1 / 4

ESAP Cost-effectiveness Working Group

ESAP Cost-effectiveness Working Group. Background. D.12-08-044 directed Energy Division to convene an ESA program cost-effectiveness working group to examine the cost-effectiveness methods and tests used by the ESA program The working group issued a white paper on February 15, 2012.

dareh
Download Presentation

ESAP Cost-effectiveness Working Group

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ESAP Cost-effectiveness Working Group Background • D.12-08-044 directed Energy Division to convene an ESA program cost-effectiveness working group to examine the cost-effectiveness methods and tests used by the ESA program • The working group issued a white paper on February 15, 2012

  2. ESAP Cost-effectiveness Working Group White Paper Recommendations • Categorize each individual ESA measure as “equity” or “resource.” • Base ESA program approval on the cost-effectiveness of the entire ESA program; develop new tests and approval threshold. • Develop an Equity Evaluation to provide a qualitative assessment of whether measures provide identifiable, specific quality of life benefits to participants. • Modification of the NEBs calculation may be needed, such as adding sensitivity analysis, updating the NEBs study, or calculating only values that are both substantial and easy to calculate and using an adder for the rest. • Report cost-effectiveness by household type.

  3. ESAP Cost-effectiveness Working Group Post White Paper Follow-up: Subcommittees and Tasks • NEBs: SDG&E outlined five different alternatives for calculating NEBs. Further explore these so as to be able to present a more detailed proposal for some of these alternatives to stakeholders: • Pros/cons of each • Feasibility of doing each on short and long term • How we would proceed? • Which are recommended in the short and long term? • Household Typology Reporting: • settling on climate zone designations • illustrative reporting of results • description of additional information provided by this type of reporting • Equity Evaluation: • Categorization of measures into equity, resource and uncertain. • Once measures have been categorized, which ones should be subject to the equity evaluation? • What criteria should we use to define “health,” “comfort,” and “safety,” for the purposes of the basic equity evaluation which will be used for the 2015-17 cycle? • Tests and thresholds for ESAP program approval: • What tests should be used and why? What are we trying measure with these tests? • Should they replace the old tests and if so why they better than the old tests? • What should be the threshold for ESAP program approval?

  4. Current ESAP Cost-effectiveness Tests • Applied to Measures, not to the ESA Program • Three tests : Modified Participant Test (MPT), Utility Cost Test (UCT), and Total Resource Cost (TRC) Test • Cost for all tests is the same: Measure Cost + % of total ESAP Admin Costs (% = Measure Energy Savings/ESAP Energy Savings) • Benefits are: • MPT: Measure bill savings + % of total ESAP NEBs • UCT: Measure avoided costs + % of total ESAP NEBs • TRC: Measure avoided costs Note that measure bill savings and measure avoided costs are both based on the measure energy savings.

More Related