Guidelines for Energy Efficiency Measure Cost and Non-Energy Benefits

1. Guidelines for Energy Efficiency Measure Cost and Non-Energy Benefits Subcommittee Meeting September 28, 2011 2:00pm PST For the Regional Technical Forum

2. Agenda [2:00 – 2:10 pm] Attendance [2:10 – 2:20 pm] Review of minutes from last meeting [2:20 – 2:35 pm] How measure economics are addressed in other regions [2:35 – 3:00 pm] Review voting on measure economic elements, capture areas of disagreement [3:00 – 3:15 pm] Review Guidelines draft structure [3:15 - 3:40 pm] Review draft contents [3:40 – 3:50 pm] Discussion of progress to date [3:50 – 4:00 pm] Next steps

3. Review of Minutes

4. Measure Economics in Other Regions [1] Tetra Tech. 2011. Massachusetts Special and Cross-Sector Studies Area, Residential and Low-Income Non-Energy Impacts (NEI) Evaluation. Massachusetts Program Administrators. [2] Summit Blue Consulting, LLC. 2007. Non-Energy Impacts (NEI) Evaluation. Prepared for New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. [3] Decision No. C08-0560 May 23, 2008. Docket No. 07A-420E. Paragraph 78.

5. Measure Economics in Other Regions (cont.) • Massachusetts Crosscutting NEI’s Final Report • Recently published evaluation presents findings based on review of literature, in-depth interviews, and telephone surveys with program participants. • Categorized by perspective of the party to which a particular NEI accrues (eg. utility, participant, society) • Evaluation team recommends not quantifying NEIs for one of several reasons: • Too hard to quantify meaningfully • Quantifying the NEI would amount to double counting • Insufficient evidence in literature for its existence • NEI is too intangible

6. Measure Economics in Other Regions (cont.) • California • Information obtained from The California Evaluation Framework, 2004(http://www.cee1.org/eval/CEF.pdf) • Non-Energy Effects (NEEs): Considers both benefits and detriments to participants, society, and energy providers. • California includes these in some programs where: • Understanding of total/societal program benefits is needed. • Participants cite reasons, other than energy impacts, for program participation. • NEEs can be used to increase program participation. • California does not have a set list of eligible NEEs. • Regarding funding: NEE program evaluations are typically secondary to impact and process evaluations and included in order to increase participation. • Benefit/cost: Can include externalities (water, O&M, training, etc).

7. Review of Voting on Measure Economic Elements Process for capturing areas of disagreement and finalizing votes • Review the votes and capture areas of disagreement in a document. • Circulate disagreement document to have committee members to contribute more to the discussion. • Navigant cleans up the wording; makes sure comments are relevant to that element. • Circulate the cleaned up version to subcommittee and conduct a re-vote. • Bring final version of issues document plus voting to RTF.

8. Review Guidelines Draft Structure

9. Review Draft Contents • Section 1: Purpose and Scope • Section 2: Measure Economic Analysis • Material Cost (in Section 3) • Water (in Section 5) • Section 8: Measure Economic Maintenance • Areas of Feedback • Structure of the document? • Measure economic guidelines are more specific than energy guidelines; Is this okay? • Should what the other states are doing influence our guidelines?

10. Discussion of Progress to Date • Should Navigant go to the November 1 RTF meeting? • Overview of guidelines process and document structure • Review of measure economic elements and input from the RTF on final selection of elements

11. Next Steps Navigant will integrate feedback discussed and continue to populate the draft. Revised versions will be posted to the RTF website prior to next meeting. Next subcommittee meeting is scheduled for October 19, 2pm.