1. Existing Condition Baseline Programs & Codes and Standards
Armen Saiyan, P.E. – LADWP
Gary Cullen – Navigant
July, 2016

2. High Level Framing: Presentation Goals
Comments on C&S savings quantification methodology
What are potential sources of data to fill in gaps in current existing conditions baseline?
Potential use in IOU programs with AB802 conditions?
What measures would this facilitate?
How could this facilitate the measure-specific baseline and other “preponderance of evidence” questions asked by proposed decision?
July 28, 2016

3. Presentation Overview
Objective: Seeking TF feedback on Conceptual approach of program implementation and methodology of quantifying C&S savings from incentive programs using existing conditions as baseline.
Background Summary
Update on LADWP program implementation
Methodology of quantifying incentive program “To Code” savings
Summary of LADWP program results
Additional benefits of program administration
TF Feedback
July 28, 2016

4. Background Information
Recap of 2014 Conceptual Program implementation
Updates to method of C&S accounting using Potential Models based on data provided by Statewide C&S stakeholders
Recent CPUC Proposed Decision for statewide programs and C&S claims
July 28, 2016

5. Previous Conceptual Portfolio C&S Savings
Participating C&S
Accounting
Custom Calculations via CEC approved Modeling tools
Savings are calculated based on existing baseline
C&S and above code savings are tracked and separated in engineering evaluations
Non-Participating C&S
Use High Level C&S calculation methodology adopted by CA IOUs
Track non-participating customer development projects through local building departments throughout service territory
Participating Customer C&S Savings
Non-Participating Customer C&S Savings
Portfolio C&S Savings
July 28, 2016

6. Previous Conceptual Project Level and Incentive Program Framework
Two tiered accounting process with a dual baseline for all custom calculation projects
Two tiered incentive programs
C&S Savings
Additional Project Savings
Existing Baseline Consumption
Code Baseline Consumption
Proposed Consumption
Code compliant project receives
low tier incentive for project savings
Beyond code project receives high tier incentive for total project savings
A requirement threshold of 5% above code at beginning of code cycle and potentially progress to 15% by end of code cycle depending on market uptake.
July 28, 2016

7. Previous Conceptual Non-Participant Savings Calculation Methodology
Retrieve Information from Local Code Enforcement Agency on development quantities and project types.
An alternative for retrieving the proper information can be taken from the HERS database.
Modify Statewide C&S savings calculation methodology and distribute on a per SF basis.
Net out Participating Customers from total SF of development within service territory.
Distribute on a per SF basis SW C&S savings to appropriate development categories.
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝐷𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑝𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑆𝐹−𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑝𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝐶𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑟 𝑆𝐹 ∗𝑆𝑊 𝐶&𝑆 𝑠𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠 𝑐𝑎𝑙𝑐𝑠/𝑆𝐹
July 28, 2016

8. Problems with Implementation
The methods of quantifying savings from a project level basis are too tedious to produce results for scale.
For Participant savings; running calculations with dual baseline scenarios on a project by project basis essentially doubles custom calculation processing time. No automation solutions currently exist.
For Non-Participant savings; Publicly available building data is either not available, granular enough or formatted
Both methods are very cumbersome approaches.
July 28, 2016

9. Updated Accounting of Portfolio C&S Savings
Participating C&S
Accounting
Programs claim total savings from existing condition baseline.
Use modified Potential Modeling method to quantify proportion of embedded C&S savings from incentive programs
Non-Participating C&S
Use Potential Modeling to calculate total C&S impacts and subtract portion of incentive program embedded C&S
Participating Customer C&S Savings
Non-Participating Customer C&S Savings
Portfolio C&S Savings
July 28, 2016

10. Additional Project Savings
Actual Program Implementation of Existing Condition Incentive Program Framework
All custom calculation projects use existing condition as baseline
Single Tiered Incentive Program uses total (to code and beyond code) savings as basis of incentive
Existing Baseline Consumption
C&S Savings
Additional Project Savings
Single Tier Incentive for total project savings
Application of a hypothetical Code baseline would only apply to retrofit projects that result in a net increase in load and new construction.
Code Baseline Consumption
Proposed Consumption
July 28, 2016

11. Excerpts from CPUC Proposed Decision on Statewide Programs
R ALJ/JF2/lil
Findings of Fact
11. Giving utilities energy savings credit against their goals for codes and
standards advocacy and also for programmatic activity would represent double
counting of savings credit.
15. Utilities should not be assigned or receive credit towards energy efficiency
savings goals for codes and standards advocacy.
19. Customer incentive design, in light of the change to default baseline
policy, should consider differential benefits of the above-code savings relative to
the to-code savings, and reflect those benefits in the payment structure.
July 28, 2016

12. Using Navigant’s ELRAM Potentials Model for Adjusting C&S Claim
LADWP claims savings from their efforts supporting C&S development
They utilize a method based on a pro-rated share of the allowed statewide C&S savings
However Navigant, in performance of its EM&V for LADWP, recognized the likelihood of double counting between the programmatic and C&S claims of energy savings due to the fact many LADWP programs utilize an early retirement strategy
Navigant also recognized that the double counting would not eliminate the C&S savings, but only the portion coming from the program participants
July 28, 2016

13. Using Navigant’s ELRAM Potentials Model for Adjusting C&S Claim
Step 1: Utilize the IOU Method for identifying C&S initial claimed savings
The savings, as calculated for SCE by sector are pro-rated to LADWP sales by sector
Step 2: LADWP considers the grid effects of their energy efficiency efforts, including C&S, and uses a NTG value of 1.0. The IOU based C&S savings include attribution factors, which make them net.
The utility attribution to Title 20 and Title 24 C&S range from 53% to 75% and for the “Reach Codes” it is 100%. The federal appliance standards have much lower attribution of only 6.25%.
The weighted utility attribution, without considering the federal appliance standards is 69.2%. LADWP utilizes this 69.2% attribution factor to estimate the effects on their grid from C&S.
July 28, 2016

14. Using Navigant’s ELRAM Potentials Model for Adjusting C&S Claim
Step 3: Create a typical ELRAM Potentials Model run for LADWP using current measure level input values as used for SCE. This is the base.
Step 4: Create a new “No-C&S” impact ELRAM Potentials Model run using Early Retirement rather than Replace on Burnout measure characterizations as much as possible and turning off future C&S impacts.
Step 5: Create a delta effects output file by sector subtracting the results from Step 4 from Step 3.
Step 6: Utilize the results from Step 5 to reduce the claimed C&S values developed in Step 2
July 28, 2016

15. LADWP Program Results FY 14-15
July 28, 2016

16. LADWP Program Results (FY13-14)
Despite increase in incentive amounts, programs using existing condition baselines have still maintained a high TRC.
Note: The policy change occurred mid-year in FY FY final results have not been finalized yet, however progress indicators are showing relatively consistent results.
Utility ($/kWh)
Total Resource ($/kWh)
PAC
TRC
TOTAL EE PORTFOLIO
0.03
0.04
5.0
4.0
SBDI
0.06
2.4
LAUSD
0.09
1.7
LIREP
1.5
RETIRE
0.01
9.1
HEIP
0.26
0.41
0.6
0.4
CA Advanced Homes
0.0
Energy Upgrade CA
11.8
8.8
Consumer Rebate Program (CRP)
0.16
0.28
1.1
Custom
0.02
6.9
3.9
CLEO
Savings By Design
17.7
8.3
RCx Express
0.13
1.0
0.8
Refrigeration
0.05
7.1
2.6
Chiller
5.5
4.2
Codes & Standards Title 24 & Title 20
0.00
33.0
Million Trees LA
2.2
LADWP Facilities
0.23
0.9
Embedded Energy from Water Measures
Plumbing Ordinance, Article V Codes & Standards
Low Impact Development (LID) Ordinance
July 28, 2016

17. Additional Program Administration Benefits
Simplification of program administration and work paper development
No more tedious debates over code baseline issues
Simplified approach on a project by project basis.
Lower Program Administrative costs.
Quick turnaround in project development and review.
Savings results are representative of true grid impact
Despite potential for increase of incentive amounts the programs have still maintained a TRC greater than 1.
July 28, 2016

18. Summary of Questions for the TF
Comments on C&S savings quantification methodology
Potential alternative to proposed CPUC ruling for statewide programs and C&S savings claim?
Potential use in IOU programs with AB802 conditions?
What measures would this facilitate?
How could this facilitate the measure-specific baseline and other “preponderance of evidence” questions asked by proposed decision?
July 28, 2016