously executed the Agreement to Jointly Deliver the 2010 -2012
ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM effective January 1, 2010 ( hereinafter referred to as
the "2010 -20I2 Program");
WHEREAS, on May 18, 2012, the Commission issued a Decision Providing Guidance on 2013-
2014 Energy Efficiency Portfolios and 2012 Marketing, Education, and Outreach ("Final Guidance
Decision ") guiding the Utility to continue the ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM, which
included the Orange County Cities Energy Leader Partnership Program, through a two year 2013 -2014
transition period (hereinafter referred to as the "2013 -2014 Program ");
WHEREAS, on July 2, 2012, the Utility submitted its application { "2013 -2014 Application ") for
the implementation of energy efficiency programs to be delivered to California utility customers for the
years 2013 through 2014, which included the 2013 -2014 Program, a continuation of the 2010 -2012
Program;
WHEREAS, on November 15, 2012, the Commission issued a Final Decision approving the
2013 -2014 Application as submitted ("Final Decision"). thereby approving continuation of the Energy
Efficiency Partnership Programs, which includes the 2013 -2014 Program, and the Parties desire to extend
the Agreement through 2014 under the terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement, except as
othenvise provided in this First Amendment: and
WHEREAS, the Parties desire to further amend the Agreement as necessary to provide an
authorized budget for the 2013 -2014 Program and to update the Agroornent as required to reflect the
extended 2013 -2014 Program cycle.
NOW THEREFORE, for valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:
1. Except as provided herein, and to the extent applicable, any reference in the Agreement to the "2010-
2012 Program" shall hereby include both the 2010 -2012 Program and the 2013 -2014 Program.
2. Section 1.13 of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
1, 13 PIP or Program Implementation Plan: The most recent Commission decision approved and
publicly available plans for implementingthe Program in each Utility's service territory
3. Section 3.2 of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following.
3 Of
3.2, ael ,Leader Pgd rra" sr liiV-Lgv -e1. The Program offer P tiered Incentive stricture through
achievement of four separate levels of participation: "Valued Partner,.. "Silver," "Gold" and
"Platinum." The City will enter the Program at a level of participation 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 aeldoved the next incentive level.
4. Section I i of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and roplaoed with the followings
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, 2015, and all Direct Implementation and Marketing & Outreach activities by no later
than December 31, 2014.
5. Section 12 of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following;
12, FINAL fNVOICES
The City must submit final invoices to SCE no later than March 31, 2015.
6. Section 25,1 of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
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, 2015 unless otherwise terminated in
accordance with the provisions of Section 25.2 or 30 below,
7; Section 26 of the :Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following;
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 ht writing by a Party as follows:
The City:: SCE:
City of Newport Beach Southern California Edison Company
Iris Lee, Senior Civil Engineer Bernard Adebayo -Ige, Program Manager
3300 Newport Blvd 1515 Walnut Grove Avenue
Newport Beach CA 92663 Rosemead, CA 41770
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, PST (or PDT, as
applicable), 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
SCE CONFIDENTIAL 4 of 8 2 of 6
Party, or (d) if by overnight courier, on the Business .Day following delivery to the overnight
courier within Lire time limits set by that courier for next -clay delivery.
$. This First Amendment may be eseeuted in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed
to be an original, but all of which together s1rall be deemed to be one and the sarne instrument.
9. Exhibit A (ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP — PROGRAM LEVEL DATA) and Exhibit B
(ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM 2010 -12 GOALS & PARTNER BUDGET) of
the Agreement are hereby deleted in their entirety and replaced with the versions of Exhibit A
(ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP — PROGRAM LFVEL) and Exhibit B (ENERGY LEADER
PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM 2013 -14 GOALS & PARTNER BUDGET FOR Orange CoLIZO Grins
attached to this First Amendment, which attached versions are incorporated herein by reference and
made a pail of the Agreement.
10, General, From and after the First Amendment Effective Date, any reference to the Agreement
contained in any notice, request, certifioaie or other instrument, document or agreement shall be
deemed to mean the Agreement, as amended by this First Amendment. In the event of any conflict
between the Agreement and this First Amendment, this First Amendment shall prevail. All remaining
provisions of the Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. Each party is fully
responsible for ensuring that the person signing this First Amendment on that party's behalf has the
requisite legal authority to do so.
(SIGNATURES FOLLOW ON NEXT PAGE]
SCE CONFIDENTIAL 5 Of 8 3 of 6
IN WITNUSS WFIEREOh ", the Parties hereto have caused this First Amendment to he executed by their
dalyautharized representatives as of the Fist Amendment Effective Date,
The City :
Citv ofNervnort Beach
By:
Name Printed:
Title:
Date:
SCE:
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RDISON COMPANY
By:
Name Printed: Etivin Furukawa
Title: Senior Vice President, Customer Service
Date:
SCE CONFIDENNAL 6 of 8 4 of
Err T A
ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP - PROGRAM: LEVEL
Energy Leader Partnership levels are:
Valued Partner bevel -- 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
offered 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 nt demand response at a basic level. Valued
Level provides the Partner with 3 cents per kWh paid in addition to what is paidtothe Partner under SCE's core program.
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 municipal energy reduction goals, targets 25 percent of its facilities 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.
Gold Level --To qualify for this level, the partner demonstrates higher past participation in SCE energy eitioiency
programs, establishes higher muticipal 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 Partner with 9 cents per kWh paid in addition to what is paid to the Partner under SCE's cote
program
Platinum Level —To qualify for this level, the partner demonstrates even higher past participation in energy offtciency
programs, is innovative and integrates Energy Action flan policies, ordinances and procedures, All facilities are targeted for
energy efficiency upgrades and the partner makes a higher commitment to participate in Demand Response. Incentive
faetors are highest forpartner facilities' energy efficiency projects and additional incentives are made available for
customized community energy efficiency projects. Platinum Level provides the Partner ° with 12 cents per kWh paid in
addition to what is paid to the Partner under SCE's core program,
SCE CONFIDENTIAL 70f8 5 of
ENERGY LEAVER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM
2013 -14 GOALS & PARTNER BUDGET
FOR Di Ganes
Program Cycle Partner Budget and Goals:
"(Marketing & Outreach, 1 echtdcai Assistance and Direct Implementation)
SCI; CONFIDENTIAL 801`8 6 of4
Maximum Partner
Budget
Energy Savings
Goal
(kWlt)
Peak Demand
Reduction Goal
(kW)
Total;
$1,533,703
4,602,423I {W8
129 kW
Incentive:
$S883,703
*Non- Incentive:
$ 650,000
"(Marketing & Outreach, 1 echtdcai Assistance and Direct Implementation)
SCI; CONFIDENTIAL 801`8 6 of4
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 -201.2 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 ").
1.3. 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
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
3.1. 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
environment. 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 PROGRAM 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 fbr 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 SE11VICE 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 FARTNERSLIIP 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 LLADER 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 administered by Southern
California Edison under the auspices of the California Public
Utilities Conmission,"
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 PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT 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 programs.
6.3.5. SCE shall work with the City as requested to help identify cost -
eff'ective 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.
6.3.3. SCE shall be responsible for tracking performance of the City in
accordance with Section 10.1.2, 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 PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT 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. Regular Conununication. 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 connnunicate regularly with each other to review the status of
ENERGY LE=ADER PAUNER$1 -111' 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 for
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
fron time to time, or until the Commission 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 Budget
10.1.1. Maximum Budget: The Partner Budget is set forth in Exhibit
B to this Agreement and represents the City's maximum share of the
ENERGY LEAI)ER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT I I
Program's three -year Authorized Partnership Budget. Additionally,
Exhibit B sets forth the maxinumz 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. Trackine: 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 Categories
a. Non - Incentive Budget: 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. Program 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 far 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 PARTNERSHIP 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 Work.
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.
10.3 PPrnent 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. SCE may.shift funds 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, 20.13.
13. INDEMNITY
13.1. Indemnity by the City. The City shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless
SCE, and its. 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. Indemnity 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.
1.3.3. LIMITATION OF LIABILITYY. NO PARTY SHALL BE LIABLE TO THE
OTHER PARTY FOR ANY INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL
DAMAGES WHA'T'SOEVER 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
FNERGI' LFADf_R PARTNFRSHIP 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 infiastructure 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 3.152 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 jm-isdiction
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 govermnents, 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 marls, trade name,
copyright, or patent infringement or other violations of any
proprietary rights o'fany 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:
(i) 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
1.7.1. 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 documentation to the other Party that demonstrates to the other Party's
satisfaction that sucli 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 $100,000.
ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT Is
18. CUSTOMER CONFIDENTIALITY REQUIREMENTS
18.1. 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 (defried 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 18 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
Lander 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 Cmnmission
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
from 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 PROGRAM AGREEMENT 20
23. STOP WORD 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 AGREEMFNT 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 1.994 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 MY 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, 18, 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 successful 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 PARTNI= 161-IIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT 2,1
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 - APPROVEID AS TO FORM:
L
Na Dave xiff City Attorney 10
Title: City Manager
BCE: Clark�o�a� b
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDI COMPANY
y: Erwin Furukawa
Title: Senior Vice President,
Customer Service
ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT 25
EKFIIBIT A
ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP - PROGRAM LEVEL
"Baseline nruubers fur mutually agreed upon jor purposes ofihis Agreement on!
Energy Leaders Partnership levels are:
Valued Partner Level —This level is the entry level litr the partner to develop knowledge and establish gook towards the Silver Level. A
budge( is available for energy savings projects, for marketing, education, and outreach to the community, as well as for Technical
assistance toward upgrading or rewotilting partners' facili(ies. SCE's crate program incentives will be offered directly to the paruter. The
partner will be expected to use the marketing and outreach funds to generate verifiable energy savings in their own facilities and in the
conununiny and will participate in demand response at a basic level. Valued Level provides the Partner with 3 cents per k %Vh paid in
addition to whin is paid to the Partner under SCE's core program. Plainer will need to meet the following DR requirement: Enroll in
California's Statewide Flex Alert and implement an internal etirentional campaign.
Silver Level —To qualify for this level, the paroncr demonstrates past participation in SCE energy efficiency programs, develops an
energy action plan, sets community and CITY cnergy reduction goals, largels 25 percent of its facilities to complcic energy efficiency
upglndes, and p:uticipmes its demand response. An enhanced incentive is paid at the Silver Level. Silver Level provides the Partner wish 6
cents per k Wh paid in n ldition to what is paid to the Partner under SCE's core program. Partner will need to meet the following DR
requirements: I -AI least one(]) eligible fitcilily to participate in one (I) SCE Demand Response program 2 -At least one (1) eligible
facility to develop a Demand Reduction Action Plan to be followed during a Flex Alert event 3- Distribute Energy Solutions brochure to
partner employees 4- Conrplele in integrated Dennand Side Management (iDSM) audit an all eligible facilities.
Gold Level —To qualify for This level, the parnrcr demonstr ;rtes higher past participation in SCE cnergy eniciencv progranns, establishes
higher CITY and conununify program participation rand cnergy savings goals and makes a higher conuniunew to participate in dennand
response. Incentive facons m'e higher lix partner faci lilies' cueagy elficiency projects. Gold Level provides the Pattinn with 9 cents per
kWh paid in addition lu what is paid to the Paatner under SCE's core program Partner will need to meel the following DR requirements:
I -I lave at Ica a 25'7, of eligible facilities participate in an SCE Demand Response program 2- Conduct co-branded marketing and outreach
I() residenlial atstonncrs on SCEs Demand Response programs 3 -At least one (I) eligible facility implement a DR mruure rcamuocntletl
linen the iDSM audit.
Patinum Level —To gtmlify for his level, the partner dennonsu'atca even higher past participation in energy eficienev progrants, is
innovative and integrates Energy Action Plan policies, ordinances and procedures. All facilities ere ungeled fix cnergy enicicnep
upgrades and the partner makes a higher connmitment to participate in Demand Response. Incentive Moors arc IIigheil fur par In
loci l itics, cuogy efficiency projects and additional in Cell t ivcS are made available for customized conununity energy C11iCicncy prujecl S.
Platinum Level provides the Partner with 12 cents per kWh paid in addition to what is paid to the fainter under SCEs core program.
Partner will need to race the following DR requirements- I -At least one (I) eligible I'aci l iiy must participate in SCE's Aram Dennand
ENERGI' LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT 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 nruubers fur mutually agreed upon jor purposes ofihis Agreement on!
Energy Leaders Partnership levels are:
Valued Partner Level —This level is the entry level litr the partner to develop knowledge and establish gook towards the Silver Level. A
budge( is available for energy savings projects, for marketing, education, and outreach to the community, as well as for Technical
assistance toward upgrading or rewotilting partners' facili(ies. SCE's crate program incentives will be offered directly to the paruter. The
partner will be expected to use the marketing and outreach funds to generate verifiable energy savings in their own facilities and in the
conununiny and will participate in demand response at a basic level. Valued Level provides the Partner with 3 cents per k %Vh paid in
addition to whin is paid to the Partner under SCE's core program. Plainer will need to meet the following DR requirement: Enroll in
California's Statewide Flex Alert and implement an internal etirentional campaign.
Silver Level —To qualify for this level, the paroncr demonstrates past participation in SCE energy efficiency programs, develops an
energy action plan, sets community and CITY cnergy reduction goals, largels 25 percent of its facilities to complcic energy efficiency
upglndes, and p:uticipmes its demand response. An enhanced incentive is paid at the Silver Level. Silver Level provides the Partner wish 6
cents per k Wh paid in n ldition to what is paid to the Partner under SCE's core program. Partner will need to meet the following DR
requirements: I -AI least one(]) eligible fitcilily to participate in one (I) SCE Demand Response program 2 -At least one (1) eligible
facility to develop a Demand Reduction Action Plan to be followed during a Flex Alert event 3- Distribute Energy Solutions brochure to
partner employees 4- Conrplele in integrated Dennand Side Management (iDSM) audit an all eligible facilities.
Gold Level —To qualify for This level, the parnrcr demonstr ;rtes higher past participation in SCE cnergy eniciencv progranns, establishes
higher CITY and conununify program participation rand cnergy savings goals and makes a higher conuniunew to participate in dennand
response. Incentive facons m'e higher lix partner faci lilies' cueagy elficiency projects. Gold Level provides the Pattinn with 9 cents per
kWh paid in addition lu what is paid to the Paatner under SCE's core program Partner will need to meel the following DR requirements:
I -I lave at Ica a 25'7, of eligible facilities participate in an SCE Demand Response program 2- Conduct co-branded marketing and outreach
I() residenlial atstonncrs on SCEs Demand Response programs 3 -At least one (I) eligible facility implement a DR mruure rcamuocntletl
linen the iDSM audit.
Patinum Level —To gtmlify for his level, the partner dennonsu'atca even higher past participation in energy eficienev progrants, is
innovative and integrates Energy Action Plan policies, ordinances and procedures. All facilities ere ungeled fix cnergy enicicnep
upgrades and the partner makes a higher connmitment to participate in Demand Response. Incentive Moors arc IIigheil fur par In
loci l itics, cuogy efficiency projects and additional in Cell t ivcS are made available for customized conununity energy C11iCicncy prujecl S.
Platinum Level provides the Partner with 12 cents per kWh paid in addition to what is paid to the fainter under SCEs core program.
Partner will need to race the following DR requirements- I -At least one (I) eligible I'aci l iiy must participate in SCE's Aram Dennand
ENERGI' LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT 26
Response program 2 -Ilave 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 (he Spring /Summer season to promote
Demand Response /iDSM.
ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT 27
EXHIBIT "B"
ENERGY LEADER PA$iTNERSMP PROGRAM
2010 -2012 GOALS & PARTNER BUDGET
Program Cvcle Partner Budget and Goals:
Minimum Performance % vs. Expenditures of Non - Incentive Partner Budget:
Performance
Maximum 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
Implcmcntation])
Minimum
50 %u
Minimum Performance % vs. Expenditures of Non - Incentive Partner Budget:
Performance
12 months
18 Months
Category
into Pro Tam
into Program
Non-
NTE 65 %o
NTE 100%
Incentive
Budget
Expended
(ME &O)
Minimum
50%
70 %
kWh
Achieved
Minimum
50 %u
70%
kW Achieved
NTF, = Not To Kweed
Explmnution at non - Incentive Partner Budget allocation against goals:
\lasionun Percent ortotal non - incentive Partner Budget expended by the end of year I: 05%
t \'lininiunn kWh achieveel by the end oPyem I: 50'%, of3- yeargoal
In uccordrruce with Section 10 of this Agreement, SCE reserves die I (ght to usres'.s the progress made hY the Cip, at any limo it
respect to the above gnnLv, droll ntay in its sole discrtion elect m shifi fiwds mnoeg categories or redistribute ull m port al the
luodb{; burlgelerl herein m artier energy e(liciencp/u ograrnr or pru teerships DI aaeOrdanee with the.Agreentent.
ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSI-11P PROGRAM AGREL-MEN "r 28
EXHIBIT C
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
COMMUNITY ENERGY PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT
Orange County Cities Ener�,y Leader Partnership
1. Program Name. Orange County Cities Energy Lender Pa H nersilip
2. Projected Program Budget Table
Table 1 — Refer to Table 1 in ELPP Master PIP.
3. Projected Program Gross Impacts Table
Table 2— Refer to Table 2 in ELPP Master PIP.
J. Program Element Description and Implementation Plan
a) List of mroermn elements:
'File three core program elements are those identified in file Energy Leader
Partnership Program Master PIP: Element A — GovernnentFacilities,ElementB —
Stralegic Plan Activities, and Element C — Core Program Coordination.
Core Program Element A - Government Facilities
A.1) Retrofit of county and municipal facilities
'Fie four cities participating in the Orange County Cities Energy Leader Partnership
(Partnership) with Southern California Edison (SCE) are developing detai led lists of
facilities that will be retrofitted during the 2009 -2011 program cycle of the
partnership. Minty ofibese facilities and their respective energy savings have been
identified and quantified. Outer buildings havo been audited by the California Energy
Conunission (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 l consists of monitoring- based commissioning of the two largest
municipal facilities is Huntington Beach and IT 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 K retrofits, HVAC retrofits,
pumping retrofits and building envelope improvements.
A.2) Refro- 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
deman[I response pfogrenns. Each Partner city plans to increase its participation in
demand response accordingly. Integrated EE /DR audits will be conducted in eligible
facilities.
SonWem Carifomia Edison 2009 —2011 Energy Erscicncy Pims
233 NacM1 2009
ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT 30
Orange County Cities.Eneru Leader Partnership
AA) Technical Assistance for project management, train ng, audits, etc. -
Each partner city has a specific budget 1'or each of these activities.
A.5) On -Bill P'inmtcfng
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 bas 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 coil result in
substantial energy savings and greenhouse gas (131-10) eridisions. The Partnership
will provide training, teclutical assistance, and additional support from SCE's Codes
and Standards Program to build local govenmtent capacity to address code
compliance issues.
B.2) Reach Code
The partnership will seek to eslablish meaningful CEC- approved Reach codes as part
of its et7orl to add value to energy efficiency in alignment with the strategies stated in
the Master PIP. This activity will follow the proposed path described in the Codes k
Standards PIP,
B.3) Guiding Doci mient(s) Support
At least one of the partner cities offers information at its building permit office on
bast practices and energy efficiency opportunities through SCE's programs. SCE
plans significant enhancements to this practice for the 2009 - 2011 program. cycle.
Thu pmtnarship intends to make training. documents, and templates available to help
cities develop their own climate and energy action plans, especially relating to utility
energy elements.
BA) rinancing for the community
The partners are aware of the opportunities far financing provided by AB 811 and
will be examining its possibilities. Tho pm'Inciship will an ange Im an AB 811 .
presentation for the cities. and technical assistance through the Peer -to -Peer smppolt
network.
B.5) Pcer ci -.Peer Support
Tic patnersbip plaits to develop an ellective approach finr sharing information
among SCE and partner cities. The prograni will conduct conference calls among all
partners on it routine basis.
Srniaem C'alifb ,h Edison 211,19 - 2011 L ore;' Effi mmy lylnns
Neelwa 2009
ENERGY LEADER PA10'NERS1IlP PROGRAM AGREEMENT 31
Oranpe County Cities Enertry Leader Partnership
Care Program Element C - Core Program Coordination
C.1) Outreach and Education
'fhe patnership has budgeted outreach and education efforts to demolish ate local
government leadership and to provide the community with opportunities to provide
energy actions and reduce the community's environmental footprint.
\larketing, education, and outreach (D4E&O) activities will consist of..
• Staff training;
• Hunthpgton Beach Grcen Corp Citizen and Enviromnental Board training;
• SCE's Mobile Energy Unit at the Annual Green Expo;
• Stipends for H Green Corp home and business energy,. green audits, and
onsite retrofits;
• Support for Huntington Beach's mutual enviromnental awards;
• � Publishing of Huntington Beach's case studies, strategic sustainability, and
energy' plmis; and
• Exploring an AB 411 financing mechanism for the Partnership cities' cilizens.
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 promoling direct installations in homes and business;
however, maikel outreach will cicale awareness of energy services and programs.
C'.3) Third -party program coord natiuu
The Partnership will conduct comamnily events appropriate for execution by a lhird-
paity contractor ((or ecmrrple, light exchange events).
CA) Renofits for just -above IA EE qualified customers
Tic Petnelship will conduct coordination activities as identified in the ELPP Master
PIP.
C.5)'Teclndcal Assistance for program management, ttairlblg, audits, etc.
'llic Partnership has budgeted let, lechoical assistance. Sec Table G for more delails.
b) Overview
'Ihc. Orange County Cities Energy Lender Partnership cmisims of four central Orange
County cities: Huntington Beach, Cosla Mesa, Fountain Valley, and Nostntinsler.
TIpa1' began working together in early 2004 to form this partnership.
C) Non- hreentive senices
• Train the Huntington Beach Green CUI'ps of eilizen velulacer's to pl'ovide energy
elliciencq audits for rosidential, small eollnller'cial. :n d low - income ciliuns. The
prognun will pay slipenrls to olhsel background checks and expenses;
• Stud-v and consider voluntary "reach" green codes. similar to the pilot project 1113
Goes Green Residenlial Scoreena :
S.m1lrtm Cnliwnim Edison 2009 -;011 Entt_ y Effida"y Plans
N1.111, 20.19
2.15
ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT 32
Orange County Cities Energy Leader Partnership
• SCE's Mobile Energy Unit attendance at the annual AB Green Expo conference;
• Support for the annual Environmental Award;
• Publishing case studies, sustiumbility, and energy /clinnate plans with Suppot
from available programs and funding sources; and
Sha(egic plan Support to the city of Costa Mesa for extending its existing green
building pennit waiver Program.
(1) Tareet audience
• All Municipal Facilities: City Balls, Civic Center, Police Departments, Libraries,
Social Services, Conununity Centers, Sports Fields, Parks, and mater
infrastructure; and
• Citizens, businesses, and city staff are the target audience For pai t nei cities. See
ELPP Master PIP for more infatuation.
C) Implementation
The partnership's cost-effective implementation will include customized incentives to
retrofit and retro- commission municipal facilities. The partnership bases its
incentives on SCEs tiered incentive structure. See the ELPP Master PIP for each
core clement of the program fur further intbrnnation on the program implementation
process.
5. Program Element Rationale and Expected Ou(cone
a) Quantitative Baseline and Markel T ra nsfornmtion Lnl'onnation
By its nature, ru tkel transformation occurs as a resultof numerous factors and
programs, not single sub - programs. Thoielbre, all neh'ics are proposed at the highest
progiann level. Please refer to the gnantilative baseline and market transformation
discussion, presented in the overall program PIP.
Table 3 — R.el'er to the overarching program tun guantitativo baseline metrics
b) Market Tiansl'oanation Information
By its nature, market m ansfornmtion occurs as a result of numerous factors and
programs, 1101 single sub - programs. '.11merefore. all metrics and goals are proposed at
the highest program level. Please referto the quantitative baseline and market
transformation discussion. presented in The overall program PIP.
Table .4 -- Refer to the overarching progrann for market transfinnwlion metrics
c) lirmwam Desieu to Overcome Barriers
Program barriers, and the stnacgics to overcome them. are the traditional resource
barriers ofexpertise and funding. as outlined in the ELPP Master PIP..
c) Ou:nntitolivc Program Tarecls:
S0nIl0n1 Celirm.ia I'diaoa N169-21011 linen) Effidmar Plane
Ia di 2M9
136
ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT 33
Orange County Cities Energy Leader Partnership
Table 5
Tirg
et
Program Element
Program
Target.
b • 2009
Program
Ti get.
by 2010
Program
Target
by 2011
1
kWh
TBD
TBD
TBD
2
Number of Workshops
2
6
10
3
Number of Ordinances, Codes, Etc.
b
0
0
4
k of MEO Events conducted that
tar et Residential customers
2
4
6
6. Other Progrmit Element Attributes
i) Best Practices
See the ELPP Master PIP for lite Energy Leader Model.
b) Ilmovatimr
The painembip demonstrates environmental stewardship and community leadership
supporting the Calif-omin Long -Tenn Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan (Strategic
Plan). It will develop a nnulcipal sustainability template to simplify sustainability
reposing for energy efficiency and renewrible energy. This Icniplate, allenately
called a dashboad, will be displayed.
e) hrterneeucy chard inafion
Hunthlglon Beach, a PIER program partner, plans to install Bi -level area lights and
Enfibmw diagnostic sotiwire. The city his a materials recovery facility in its
jurisdiction, and plans to write a Ranewable -based Energy SeeUIV Conununity
(RESCO) grant proposal for lire CEC. The proposal envisions utilizing indigenous
renewable energy resources in Huntington Beach. "llnc palinciship will provide
technical assisl :mce and other support though Lite Codes and Standards Program, its
relationship with PIER, and suppod lions other programs and organizations through
its network of consultants.
d) Integrated /coordinated Demand Side Management
The IOUs have identified integrated Demand Side Minabement (IDSM) is All
impoilint priority. As a result they have proposed the estahlislmnenl of a Statewide
Integration Task Force (Task Force). SCE`s local government partnerships will
nnonitor the progress of the statewide IDSiiM efforts and work closely with Ibe Task
Force to identify compt'ehensive integi Ilion approiches ill(] to implement best
practices.
'fine Orange County partner cities will pursue necessary and cost - effective MM as
identified in the ELPP Master PIP. The Pasnciship his identified accounts eligible
for pailicipition in Demand Response programs. It will facilitate technical support
I'm planned renewable energy - related activities by the City of Huntington Bcach and
other Palmer cities wishing to pursue shnilar oppoillmitics.
sonAieni Calir"'.m Edison 2n09 -201 l lunacy Ffikicncy Ph",
Tlmnh Lt19
23"
ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGILSM AGREEMENT 34
Orange County Cities Energy Leader Partnership
Ihmting(on Beach will applyfor a RESCO grant from the CEC and federal
government to nrtilize indigenous renewable energies.
c) Integration across resource types (energy, water, air quality, etc)
Phase Two energy projects identified above include smart irrigation controilers for
use by irrigafion acedmits that use significant amounts of water.
I) Pilots
• PIER program Bi -level LED area lighting and Enfonua diagnostic sollware in the
City of Huntington Beach, as described above.
• New city buildings in Costa Nlesa will be Leadei:ship in Enei gy.and
Environ.nental Design (LEED) certified, including the Chamber ofCommcice
and police buildings.
g) EM &V
Not applicable.
Soulhnn l'alianoia &iison 2009 - 2011 Enejg Erfidency Plant
awea+nas
'_3S
ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT- 35
Orange County Cities EnerU Leader Partnership
7. Partnersbip Program Advancement of Strategic Plan Goals and Objectives
Table 6
California Lang "Perm Energy Efficiency P
Pranam Approach to Achieving
Strategic Plan (Strategic Plan) Strategy S
Strategic Plan Goal
1 -l: Develop, adopt and implement model T
The partnership will evaluate adopting
building energy codes (and /or other green m
more stringent model codes on a voluntary
codes) more stringent Than Title 24's b
but rewarded basis, including excess Title
requirements, on bolo a mandatory and 2
24 performance in the fce- waiver
voluntary basis, adopt one or two additional p
program, or adopthrg the new California
liers of bnereashrg stringency. "
"Green Building Code" on a voluntary
basis through 2010, making it mandatory
in 2011, Ira suslamed funding level is
provided by the CPUC to support these
activities. Costa \Mesa is in the process of
adopting new codes.
-2: Establish expedited pemnitling and T
Through the partnership, Costa Mesa will
entitlement approval processes, fee c
consider expedited permitting based upon
strucnlres and other incentives for green r
reduced valuation in 2009.
buildings and other above -code
developments.
1 -3: Develop, adopt and implement model
point -of -sale and other point- oftransaclions
ielyhrg oar building ratings.
1 -4: Create assessment districts of other T
Through the partnership, Huntington
mechanisms so property owners can fund B
Beach will investigate the adoption oram
17E through city bonds and pay off on A
AB 81 1 fivaucing mechanism for its
properly taxes develop other EE fimmcing ,
,jurisdiction.
IUOlS.
1 1 -5: Develop broad education program and
peer -lo -peer support to local govenumenls to
adopt and implement model reach codes.
1 -6: Link emission reductions from "reacli'
codes and programs to C:ARB's AB 32
progr l 1.
2 -2: Dramatically improve compliance with
and enibivelmem UPTitle 24 building code,
and of HVAC permitting and inspection
requirements (including focus on peak load
reductions in inland areas).
2� ,q -2011 linen, r Erfixku r rlmc
NL: d. 209
]a9
ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT 36
Ornnae County Cities Energy Uai der Partnership
California Long-Term Energy Efficiency
Program Approach to Achieving
Strategic Plmn(Strategic Plan) Strategy
Strategic Plan Goal
2 -3: Local inspectors and contractors hired
Through the partnership, Huntington
by local govenunents shall meet the
Beach already has two energy service
requirements orthe energy component of
companies pre-qualified and they are
their professional licensing (as such energy
energy, literate and cooscioals films. Costa
components are adopted).
Mesa has a service agreemord with a
certified energy company that is also
energy literate.
3 -1: Adapt specific goals for efficiency of
Due to the efforts of the partnership,
local government buildings, including:
Huntington Beach will be publishing an
environmentally preferred purchasing
policy and publishing energy /climate
plans as pail of the 2009 -2011 Partnership
with SCE. Costa Mesa is also interested
ill publishing an energy action plan in
partnership.
3 -2: Require com missi on ing for new
The pannership's Phase One energy
buildings, and ie- commissioning and retro-
projects include retro- eommllissioning the
commissioning of existing buildings.
two largest municipal facilities with
significant near lerin energy savings. The
City orcosla \-ksa has a high interest in
retro- conlnlissioning its mlulieipal
facilities to maximize both energy savings
and performance.
3 -4: Explore creation of line item in local
Doe to the partnership, liuntiogion Beach
government budgets or' other options that
has devoted a portico of Its amitial capital
allow EE cost savin. -s to be zeal led to the
inlprovenlent plan to energy effciency
department and /or pl'Olecls that provided the
and the saviag5 accrue to the general Fluid.
savings to fluid additional efficiency.
However, pan of the energy / climae action
plan will track the liscal impacts (savings)
created by the plan.
3 -3: Develop innovation Incubator that
connpetilively selects initiatives for
inclusion in local government pilot protects.
4 -1: Local governments conmlit to dean Both the City of cosla Mesa and
energy /climate change leadership. Plunlingtoa Beach have located
appropriale sires for large -scale solar
instailaliolts mid both cities are explo Hag
CIi I' fell 111111 d i a g IlleChalliSmS. I 11 It l ill gl 011
Beach is also applying for grants to study
1 ocearl aid laban % \,ind power 'to meet 2020
I I AB 32 goals before 2013. HB has signed
I the LIS Mayors Climate Prolectiou
Agreement. For further information, see
hltp:Im xvw.usiiayorsm1-grcl inlateprolecti0
n�
Samara CMIA .... m F.iliean ]ix19 -2n11 limog}'
ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT 37
Orange County Cities Ener`y Leader Partnership
California Long,Tema Energy Efficiency
Pro.-min Approach to Achieving
Strategic Plat (Strategic Plan) Strategy
Strategic Plan Goal
4 -2: Use local govenunents' general plan
liunlingtoo 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
EBIDSM/water /wastewater end use.
projects will include water efficiency
projects, including aerators and ET
irrigation controllers. Wastewater, stonu
water runoff. and potable water capital
projects are also being pursued SCE will
ensure that they are as 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 Corridor plans and the
Downtown Specific plan will be updated
to create accessible and walkable
neighborhoods that enhance Huntington
Beach.
AnnLCrn hlirnmia BJiau� NO -?nI i bang} 11(icicncy Plnns
�JI M.0L2149
ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAh4 AGREEMENT 38
EXHIBIT D
EM &V PLAN
[TO BE ATTACHED WHEN ISSUED BY THE COMMISSION)
L-NERGY 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 term 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, iftmy;
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 rpill provide additional (lata or information as required by the CPUC.
3. Annual Reports: 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 proposes, 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
definition nray be changed by the CPUC pending discussion on the aj9plication qf 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 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:
Residewird End Uses
Detailed End Use
Aggregated Gnrl Use
Clothes Dryer
Appliances
Clothes Washer
Appliances
Consumer Electronics
Consumer Electronics
Cooking
Cooking Appliances
Dishwasher
Appliances
Other Appliance
Appliances
Building Shell
CIVAC
Space Cooling
H VAC
Space Cleating
HVAC
Interior Lighting
Lighting
Exterior Lighting
Lighting
Pool Pump
Pool Pump
Freezers
Refrigeration
Refrigeration
Refrigeration
Water Heating
Water Heating
Other (User Entered Text String
Other
Description)
Lighting
Nonresidential End Uses
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
iImmors
Process
Process Cooling
Process
Process Heat
Process
Process Steam
Process
Pumps
Process
Refrigeration
Refrigeration
Other (User Entered'fext 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:
tllarket Sector
Market Segm eat
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 a proval from the CPUC.
3/30/2006
Cost Categories
Allowable Costs
Administrative Cost Category
j
j
'
I
(_
i
Managerial and Clerical Labor .
Consultant Labor - Clerical
Consultant Labor - Program Design
Consultant Labor - Program Development
Consultant Labor - Program Planning
Consultant Labor - Pro rani/Pro'ect Mana ement
Consultant Labor - Staff Management
Consultant Labor - Staff Supervision
Human Resource Support and Development
Consultant Labor- Human Resources
Consultant Labor - Staff Development and Training
Consultant Benefits - Administrative Labor
Consultant Benefits - Direct Implementation Labor
Consultant Benefits - Marketing/Advertising /Outreach Labor
Consultant Payroll "fax - Administrative Labor --
Consultant Payroll Tax - Direct Implementation Labor
Consultant Payroll Tax - Marketing /Advertising /Outreach
Labor
Consultant Pension - Administrative Labor
Consultant Pension - Direct Implementation Labor
Consultant Pension - Marketing /Advertisiti'' /Otnrcach Labor
Travel and Conference Fees
Consultant - Conference Pees
_
Consultant Labor - Conference Attendance
Consultant - Travel - Airfare
_
Consultant - Travel -- Lodging
Consultant - Travel - Meals
Consultant - Travel - Mileage
Consultam - Travel - Parking_____ -, - -_i
Consultant - Travel - Per Diem for Miser Expenses
Overhead (General and Administrative) - Labor' and
Materials
Consultant Ecluipmenl Communications
Consultant Equipment Cron puli!tg
Consultam L-quipL_ Doc11 nt Reproduction -
ConsultvnEr�mentGener_lOfl'cc
.- ..__.__ —_
ConsultanLEclu nteiu Trans-portauon
Consultant Food Service '-- -- - --.. .- --
Consultant Office Supplies -
Consultant Postage -
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 Cate ories
Allowable Costs
Consultant Labor - Accountin Support
Consultant Labor - Accounts.Pa able
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 - Conununications
Consultant Labor - Information Technology
Consultant Labor - Teleconmmnications
_
Dlarketing /Advertisin /Outreach Cost Category
Consultant - Bill Inserts
Consultant - Brochures
Consultant - Dooi_Han ers _
Consultant - Print Advertisements
Consultant - Radio Spots
Consultant -Television Spots ^.
Consultant - W ebsitc Development
__ _ _
Consultant Labor - Marketin ;_ _
Consultant Labor - Media Production
Consultant Labor - Business Outreach
Consultant Labor - Customer Outreach
Consultant Labor - Customer Relations
Direct Im lemealation Cost Calegm'S'.
Fimnicial Incentives to Customers
_Activity- Dit_ect Labor-- _ -, -._
Consultant Label,- Facilities f \udits_
Consultant Labor - Curriculum Devc!2Iment-
Consultant Labor_- Customer Education and Training
Consultant Labou - Customer EquipmcntTesting and
Diagnostics _
Installation and Service - Labm I
Consultant Labor- Custonret,Equipmentn end Ser vLC -1ng�
Consuhant Labor Customer Equipment Repair and _Sevicing
Dir eel Implementation Hardware and Materials
J
I
i
I
!
Consultant - Direct Implementation Literature
' Consultant - Education fvlmerials
Consultant - E-nergy Measurement Tools i
Consultant - Installation Hardware !
f Consult ant - Audit_ Applications and Forms_
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 m 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 -027.
(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. -
Q SEW PpRr
CITY OF =
NEWPO
City Council
RT BE),
Staff Report
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: a LL-A
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:
PubV Zv6rks Director
Attachments: A. Southern California Edison Partnership Agreement
B. Energy Partnership Resolution
Attachment A
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 ").
1.3. 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
3.1. 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
environment. 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 PROGRAM AGREEMENT 4
3.2. Energy Leader Partnership Level. 'Me 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 administered 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 PARTNE=RSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT 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 programs.
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 PCC 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 10.1.2, 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 PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT 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 - malting shall be reached and documented
in accordance with the requirements of Section 7.1 above.
7.3. Regular 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 for
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 Commission 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 Budget
10.1.1. Maximum 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 I I
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 Categories
a. Non - Incentive Budget: The Partner Budget is comprised of a
non - incentive portion which includes separate categories for
Marketing, Education & Outreach, Technical Assistance land
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. Program 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 PARTNERSHIP 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 Work.
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.
10.3 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. SCE may .shift funds 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. Indemnity 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 LEADER PARTNERSHIP 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 PAR "rNERSHIP 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:
(i) 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 documentation 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 $100,000.
ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT 18
18. CUSTOMER CONFIDENTIALITY REQUIREMENTS
18.1. Non - Disclosure. Subject to any disclosures required pursuant to tite 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 hiformation
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 18 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
Conunission 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
from 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 PROGRAM 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 firs( 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, 18, 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 successful 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 PARTNERSHIP 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
1111PRO11 I D AS TO F 0 I.,
W11 IWO rl IV-
ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT 25
E)U -HBYT A
ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP - PROGRAM LEVEL
* Baseline numbers are mutually agreed upon for purposes of this Agreemeru only.
Energy Leaders Partnership levels are:
ued Partner Level — This level is the envy 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 offered 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 following 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, targets 25 percent of its facilities 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. Partner will need to meet the following DR
requirements: I -At least one (1) eligible facility to participate in one (1) SCE Demand Response program 2 -At least one (1) eligible
taciliiy to develop a Demand Reduction Action Plan to be followed during a Flex Alert event 3- Distribute Energy Solutions brochure to
partner employees 4- Complete an integrated Demand Side Management (iDSM) audit at all eligible facilities.
Cold Level — To qualify for this level, the partner demonstrates 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 arc higher for partner facilities' energy efficiency projects. Gold Level provides the Partner with 9 cents per
kWh paid in addition to what is paid to the Partner under SCE's core program. Partner will need to meet the following DR requirements:
1 -Have at least 25 %ot eligible facilities participate in an SCE Demand Response program :2 - Conduct co- branded marketing and outreach
to 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 quality for this level, the partner demonstrates even higher past participation in energy efficiency programs, is
innovative and integrate, Energy Action Plan policies, ordinances and procedures. All facilities arc targeted fin' energy efficiency
upgrades and the partner makes a higher commitment to participate in Demand Response. Incentive factors are highest Ibr Partner'
Ftcilitics energy efficiency projects and additional incentives are made available for customized community energy efficiency projects.
"min Levcl provides the Partner with 12 cents per kWh paid in addition to what is paid to the Partner under SCEs core program.
.let- Will need to meet the following DR requirements- I -At least one (1) eligible facility must participate in SCEs Auto Demand
ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT 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 mutually agreed upon for purposes of this Agreemeru only.
Energy Leaders Partnership levels are:
ued Partner Level — This level is the envy 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 offered 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 following 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, targets 25 percent of its facilities 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. Partner will need to meet the following DR
requirements: I -At least one (1) eligible facility to participate in one (1) SCE Demand Response program 2 -At least one (1) eligible
taciliiy to develop a Demand Reduction Action Plan to be followed during a Flex Alert event 3- Distribute Energy Solutions brochure to
partner employees 4- Complete an integrated Demand Side Management (iDSM) audit at all eligible facilities.
Cold Level — To qualify for this level, the partner demonstrates 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 arc higher for partner facilities' energy efficiency projects. Gold Level provides the Partner with 9 cents per
kWh paid in addition to what is paid to the Partner under SCE's core program. Partner will need to meet the following DR requirements:
1 -Have at least 25 %ot eligible facilities participate in an SCE Demand Response program :2 - Conduct co- branded marketing and outreach
to 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 quality for this level, the partner demonstrates even higher past participation in energy efficiency programs, is
innovative and integrate, Energy Action Plan policies, ordinances and procedures. All facilities arc targeted fin' energy efficiency
upgrades and the partner makes a higher commitment to participate in Demand Response. Incentive factors are highest Ibr Partner'
Ftcilitics energy efficiency projects and additional incentives are made available for customized community energy efficiency projects.
"min Levcl provides the Partner with 12 cents per kWh paid in addition to what is paid to the Partner under SCEs core program.
.let- Will need to meet the following DR requirements- I -At least one (1) eligible facility must participate in SCEs Auto Demand
ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT 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 alocal outreach event during the Spring /Summer season to promote
Demand Response/iDSM.
ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT 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
Maximum 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 %n
70 %
Assistance (and Direct
Achieved
Implementation])
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 %n
70 %
kWh
Achieved
Minimum
50%
70 %
kW Achieved
"- NTE = Not To Exceed
Explanation ol'non- Incentive Partner Budget allocation against goals:
Maximum Percent or total non - incentive Partner Budgct expended by the end oryear I: 65%
Minimum kWh achieved by the end or year 1: 50% oi' 3 -year goa l
In accorelonce with Section 10 of this Agreement, SCE reserves the right to assess the progress mode by the CaY at ony time with
respect to the obove goofs, and may in its sole discretion elect to shift iunls anion., categories nr redlstribine all or part ol'rhe
frarling budgeted herein to otter energy el%iciency pragratns or pro-tners/tips in accordance with the Agreement.
ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT 29
EXHIBIT C
C0:+T�Z! Wt"WIIIMDIi51DI IWIN'0ON@QA:Wf.9
COMMUNITY ENERGY PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT
Orange County Cities Energy Leader Partnership
1. Program Name: Orange County Cities Energy Leader Pa mtnersltip
2. Projected Program Budget Table
Table 1 — Refer to Table I in ELPP Master PIP.
3. Projected Program Gross Impacts Table
Table 2 —Refer to Table 2 in ELPP Master PIP.
4. Program 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
AA) Retrofit of county and municipal facilities
The four cities participating in the Orange County Cities Energy Leader 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 mid 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 I consists of monitoring -based commissioning of the two largest
municipal facilities in Huntington Beach and IT 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, HVAC retrofits,
pumping retrofits and building envelope improvements. _
A.2) Retra- commissioning (of buildings and clusters of buildings)
'Me 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
demand response accordingly. Integrated EEIDR audits will be conducted in eligible
facilities.
Soulaem Calabmia Edison 2009 -2011 Energy Eficimcy Plans
21J March 2009
ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT 30
Oranae County, Cities Enerau Leader Partnership
AA) Technical Assistance for project management, training, audits, etc. -
Each partner city has a specific budget for each of these activities.
A -.5) On -Bill Time cing
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 fmatcing.
Core Program Element B - Strategic Plan Supporl.
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 can result in
substantial 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 govermuent capacity to address code
:compliance issues.
B.2) Reach Cole
The partnership will seek to establish meaningful CEC- approved Reach codes as part
of its effort to add value to energy efficiency in alignment with the strategies stated in
the Master PIP. This activity will follow the proposed path described in the Codes K
Standards PIP.
B.3) Cuidung Document(s) Support
At least one of the partner cities offers infomration at its building pemrit office on
best practices and energy efficiency opportunities through SCE's programs. SCE
plats significant enhancements to this practice for the 2009 - 2011 prografp cycle.
'Hue partnership intends to make training, documents, and templates available to help
cities develop their own climate and energy action plans, especially relating to utility
energy elements.
B.4) Financing for the commmrih•
The partners are aware of the opportunities for financing provided by AB 811 and
will be examining its possibilities. The partnership will arrange for an AB 81.1
presentation for the cities, and technical assistance through the Peer -to -Peer support
network.
11.5) Peer- to-Peer Support
'flue partnership plans to develop an effective approach for sharing information
anion.- SCE and partner cities. ]'he program will conduct conference calls anion.- all
partners on a routine basis.
Smnbbn California Edison 2009 - 2011 Enaey Efhcicncy Phan
Mach 2009
ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT 31
Orange County Cities Pner_W Leader Partnership
Core Program Element C - Core Program Coordination
CA) Outreac)t and Education
'Ihe 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 Geen Expo;
• Stipends for HB Green Corp home and business energy, green audits, and
onsite retrofits;
• Support for Huntington Beach's annual environmental awards;
• Publishing of Huntington Beach's case studies, strategic sustainability, and
energy plans; and
• Exploring an AD 8J 1. 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 -party program. coordination
'fire Partnership will conduct community events appropriate for execution by a third -
party contractor (for ernmple. light exchange events).
CA) Retrofits for justabove LIEE qualified customers
The Partnership will conduct coordination activities as identified in the ELPP Master
PIP
C'.5) Technical Assistance for program management, training, audits, etc.
The Partnership has budgeted for teclunical assistance. See Table 6 for more details.
b) Overview
The Orange County Cities Energy Leader Partnership consists of four central Orange
County cities: Huntington Beaclr, Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, lard Wesnmins(er.
They began working together in early 2008 to form this partnership.
c) Non - incentive services
• Train tine Huntington Beach Green Corps of citizen volunteers to provide energy
el7iciency audits for residential, small commercial, and low -income citizens. The
program will pav stipends to offset background checks and expenses;
• Study and consider voluntary "reach° green codes, similar to the pilot prgjeci HB
Goes Green Residential Scorecard:
tirnrbnn Cnlltnmia EJisan ?009 - 2111 Encny Ellicinq Plans
Flar<I12Vn9
133
ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT 32
Oranae County Cities Energy Leader Partnership
• SCE's Mobile Energy Unit attendance at the annual HB Green Expo conference;
• Support for the annual Environmental Award;
• Publishing:.case studies, sustainability, and energy /climate plans with support
from available programs and funding sources; and
• StrategicIplan support to the city of Costa Mesa for extending its existing green
building permit waiver program.
d) Tarect audience
• All Municipal Facilities: City Halls, Civic Center, Police Depattments, Libraries,
Social Services, Community 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) Implementation
The partnership's- cost - effective implementation will include customized incentives to
retrofit and retro - 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 further information on the program implementation
process.
5. Prob :am Element Rationale and Expected Outcome
n) Quantitative Baseline and Market Transfornnafion Information
By its nature, market transformation occurs as a result of numerous factors and
programs, not single sub - programs. Therefore, all metrics 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. Trmtsfovtatiou Information
By its nature, market transformation occurs as a result of numerous factors and
programs, not single sub - programs. Therefore, all metrics and goals are proposed at
the highest progrvn level. Please refer to the quantitative baseline and market
transformation discussion, presented in the overall program PIP.
Table A— Refer to the overarching program fur market transfommtion metrics
c) Program Design to Overcome Barrios
Program barriers, and the strategies to overcome them, ore the traditional resource
barriers of expertise and funding, as outlined in the ELPP Master PIP.
c) Ouantitative Program Tnrgets:
2009 -201 r Energy Efacie0ev Plans
._ Mmdl 2009
136
ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT 33
Orange County Cifies'Eneray Leader Partnership
Table S
Ta rg
et
Provr aun Element
Program
Target
by 2009
Program
Target
by 2010
Program
Target
by 2011
1
kWh
TBD
TBD
T13D
2
Number of Worksho s
2
6
10
3
Number of Ordinances, Codes , Etc.
0
0
0
4
9 of MEO Events conducted that
target Residential customers
2
4
6
6. Other Progruu Element Attributes
a.) Best. Practices
See the ELPP Master PIP for the Energy Leaden Model.
b) Innovation
The partnership demonstrates environmental stewardship and community leadership
supporting the California Long -Tenn Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan (Strategic
Plan). It will develop a.municipal sustainability template to simplify sustainability
reporting for energy efficiency and renewable energy. This template, alternately
called a dashboard, will be displayed.
c) htteraoency coordinntiwt
Huntington Beach, it PIER program partner, plans to install Bi -level area lights and
Enfomra diagnostic software. The city has a materials recovery Facility in its
jurisdiction, and plans to write a Renewable -based Energy Secure Community
(RESCO) grant proposal for the CEC. The proposal envisions utilizing indigenous
renewable energy resources in Huntington Beach. The partnership will provide
technical assistance and other support though the Codes and Standards Program, its
relationship with PIER, and support from other programs and organizations through
its network of consultants.
d) integrated /coordinated Demmnd Side Nlanaaement
The IOUs have identified integrated Demand Side Management (IDSbt) as an
important priority. As a. result they have proposed the establishunenl of a Statewide
Integration Task Force (Task Force). SCE's local government partnerships will
monitor the progress of the statewide IDSM efforts and wilik closely with the Task
Force to identify comprehensive integration approaches and to implement best
practices.
The Orange County partner cities will pursue necessary and cost - effective DSNI as
identified in the ELPP Master PIP. "Ilse Partnership has identified accounts eligible
for participation in Demand Response programs. It will facilitate technical support .
for planned renewable energy - related activities by the Cite of Huntington Beach and
other partner Cities wishing to pursue Sim i tar opportunities.
Cvnacnr Calif ,.i, Edis, n 2009 - 2011 Enngy rf id.xy Pl:ms
Via.
mm di 2009
ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRMM AGREEMENT 34
Orange County Cities Eneru Leader Partnership
Huntington Beach will apply for a.RESCO grant from the CEC and federal
government to utilize indigenous renewable energies.
e) lydeQrlfion across resource ti,aes ( enerw. 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.
D .Pilots
• PIER program Bi -level LED area lighting and Enfomta diagnostic so$ware in the
City of Huntington Beach, as described above.
• New city buildings in Costa, Mesa will be Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) certified, including the Chamber of Commerce
and police buildings.
g) EM &V
Not applicable.
Somhem Qa iibmin F.diwn 2009 - 2011 fnere_v Ggldrncp Pine
M. Oh 2009
3S
ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT 35
Oranee Countv Cities Eriera4 Leader Partnership
7. Partnership Program Advancement of Strategic Plan Goals and Objectives
Table 6
Californin Long Term Energy. Efficiency
Progran Approach to Achieving
Strategic Plan (Strategic Plan) Strategy
Stnlegic Plan Goal
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 perfomtance in the fee- waiver
voluntary basis; adopt one or'lwo additional
program, or adopting the new California
tiers of increasing stringency.
"Green Building Code" on a voluntary
basis through 2010, malting it mandatmv
in 201.1, 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 mid implement model
poin(-of -sale and other point -of transactions
relying on building ratings.
I -4: Create assessment districts or other
Through the partnership, Huntington
mechanisms so property owners can £Hurd
Beach will investigate the adoption of an
EE through city bonds and pay off on
AB 811 financing mechanism for its
proper), taxes; develop other EE financing
jurisdiction.
tools.
1-5: Develop broad education program and
peer -to -peer support to local governments to
adopt and innplentent model reach codes.
1 -6: Link emission reductions from "reach"
codes mid programs to C:ARB's AB 32
program.
2 -2: Dramatically improve compliance with
and enforcement. of Title 24 building code,
and of HV AC permitting and inspection
requirements (including focus on peak load
reductions in inland areas).
Sonlbnn Cnlifnmiu EJI >nn ?MD -1011 Fncrop Lrficicnq PL ne
NIN,6 tnn9
?.n9
ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT 36
Oranae:County Cities Eneru Leader Partnership
California. Long Term Energy Efficiency
Prog"n Approach to Achieving
Strategic Plan (Strategic Plan) Strategy
Strategic Plan Goal
2 -3: Local inspectors and contractors hired
Through the partnership; Huntington
by local governments shall meet the
Beach already has two energy service
requirements of the energy component of
companies pre - qualified and they are
their professional licensing (as such energy
energy literate mid conscious firms. 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 purchasing
policy and publishing energy /climate
plans as put of the 2009 -2011 Partnership
with SCE. Costa Mesa is also interested
in publishing an energy action plan in
partnership.
3 -2: Require commissioning for new
The pannership's Phase One energy
buildings, and re- commissioning and retro-
projects include retro- conu»issioning the
commissioning of existing buildings.
two largest municipal facilities with
significant near tern, energy savings. The
City of Costa Mesa has a high interest in
retro-conunissioning itsn,unicipal
facilities to maximize both energy savings
and performance.
3 -4: Explore creation of line iwn, in local
Due to the partnership, Huntington Beach
goverment budgets or other options that
has devoted a portion of its annual capital
allow EE cost savings to be retired to the
improvement plan to energy efficiency
department and /or projects that provided the
and the savings accrue to the general fund.
savings to fund additional efficiency.
Llowever, part of the energy /elinmte action
plan will track the fiscal impacts (savings)
created by the plan.
3 -5: Develop innovation Incubator that
competitively selects initiatives for
inclusion in local government pilot projects.
4 -l: Local governments commit to clean
Both the City of Costa Mesa and
energy /climate change leadership.
Huntington Beach have located
appropriate sites for large -scale solar
installations and both cities are exploring .
current funding mechanisms. Huntington
Beach is also applying for grants to study
ocean and urban wind power to meet 2020
AB 32 goals belore 2015. BB has signed
the US Mayors Climate Protection
1 Agreement. For fu Cher information, see
hnpar'.vmvmv.usmayors , orglolin,ateprolectio
Itt
sonlhein caliromia Edimn 2049 - 2011 Eoaay Efficiency Pinny
hlvch 2669
2-10
ENERGY LEADER PARTNERS141P PROGRAM AGREEMENT 37
Oranlze County Cities Eiiergw Leader Partnership
California Long Terri Energy Efficiency
Prograrn Approach to Achievinn
St atceic Plan (Strategic Plan) Strategy
Strategic Plan Goal
4 -.2: Use local. governments' general plan
Hunting on Beach has deferred investment
energy and other elements to promote
in general plan updates to include .
energy efficiency, sustamability and climate
energy /climate concerns,
change.
4 -4: Develop local projects that integrate
The partnership's Phase -Two energy
EE /DSM /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
ensure that they are as energy efficient as
possible.
4 -5': Develop EE- related `carrots" and
Huntington. Beach ivstudying zoning and
"sticks" using local zoning and
development authority changes to comply
development authority.
with AB 32 and SB 375. Specifically, the
Beach /Edinger Corridor plans and the
Downtown Specific plan will be updated
to create accessible and walkable
.
neighborhoods that enhance Huntington
Beach.
Soud¢in C'al w.p Edism 209- 2011 Ena,y Enidc¢y PUny
241
ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT 38
EXHIBIT D
EM &V PLAN
[TO BE ATTACHED WHEN ISSUED BY THE COA BUSSION]
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 term 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 will provide additional data or information as required by the CPUC.
3. Annual Reports: 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
definition may be changed by the CPUC pending 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.)
S. 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
Clothes Dryer
Clothes Washer
Consumer Electronics
Cooking
Dishwasher
Other Appliance
Building Shell
Space Cooling
Space Healing
Aggregated End Use
Appliances
Appliances
Consumer Electronics
Cooking Appliances
Appliances
Appliances
HVAC
hIVAC
FIVAC
Interior Lighting
Lighting
Exterior Lighting
Lighting
Pool Pump
Pool Pump
Freezers
Refrigeration
Refrigeration
Refrigeration
Water Heating
Water Heating
Other (User Entered Text String
Other
Description)
Lighting
Nonresidential End Uses
Detailed End Use
Aggregated End Use
Building Shell
HVAC
Space Cooling
HVAC
Space Heating
FIVAC
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
]'recess 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:
Market Sector
Marker Segment
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 -
Managerial and Clerical Labor
I Consultant Labor - Staff Supervision I
Consuhant Labor - Staff Development and Training
Consultant Benefits - Administrative Labor
treach Labor
Consultant Payroll Tax - Administrative Labor
Consultant Payroll Tax - Direct Implementation Labor
Consultant Payroll Tax - Marketing /Advertising/Outreach
Consultant Pension - Administrative Labor
Consultant Pension - Direct Imolementation Labor
"1-ravel and Conference. Fees
Consultant - Conference Fees
I Consultant - Travel Lodeine I
Consultant - Travel - Parking
i Overhead (General and Administrative) - Labor and j
Materials `
Consultant Equipment Communications ;
Consultant Equipment Computin I
�— —g -- - - - -- - -- .............
Consultant Equipment Document Reproduction
Consultant Lgmpment General Office
Consultant Equip
mei�t Trans ortation i
- _ 1 ----- p--- - — - ........_..
Consultant Food Service
Consultant Office Supplies
Consultant P.2ia;e _
Allowable Costs'Pable
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
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 - Shoe Services
Consultant Labor - Administrative
Consultant Labor - Transportation Services
Consultant Labor - Automated Systems
Consultant Labor - Communications
Consultant Labor- Information Technology
Consultant Labor - Telecommunications
Marketin /Advertisin /Outreach Cost Cate or
Consultant - Bill Inserts
Consultant - Brochures
Consultant - Door Hangers
Consultant - Print Advertisements
Consultant - Radio S ots
Consultant - Television Spots
Consultant - Website 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
Activity - Direct Labor
_ _
Consultant Labor - Facilities Audits
Consultant Labor - Curriculum Development
Consuhanl Labor - Customer Education and Traininp�_
li
Consultant Labor - Customer Equipment Testing and
Diagnostics
Installation and Service - Labor
!_Consultant Labor - Customer Equipment Repair and Servicing__
L Consult ant _Labor - Customer Equipment Repair and Servicing
j Direct Implementation Hardware and Materials I
Consultant -.Direct Implementation Literature
Consultant - Education Materials
1 Consultant - Energy Measurement Tools
Consultant - Installation Hardware
Consuhant -Audit Applications and Forms i
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
55. 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
MW
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
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 Comrnission.r Fourth, EM &V results are used to determine
whether IOUs should receive rewards or pay penalties as part of the
Risk Reward Incentive Mechanism (BRIM) adopted by the Corrtmission.z 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
Commission's 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
I The most recent energy savings goals were adopted in D.08 -07 -047
2 The structure of shareholder incentives is currently under review inRulemaking
(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 -2012 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
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 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 Elul &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.
In 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 recommend 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 EIVI&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 1.5% of the EM &V budget to the IOUs is appropriate to maintain
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 Corn mission 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 three 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 15% 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
maintain IOU staffing level.
4 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 -2012
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 DD 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,
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 Commission's 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.
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 Commission's 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 CFL 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
Foobiote coWbuteel 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 1.ii 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 ? ""
70 In the situation where a proposed contractor would simultaneously be engaged by
both the IOU and Energy Division, this should not per se be considered a disqualifying
conflict. Energy Division should consider whether limited availability of qualified
contractors 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 recommends 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 maximum 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.
11 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 Liii. 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
workpaper12 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. This is a valuable goal.
We will require the IOUs to cooperate and collaborate with ED in the
development of these workpapers.
72 "Workpapers" 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, "13 as 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:
13 See July 7, 2009 ALJ Ruling, Attachment A, at 742.
-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 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.
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 recoruendations 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 Colnrnission 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 manner,
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 /SoCalGas 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 would 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:
W17!2
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 through 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.rs
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
Is 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 further 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 comment on such proposals.76 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.ls 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:
18 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.
SNE
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 redundant, 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 rules 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 sum 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).19
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.
This 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? How 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 [PG &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.
21 The California Evaluation Protocols provide standard procedures and
methodological choices for conducting various types of evaluations.
ftj2.cl2uc.ca.gov / puc/ energy / electTic/ energy +efficiency / em +and +v / EvaluatorsProtoc
ols Final AdoptedviaRuling 06- 19- 2006.doc.
-38-
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 Commission's 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. NPDC 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.,
WISM
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 program's
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
-40-
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 AMI. 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
accomplishments."
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.22
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 through
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.
'-Z SDG &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.
Comments 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. Gamson is
the assigned Administrative Law Judge in this proceeding.
Findings of Fact
1. EM &V is an important part of the Commission's 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 -011 set forth the rules for EM &V for the 2006
through 2008 energy efficiency program.
Ism
A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays
3. D.09 -09 -047 adopted energy efficiency portfolios for 2010 through 2012 for
SCE, SoCa1Gas, SDG &E, and PG &E. That decision established the Commission's
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.
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 201.2 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 tecluaical
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 comments 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 timeframes.
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.
12. 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.
1.6. 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
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- 021etal. 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 Division's 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 2010 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 at. 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 14 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.
C 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.
15. 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
Commissioner
.1
MICHAEL R. PEEVEY
President
DIAN M. GRUENEICH
JOHN A. BOHN
TIMOTHY ALAN SIMON
NANCY E. RYAN
Commissioners
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
1 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:
• Approval of the joint Energy Division and utility EM &V plans and Budgets
• Clarification of the respective scope of responsibilities for IOU and ED staff
• Recommendation on improved stakeholder input process for EM &V projects
• Improvements to the cost - effectiveness calculation tool and tracking and
reporting requirements for EM &V related data
• Frequency and Scope of DEER Updates
• 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 - In a 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.
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.
S. 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 amore 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
M
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;z the National Society of Professional Engineers Code of Ethics for
Engineers;3 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
'- bttR://www.eval.org/publications/guidingl2rincil2les.asl2.
I http:/ /www.nspe.org /Ethics /CodeofEthics /index.html.
4 http : / /www.ashrae.org/publications /detail /16451.
WE
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 fM &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 EM &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:
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 Morch- 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
2010Morch ....................................... -ED report on reporting requirements
M
A.08 -07 -021 et al. ALJ /DMG /ays
2010April ...................... .....................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 7th 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
2010April ............ ............................... 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
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
2010January ....... ............................... 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
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
2009Januory - February ......................Interim ED /IOU coordination plan
2010 April — 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
i. 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 &0 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
-14-
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 Rulemaking 09 -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
Telal
P4m,
PESnke: n
An Ftrrro north efmnE wes
Analyai5°I Ammon E
SSW
d. Description of budget categories
methods
OtMVioral eneryylo,. estimation maM1Ma
enerpsriinp
";' Melhe,E°'°"'e"e'�m ° " " °' ° " "� " ° "' "'""'
5300
$'°°
The EM &V area
Im°rwea naun�tal anaEryis Pr° «aua
s ! dg4
general project
descriptions below provide
CLASS Feudenlal Efficiency Sawn , renS —c - submeteri,g
summaries
CEUSIC°mmn°ial End We Survey inesubmnenl
S1 .000
of the categories of work used to set
ZEUS Qrd US,.W End tt,e S—,)
S :.WO
r },> o,iNllure6Waler Senn Energy USe Survey
SSW
Enn Cenanm 1,nn,mrEingPllnl
s4W
the EM &V budget proposed herein.
Market Share trading Study
$400
4 ^, ffo Flnouncial ind Mang MORCrnxtFit, -
'_ -s3:eW
While these project areas are
94 E Mx on. twl Ual °n cmVatt°T n,
100
'UcldMn E od e [14&v _;'_ 7
= '53 -a''
considered necessary preliminarily, they
Overarthing and Policy Support N.Iol Total
$46,100
are provided for illustrative purposes
Grand Total
_ sl:s,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:
• Provide in -cycle feedback to programs on savings assumptions
• Correct mutually agreed upon errors in savings estimates
• Improve accuracy of savings estimates for custom calculated projects
• 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 A AQ /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.
o 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."
o 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 over time 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
Division's 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.
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 Ruling
1. What are the respective roles of Energy Division and IOU EM &V staff for
conducting EM &V projects?
i. 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 l.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 on 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 l.ii.
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, 7`h1 2009 in A.08 -07 -021.
m 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 Summotive /ex -post impact evaluations.
o Evaluations and M &V conducted forth e 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 workpoper
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 workpopers 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 &V projects, including the ex -ante savings estimation projects discussed in I.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
B. 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.
& 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
Pion, 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 AU 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 same 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
11.5hould the Commission allow the IOUs the opportunity to count savings
from behavior based programs?
How 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 [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 creditfrom 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
benchmorking 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 Decision's 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 2012,1 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 Through 2012 Energy Efficiency Portfolios (D.10 -04 -029), March 9, 2010
at 29 -34.
2 Id. at 7.
191AIMM
[REPORTING REQUIREMENTS]
ENERGY LEADER PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT
Attachment B
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
ATTEST:
Leilani I. Brown
City Clerk