25C - AGMT - ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS

Home Browse Search

2013 -2014 Energy Efficiency Programs Local Government Partnership Program Program Implementation Plan to program designers .)27" The Strategic Plan recognizes that regulatory policies are not yet in place to support the success of market transformation efforts 28, but also reflects the CPUC's directive to design energy efficiency programs that can lay the gronmdwork for either market transformation success or for codes and standards changes. Above all else, the hallmark of a successful market transformation program is in the coordination of efforts across many stakeholders. The most successful MT programs have involved multiple organizations, providing overlapping market interventions 29. The Strategic Plan calls for coordination and collaboration throughout, and in that spirit the utilities look forward to working with the CPUC and all stakeholders to help achieve market transformation while meeting all the immediate energy, demand, and environmental needs. Drawing upon lessons learned from past MT efforts, the Energy Center of Wisconsin's guide for MT program developers 30 suggests that the first step is not to set end -point definitions, progress metrics or goals. Rather, the first steps include forming a collaborative of key participants. As the Strategic Plan suggests, these may include municipal utilities, local governments, industry and business leaders, and consumers. Then, with the collective expertise of the collaborative, we can define markets, characterize markets, measure baselines with better access to historical data, and define objectives, design strategies and tactics, implement and then evaluate programs. The collaborative will also provide insights that will set our collective expectations for the size of market effects we can expect, relative to the amount of resources we can devote to MT. No one organization in the collaborative will have all the requisite information and expertise for this huge effort. This truly needs to be a collaborative approach from the start. The metrics and baselines described below in Tables 2 and 3 are presented for the purposes of starting the much - needed discussion between all key participants. These are suggestions, intended to allow key participants to pilot -test processes for establishing baseline metrics, tracking market transformation progress, and for refining evaluation tools. Early trial of these evaluation metrics will reveal any gaps in data tracking so that we may refine our processes before full -scale market transformation evaluations take place. The set of metrics we selected is intentionally a small set, for several reasons. First, as mentioned, the full set of metrics and baselines need to be selected by key participants. Second, we anticipate that market share data for many mid- and low- impact measures will be too sparse to show MT effects and not cost - effective to analyze. Third, we selected core measures and metrics that would both be indicative of overall portfolio efforts. These measures are also likely to be offered on a broad level by other utilities, providing a greater base of sales and customer data that could be analyzed for far - reaching MT effects. Therefore, for the Local Government Partnerships the following approach to quantitative baseline and market transformation information is presented as follows. The utilities recommend development of a baseline, and tracking the number of cities, counties and government institutions that have plans for written energy efficiency provisions. "Peters, J.S., Mast,B., Ignelzi, P., Megdal, L.M. (1998). Market Effects Summary Study Final Report: Volume I. "Available at http://calmac.org/publications/19981215CADOOOIME.PDF. 28 CPUC (2008) Strategic Plan, p. 5. 2' Nadel, Thorne, Sashes, Prindle & Elliot (2003). 3" Peloza & York, (1999). 25C-49