New York State’s Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard Bill Saxonis Office of Energy Efficiency & Environment New York State Department of Public Service Encore? Energy Efficiency Program Performance NARUC Workshop – Washington DC February 16, 2008
The Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard (EEPS) Proceeding • The Proceeding was born on May 16, 2007 by Commission Order (Case 07-M-0548). • Reduce electricity usage by 15% from the levels forecasted for 2015 (15 X15 goal). • Comparable reduction goal for natural gas usage. • Achieving the 15X15 goal will bring electricity usage in 2015 to below the 2006 level. • About 25,000 GWh of sales reduction will be needed to meet the 15 X 15 goal.
What did the Commission say about evaluation? • “Ensure transparent and technically sound methods for measurement and verification of net energy savings, benefits and costs, as well as assessment of customer satisfaction and program efficacy.”
EEPS – A Transparent Process • Plenary collaborative meetings, technical conference, list-serve/web page… • Roundtable sessions for the general public. • Staff “straw proposal” to encourage feedback. • 4 working groups made up of key parties.
The Four Working Groups • WGI - Administration (who does what?) • WGII - Program design • WGIII - Evaluation/EEPS targets • WGIV - Emerging technologies/demand response/peak load
Issues for WG III • Comprehensive evaluation (impact and process evaluation). • Long and short term evaluation. Important to have an “early warning system” to identify program deficiencies. • Consistent evaluation terms and measurement techniques to accurately track statewide progress.
Issues for WG III • Reliable cost effectiveness test. • Credible, timely and accurate results for ratepayers, regulators, and Independent system operator. • Transparency in reporting from routine program data to detailed evaluation results.
Some Key WG III Questions • How do we deal with diverse evaluation issues, for diverse programs, implemented in a diverse state? • Should we establish statewide evaluation protocols ? Will everyone comply? • How do we assess impacts of Codes and Standards? R&D?
Some Key WG III Questions • How do we effectively quantify the impacts attributable to the programs? • Do we need a statewide evaluation group to help guide the process over the short and long term and coordinate statewide studies? • How do we balance evaluation costs and data reliability?
Sage Advice • “A problem is a chance for you to do your best.” -- Duke Ellington, Musician, American Genius
WG III Results • Strong support for rigorous evaluation. • Detailed evaluation plan for every EEPS program. • Sufficient evaluation funding to get the job done….up to five percent of overall program budget. • Transparent and regular reporting.
WG III Results • Support for statewide Evaluation Task Force (ETF). • General agreement that the ETF could play a key role in establishing evaluation protocols and, in some cases, coordinate research of statewide interest. • Lack of consensus over key details such as exact role, authority, membership and funding.
WG III Results • Support for Total Resource Cost (TRC) Test. • Consider modifying TRC to include benefits beyond avoided energy resources savings for worthwhile programs that do not pass the test.
What did the ALJs say? • Rigorous evaluation “is critical to the success of the EEPS as a whole.” • Endorsed concept of a statewide Evaluation Task Force (ETF). • ETF needed “to ensure that all program administrators are evaluating programs and reporting results consistently, reliably and regularly.” • Support for TRC test as a screening tool.
One More Thing… • “Ever onward and upward to the end where all ends end– just before the beginning.” Duke Ellington, Musician, American Genius
To Contact Us About the EPS Proceeding • Visit our Web site: • http://www.dps.state.ny.us/Case_07-M-0548.htm • E-Mail: email@example.com • Call: (518) 486-1610 • Write to us: • NYS Department of Public Service • Office of Energy Efficiency & Environment • Three Empire State Plaza • Albany, NY 12223-1350