Introduction - Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy ...



State Energy Efficiency Planning –Ten States’ ExperienceSeptember 2018Table of Contents TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u Introduction PAGEREF _Toc525857755 \h 3Arkansas Rules for Conservation and Energy Efficiency Programs (C&EE Rules) PAGEREF _Toc525857756 \h 4California's Long Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan PAGEREF _Toc525857757 \h 8Connecticut Comprehensive Energy Strategy PAGEREF _Toc525857758 \h 11EmPOWER Maryland PAGEREF _Toc525857759 \h 12Massachusetts (MASS SAVE) Three Year Energy Efficiency Planning PAGEREF _Toc525857760 \h 13Minnesota’s 2025 State Energy Plan PAGEREF _Toc525857761 \h 16Pennsylvania Energy Efficiency and Conservation (EE&C) Program PAGEREF _Toc525857762 \h 18South Carolina Energy in Action PAGEREF _Toc525857763 \h 20EmPOWER Tennessee PAGEREF _Toc525857764 \h 21Virginia’s 2018 Energy Plan PAGEREF _Toc525857765 \h 22IntroductionThe following pages describe briefly the approaches taken by a sample of 10 states – Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia – toward the development of statewide energy efficiency plans. These states reflect a wide range of outcomes, from plans with aggressive five- and ten-year targets, to those oriented exclusively to addressing the energy efficiency of state-owned facilities and fleets. The selection of these states was influenced in part by a preference for North Carolina’s closest neighbors and other eastern states but includes states in the Midwest and Western regions with a reputation for setting progressive energy efficiency (EE) targets. As North Carolina begins to consider commencing its own statewide EE strategic planning effort, looking to other states’ experience can inform process design, timescale and scope; this document aims to partially fulfill that purpose by focusing on: (1) understanding the variety of approaches employed to kick-off the EE strategic planning process, (2) considering alternative ways to structure – and who to involve in – the strategic planning core team, and how best to involve a wider-set of stakeholders, and (3) comparing the scope and funding levels of other states’ EE strategies (i.e. how narrowly/broadly are other state’s EE strategies focused?). At the risk of over-generalizing the rich and varied context of each state experience, the approaches of establishing EE strategies from this sample can be loosely summarized by the following:EE strategic planning can be initiated byLegislative action;Order from the states’ Public Utility Commission (or similar body), pursuant to powers granted by state statutes;Executive action carried out by the state’s lead environmental, energy, or similar agency/department;The state EE targets can be overseen byThe public utility commission;A special commission or individual tasked with monitoring and evaluating the implementation;The states’ lead environmental, energy or another appropriate agency; Each state relied heavily on the active collaboration of their gas and electric utilities and other stakeholders. This played out in different ways: Each investor-owned gas and electric utility and energy provider is ordered to produce energy efficiency plans of their own (updated at some regular interval), pursuant to achieving overarching state goals, subject to approval by an overseeing body;Utilities collaborated to make recommendations that, if selected by governing body, each is willing to implement; Utilities and a diverse set of additional state stakeholders collaborating on developing energy efficiency reports focused on one of several market verticals, which are then returned to the utilities to inform EE program development. Despite the variance mentioned, there are some observable characteristics from these states’ experiences that stick out as potential win-themes:Near-term objectives were set to be achievable under the constraints of current state regulation, while longer-term goals are more ambitious, and in some cases, may require changes to state statute to achieve. Having high level buy-in and support for the EE strategy development process can ease the collaborative process. Setting EE strategies alone is insufficient. Goals need to be clearly defined and tied to measurable metrics. This should be accompanied by a robust plan for monitoring and evaluation. EE strategies require secure, long-term funding streams. To the extent possible, planning for or creating insulated funding mechanisms is desirable. Clear roles of responsibility and oversight, committees and processes were defined for monitoring, evaluation, and decision-making.These observations are by no means comprehensive, and the reader is encouraged to read to further to gather additional relevant takeaways. Note, for some states, information on funding, stakeholder engagement, or other details of the EE strategic planning process is incomplete due to lack of easily accessible information online. This document is not intended to be complete compendium of information on each plan; rather, a brief extract of each state’s experience. Links to the state strategies or websites where additional information can be found are provided.Arkansas Rules for Conservation and Energy Efficiency Programs (C&EE Rules)Click here to view the rules in full (updated 2018).Background: In 2006, the Arkansas Public Service Commission (PSC), pursuant to its authority under Ark. Code Ann. §23-3-401 et seq., approved and adopted “Rules for Conservation and Energy Efficiency Programs” (C&EE Rules), which directed the Investor Owned Utilities (IOUs) to design and implement energy efficiency programs. From the time the Commission issued the order establishing the energy efficiency collaborative, stakeholders in the process addressed the major issues affecting designing, developing, launching and recovering the costs for initiating energy efficiency programs. Over 24 utilities participated in the collaborative, as well as citizen groups, large corporate rate-payers and major commercial and industrial customers. Since May 2007, the seven investor-owned gas and electric utilities have been offering energy efficiency programs. The first suite of programs were “Quick Start” programs based on proven models from other jurisdictions. In addition, the seven utilities also sponsor and fund a statewide weatherization program.In 2010, the PSC further established the importance of energy efficiency as a resource by adopting an energy efficiency resource standard (EERS), guidelines for efficiency program cost recovery and a shareholder performance incentive, and new guidelines for utility resource planning, which include provisions for demand-side resources. Evaluation, Measurement & Verification (EM&V) was also viewed as an integral part of the Arkansas energy efficiency program framework. The evaluations are governed by several orders which established the role of an EM&V Advisor and an Independent Evaluation Monitor to develop the evaluation framework and supporting materials in a collaborative setting.Purpose:The Parties Working Collaboratively (PWC) group develops and reports findings and recommendations to the Commission in accordance with the Commission directives (PWC Procedural Guidelines 2014). The Commission established the PWC process initially to work through issues directly related to energy efficiency rules and policies, specifically related to EM&V issues. It also serves as a forum to solicit feedback from subject matter experts and provides a way for interested parties to discuss issues and thus minimize litigation.Policy:The Public Service Commission had the authority to order energy efficiency programs by the state’s utilities from legislation that was passed into law in 1977.Recovery of direct program costs associated with commission-approved energy efficiency programs is accomplished through an energy efficiency cost recovery rider on customer bill.Funding: US EPA provided funding assistance to reduce the administrative and facilitator costs of engaging the Regulatory Assistance Project (RAP)The Energy Policy Act of 2005 provided federal tax credits which, when combined with the creation of utility-based energy efficiency programs, would allow Arkansas consumers and businesses to improve their energy efficiency and reduce their energy expenditures. Project Team:The team who designed the initial meeting in 2006.Outside hired facilitator and assistant from RAPCommission ChairpersonCommission StaffArkansas Attorney GeneralStakeholder Advisory Committee: The PWC has grown and evolved from a few key stakeholders in 2006 to representatives from nearly 20 different organizations or entities. All seven gas and electric utilities (including electric cooperatives)Entergy Arkansas, Inc.Southwestern Electric Power CompanyOklahoma Gas and Electric CompanyThe Empire District Electric CompanyCenterpoint Energy Arkansas GasSourceGas Arkansas, Inc.Arkansas Oklahoma Gas CorporationCommission StaffArkansas Attorney General and expert consultantsIndustrial customer groupWalmart Stores Arkansas LLC, Commercial customersArkansas Electric Energy Consumers and Arkansas Gas ConsumersCommunity action agencies with expert consultantsSierra Club,Arkansas Community Action Agencies AssociationState Energy OfficeArkansas Advanced Energy Association, Inc.Stakeholder Engagement Plan:At the start, the Commission envisioned a collaborative process whereby the questions about an energy efficiency initiative for Arkansas could define the ultimate goals of the initiative. The Commission recognized that the goals could take the form of standards, codes, or programs, and the Commission was interested in determining what the appropriate balance should be among a multitude of goals: Energy savings directly attributable to program activities (e.g., more emphasis on pushing energy efficiency technologies into the market that are shown to provide rapid payback on the initial investment); Long-term and permanent changes in behavior, attitudes, awareness, and knowledge about energy savings and use of energy efficient technologies (e.g., more emphasis on market transformation); Permanent peak demand reduction; Energy cost savings and cost-effectiveness; Reliability enhancements; Environmental benefits; Economic development/competitiveness benefits; Increases in system-wide capacity; Accelerating the commercialization of advanced or emerging technologies; Improving affordability of energy for low-income customers; and Any other criteria not listed above. The Commission sought information regarding experiences in other states, how energy efficiency could be incorporated into integrated resource plans, how cost recovery should be designed, the role of education and increasing consumer awareness of energy efficiency, the role of financial incentives, appropriate funding levels, the energy efficiency infrastructure that currently exists in Arkansas, the appropriate metrics for program evaluation, and the overall development process. An initial workshop to discuss some of the issues facing and goals of the collaborative was conducted on February 21, 2006. Approximately 100 interested parties from various backgrounds attended. Formal comments were required of all utilities attending the workshop.The collaborative was created to address the following issues:The nature and design of energy efficiency and conservation programs that can be started quickly and produce near-term benefits for Arkansans. The appropriate incentives and standards for customers and utilities. The development of energy efficiency market structure principles and guidelines.The advantages of fostering cooperative gas and electric energy efficiency program templates. Possible development of a “deemed savings approach” for Arkansas. The development of uniform standards and mechanisms for evaluating, measuring and validating energy efficiency programs. The proper economic tests to use in determining whether a program is in the public interest. The Commission anticipated that other relevant and important topics would emerge during the collaborative, and wanted to discuss those issues, make recommendations for a framework of how programs would emerge, and define parameters for introducing energy efficiency programs to the market. The Commission also wanted to see draft rules reflecting the discussion and its conclusions. The Commission indicated that it encouraged consensus among the parties but was resolved to make choices among alternatives if the parties did not achieve consensus. To keep the aggressive timelines set by the Commission, it was necessary to set an agenda for each meeting that would promote the substantive discussion required to fully address each major question posed by the Commission. The agendas were designed to bring out opposing views and to promote discussion. Parties were encouraged to bring industry reports and substantive documentation to support their positions. A number of participants provided extensive research into cost-effectiveness calculations, technologies, and programs that are well suited to a quick start approach. The collaborative process resulted in a substantial number of recommendations to the Arkansas Commission, many of which were incorporated into the final Commission orders mandating “Quick Start” energy efficiency programs in the fall of 2007. Since then, PWC is responsible for an ever-growing range of tasks, expanding from EM&V to program design and policy issues. However, one of the largest and most important responsibilities of the PWC is to update the Arkansas Technical Reference Manual (TRM) annually so it reflects the best information available regarding new technologies, savings estimates, and critical data gathered during the EM&V process.California's Long Term Energy Efficiency Strategic PlanClick here to view the plan and subsequent updates. Background:In 2008, the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) adopted California’s first Long Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan, presenting a single roadmap to achieve maximum energy savings across all major groups and sectors in California. The plan was subsequently updated in 2011 to include a focus on lighting.This comprehensive Plan for 2009 to 2020 is the state’s first integrated framework of goals and strategies for saving energy, covering government, utility, and private sector actions, and holds energy efficiency to its role as the highest priority resource in meeting California’s energy needs.Purpose:The top three reasons for California’s publicly-funded energy efficiency programs are:To help reduce greenhouse gas emissionsEnergy efficiency is expected to make up 15% of the state’s greenhouse gas emission reductions, according to the California Air Resource Board’s AB32 Scoping Plan.To help the economyIf Californian homes and businesses are paying less for energy because they’re using less energy, that’s more money to invest elsewhere.To avoid new power plants and transmission linesAdditional objectives for the plan included:Articulating how energy efficiency programs are or will be designed with the goal of transitioning to either the marketplace without ratepayer subsidies, or codes and standards.And develop milestones to measure progress towards that goal targeted timeframe for such market transition and the process for tracking progress so that it is clear at what point a program has made a successful transition or conversely, is having problems.Policy: Public Utilities Code Section 454.5(b)(9)(C): utilities are required to first meet their “unmet resource needs through all available energy efficiency and demand reduction resources that are cost effective, reliable, and feasible.” CPUC created a policy framework to motivate IOUs to develop and continuously expand efficiency programs on behalf of customers. The policy framework has several elements:The State’s adopted loading order; aggressive goals set based upon up-to-date potential studies; decoupling of sales from revenues for electric and gas utilities; performance-based incentive mechanisms; and a dual funding stream comprised of a public goods charge and procurement funding.Core tenets of the program:The decoupling of sales from revenues for electric and gas utilities, along-side performance-based incentive mechanisms, address a fundamental bias against efficiency investment.Efficiency programs are largely administered by utilities utilizing universal contact with homes and businesses throughout the state, while government maintains primary responsibility for program direction and oversight,Establishment of minimum efficiency standards for buildings and appliances that are updated on a regular basisCalifornia Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 Assembly Bill (AB) 32 included a draft scoping plan that established a target of at least 32,000 gigawatt hours and 800 million therms by 2020.Energy Action Plan II, AB 2021 established statewide energy efficiency goals for state-owned public utilities.Low-Income Energy Efficiency statutesthe Governor’s Green Building Executive Order14, 2007 IEPRIn addition to AB32, CPUC established its own goals for energy savings for 2012-2020 for its regulated utilities.Expected to save over 4,500 megawatts, the equivalent of over 9 major power plants, and over 16,000 GWh of electricity savings and 620 million therms.AB 1109 requires defined reductions in energy usage for lightingFunding: a dual funding stream comprised of a public goods charge and procurement fundingProject Team: The Plan was developed through a collaborative process involving the CPUC’s regulated utilities Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), Southern California Edison Company (SCE), San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E), Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas), and over 500 individuals and organizations.Stakeholder Advisory Committee:“Conveners” came from the following organizations:California Public Utilities CommissionCalifornia Energy Commission California Institute for Energy and EnvironmentCenter for Irrigation Technology, California State University Fresno KEMA Inc.Executive Director of Strategic Energy InnovationsLawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryGreen TechnologyICF, Inc.Project Performance CorporationLawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryCalifornia Energy CommissionGreen TechnologyCenter for Irrigation Technology, California State University Fresno IOU RepresentativesSouthern California Edison San Diego Gas & ElectricPacific Gas & Electric Company Southern California Gas Company IOU Strategic Planning ConsultantsAwad & Company, Inc.D.C. Frederick ConsultingNemtzow & AssociatesSchiller Consulting Inc.OthersAccentureLow Income Oversight Board MembersStakeholder Engagement Plan:Over a period of three months, working groups for four “vertical” market sectors met and held 36 public stakeholder workshops. The market sectors were comprised of the following – residential, including low- income, commercial, industrial, and agricultural — and seven cross-cutting areas — Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) systems; Demand Side Management (DSM) Coordination and Integration; Workforce Education and Training (WET); Marketing Education and Outreach (ME&O); Research and Technology; Codes and Standards; and Local Governments — The objective of the workshops was to facilitate information exchange and develop an action plan for each market sector and each cross-cutting sector. The resultant plans (“Convener Reports”) were provided to the IOUs to inform their strategic planning efforts.The CPUC acted as a centralized information hub via a specially built web portal, disseminating team updates and reports and providing models for teams to look to in recording their findings. As required by the CPUC, the IOUs filed a draft Plan in month 4, and then a revised draft plan in month 5. Three stakeholder workshops were then held in San Diego, Los Angeles, and San Francisco.Near-term elements of the plan were all feasible under present state law and regulation; some of the long-term elements would benefit from, or may require, change in state law in order to accomplish.Connecticut Comprehensive Energy StrategyClick here to view the 2018 update and the original 2012 strategy.Background: In 2012, the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) developed the first-ever Comprehensive Energy Strategy (CES) for the State of Connecticut – an assessment and Strategy for all residential, commercial, and industrial energy issues, including energy efficiency, industry, electricity, natural gas, and transportation. The first CES offered recommendations in five priority areas:Energy efficiencyIndustrial energy needsElectricity supply including renewable powerNatural gasTransportationDEEP is required to periodically update the CES to assess and plan for all energy needs in the state, including, but not limited to, electricity, heating, cooling and transportation. In 2016, DEEP put forward the draft 2017 CES Draft. After a public comment period and the release of a steep budget cutbacks to EE line items in the state budget, the 2018 CES was published markedly altered.Purpose: The first two of the eight 2018 CES strategies are focused on energy efficiency: (1) Ensure sustainable and equitable funding for energy efficiency, and (2) Advance market transformation of the energy efficiency industry. Specific objectives within these strategies include:Finding equitable solutions for oil and propane conservationReducing the energy burden on low-income householdsWeatherizationContinue increasing the Home Energy Score assessment program by integrating with real estate market forces Develop a clean energy workforce through training and vocational programsStandardize efficiency with energy performance codes, standards, and certifications Transition to cleaner thermal fuels and technologies Funding: Pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes 16-245m, the statewide Electric and Natural Gas Conservation and Load Management Plan (C&LM Plan) guides implementation of the majority of energy efficiency and demand reduction activities in the state and has been funded for many years through a charge on electric and natural gas consumption. However, the state budget for FY 2018 & 2019 resulted in the loss of $63.5 million per year from the Energy Conservation and Load Management Fund (also known as the Connecticut Energy Efficiency Fund, or CEEF), $14 million diverted from the Connecticut Green Bank, and $10 million diverted from RGGI. The majority of these funds would have gone towards supporting EE investments. As a result, DEEP is exploring new funding tools, like issuing RFPs for long-term contracts of renewable projects less than 20 MW or energy efficiency projects of any size.Project Team: The CES was created in coordination with the Connecticut Energy Advisory Board, input received from the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority, members of the General Assembly, the Office of Consumer Counsel, the Connecticut Siting Council, and a number of other state agencies.Stakeholder Engagement Plan:DEEP issued a draft of the 2012 Comprehensive Energy Strategy for public comment. DEEP solicited written comments from stakeholders and interested persons, with an initial filing deadline of December. DEEP also held eleven technical meetings at which the public and stakeholders were given the opportunity to present oral testimony and to ask DEEP staff and consultants questions about the analyses underlying the findings and recommendations in the draft 2012 Strategy. The CES was updated in 2017, once again inviting public comment to the draft 2017 strategy online, and in technical and public meetings. EmPOWER Maryland 2008, the Maryland General Assembly passed the EmPOWER Maryland Energy Efficiency Act which set a target reduction of 15% from a 2007 baseline for per capita electricity consumption and peak demand by 2015. While EmPOWER’s statutory authority and program reduction targets will continue beyond 2015, any revision to the reduction targets beyond 2015 require legislative action. In 2012 Maryland Energy Administration (MEA), in consultation with the Public Service Commission (PSC), reviewed the anticipated achievement of the goals of EmPOWER to determine whether electricity consumption and peak demand reduction targets should be modified beyond 2015, and advise the legislature on the feasibility of setting energy savings targets for natural gas companies. In 2014, MEA recommended additional investment in energy efficiency and conservation programs for both electricity and natural gas and continued investment in demand response programs for electricity.Purpose:To develop a framework and action plan that will provide the necessary information for the 2014 General Assembly so that it can make an informed decision on how to best set specific EmPOWER goals for electricity and natural gas usage and electric peak demand beyond 2015. Funding: ~$3billion of public funding since inceptionStakeholder Advisory Committee:American Council for Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)Baltimore Gas and ElectricChesapeake Climate Action NetworkEnvironment MarylandInterfaith Power and LightMaryland League of Conservation VotersColumbia Gas of MarylandEnergy Future CoalitionMaryland Alliance for Fair CompetitionMaryland Power Plan Research Project (PPRP)Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP)Potomac EdisonConservation Engineering, LLCSierra ClubTerrLogos Energy GroupThe P3 GroupStakeholder Engagement Plan:To determine whether electricity and natural gas targets should be modified beyond 2015, MEA worked with relevant stakeholders, including electric and gas utilities and suppliers, the environmental advocacy community, and state agencies, to develop recommendations. As part of this process, MEA published several background documents and hosted stakeholder meetings in the summer and fall of 2012. PSC Staff provided valuable insight and review during this process, but the contents of this report should be viewed as MEA’s recommendations and may not represent the consensus position of the Commission or PSC Staff. Massachusetts (MASS SAVE) Three Year Energy Efficiency Planning Click here to view the 2019-2021 Three-Year Energy Efficiency PlanPurpose: The 2008 Green Communities Act (GCA) (G.L. c. 25, §22) is a a comprehensive energy reform law that established an energy efficiency plan for the state of Massachusetts. The GCA requires that the state's IOUs prepare energy efficiency plans that will "provide for the acquisition of all available energy efficiency and demand reduction resources that are cost-effective or less expensive than supply."The Energy Efficiency Advisory Council (“EEAC”) was established by the GCA and was charged with reviewing the state’s investor-owned electric and gas utilities' (Program Administrators or "PAs") energy efficiency investment plans and budgets (collectively, the “Three-Year Plan”), which were prepared in coordination with the EEAC. The PAs developed the statewide plans for both electric and gas, which includes savings and spending targets, implementation strategies, and descriptions of the various initiatives that serve residents and businesses. Once the EEAC has reviewed and approved the plan, they work with the PAs on implementation. In total, the Council’s priorities are to develop, implement, evaluate, and monitor the implementation of these plans.The EEAC is also charged with developing a long-term vision for the Commonwealth’s energy future. In recommending and overseeing specific studies and research, the Council works to achieve energy efficiency savings and to maximize the economic and environmental benefits of energy efficiency.Funding: The EEAC annually submits a proposal to the Department of Energy Resources (DOER) regarding the level of funding required for the retention of expert independent energy efficiency consultants and reasonable administrative costs. The proposal is either approved as submitted or as modified by the department. The department allocates funds sufficient for these purposes from the natural gas and electric efficiency funding authorized under section 19; however, the allocation cannot exceed 1% of the total funding on an annual basis. Funding language from Section 19 of the GCA: (a) The department shall require a mandatory charge of 2.5 mills per kilowatt-hour for all consumers, except those served by a municipal lighting plant, to fund energy efficiency programs including, but not limited to, demand side management programs. The programs shall be administered by the electric distribution companies and by municipal aggregators with energy plans certified by the department under subsection (b) of section 134 of chapter 164. In addition to the aforementioned mandatory charge, such programs shall also be funded, without further appropriation, by: (1) amounts generated by the distribution companies and municipal aggregators under the Forward Capacity Market program administered by ISO -NE, as defined in section 1 of chapter 164; and (2) cap and trade pollution control programs, including, but not limited to, and subject to section 22 of chapter 21A, not less than 80 per cent of amounts generated by the carbon dioxide allowance trading mechanism established under the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative Memorandum of Understanding, as defined in subsection (a) of section 22 of chapter 21A, and the NOx Allowance Trading Program; and (3) other funding as approved by the department after consideration of: (i) the effect of any rate increases on residential and commercial consumers; (ii) the availability of other private or public funds, utility administered or otherwise, that may be available for energy efficiency or demand resources; and (iii) whether past programs have lowered the cost of electricity to residential and commercial consumers. In authorizing such programs, the department shall ensure that they are delivered in a cost-effective manner capturing all available efficiency opportunities, minimizing administrative costs to the fullest extent practicable and utilizing competitive procurement processes to the fullest extent practicable.Project Team: The EEAC includes representatives from organizations and interests that are named in the enabling legislation (see stakeholder advisory committee section). Council members are appointed to five-year terms by the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities (DPU) with the exception of the energy efficiency small business representative, who is elected by his or her peers. The Council is chaired by the DOER Commissioner and supported by DOER staff.EEAC members have several responsibilities: participate regularly in Council meetings; contribute their knowledge and expertise to the best of their abilities; participate in Council processes and discussions, including any committee processes set up by the Council; and vote, according to their best judgment, in such a way as to enable the Commonwealth to achieve the efficiency mandates of the Green Communities Act. The full Council typically conducts meetings once per month in the Greater Boston area. The Executive Committee of the EEAC holds separate meetings, also monthly in the Greater Boston area. Meeting minutes and presentations are made available to the public.Stakeholder Advisory Committee:As stated in the law, the energy efficiency advisory council shall consist of 11 members, including 1 person representing each of the following: (1) residential consumers, (2) the low-income weatherization and fuel assistance program network, (3) the environmental community, (4) businesses, including large C&I end-users, (5) the manufacturing industry, (6) energy efficiency experts, (7) organized labor, (8) the department of environmental protection, (9) the attorney general, (10) the executive office of housing and economic development, and (11) the department of energy resources.Members shall serve for terms of 5 years and may be reappointed. The commissioner of energy resources shall serve as chair of the council. A member who is a representative of energy efficiency experts shall not have a contractual relationship with an electric or natural gas distribution company doing business in the commonwealth or any affiliate of such company, or any municipal aggregator. There shall be 1 non-voting, ex-officio member from each of the electric and natural gas distribution companies, 1 from each of the approved municipal aggregators, 1 from the heating oil industry and 1 from energy efficiency businesses.Stakeholder Engagement Plan: The energy efficiency programs administered by the Utility Energy Efficiency Program Administrators (PAs) operate in accordance with three-year plans developed in collaboration with the EEAC and approved by the Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities. The plan for the next three-year period from 2019 to 2021 is under development. The currently approved plan covers 2016 through 2018. In addition to the three-year plans, mid-term modifications and annual implementation updates are also put in place to ensure program success. All materials documenting current and prior three-year plans are fully accessible, including information charting annual updates and mid-term modifications.Minnesota’s 2025 State Energy Plan Click here to view the 2025 State Energy Action Plan.Purpose: Published in 2016, the 2025 Energy Action Plan lays out a path forward for Minnesota to help advance a clean, reliable, resilient, and affordable energy system for Minnesota. The focus is on near-term, cross-sector strategies that add value to Minnesota’s dynamic energy landscape. While the scope of these strategies is wide, the Action Plan is not intended to be a comprehensive energy plan for the state; it centers on consensus-driven strategies with traction to move forward.Funding: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy Grant Project Team: Great Plains InstituteLHB (Engineering firm)MN Department of CommerceMN Legislative Energy CommissionRocky Mountain InstituteStakeholder Advisory Committee (three meetings between July and December 2015):Technological Leadership Institute, University of Minnesota Honeywell US Green Building Council, Minnesota Chapter Minnesota Power New Flyer Rural Renewable Energy Alliance Center for Energy and the EnvironmentDovetail Partners Siemens Minnesota Chamber of Commerce Center for Sustainable Building Research BlueGreen Alliance Great River Energy Ramsey County City of Oakdale Minnesota Valley Electric Cooperative Wellington Management Target Minnesota Municipal Utilities Association Minnesota State University Mankato 2100 Advisors Fresh Energy Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota CenterPoint Energy City of Woodbury Clean Energy Resource Teams Andersen Corporation Green Biologics Xcel Energy Ecolibrium3 McKnight Foundation Ever‐Green Energy 3MStakeholder Engagement Process:Strategies selected based on a common set of criteria:The strategy’s potential impact to support Minnesota’s current goals related to energy, climate and air quality, and environmental justice.The potential to significantly advance progress toward clean energyAnticipated benefits related to costsCommitment by stakeholders to advancing the strategy and ability to leverage additional resourcesPotential to provide benefits across economic sectorsTen-year timeframe for implementationMinnesota’s current goals (with EE component):Conservation Improvement Program – Energy savings of 1.5 percent of gross annual retail sales for all electric and natural gas utilities (currently on track)Per Capita Fossil Fuel Use – Reduce by 15 percent by 2015 (on track)Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction – Reduce state greenhouse gas emissions 15 percent below 2005 base levels by 2015, 30 percent by 2025, and 80 percent by 2050.Strategic CategoriesTransportationEnergy supply and grid modernizationEfficient buildings and integrated energy systemsIndustrial and agricultural processesLocal planning and actionEfficient buildings and integrated energy systems strategies:Adopt SB2030 (energy performance requirement for all state-bonded buildings) as an optional stretch code for new buildings, additions, and major renovations.Enhance energy data access through a standardized data protocolIncrease adoption of commercial building energy-benchmarking and disclosure programs by expanding access to B3 (Buildings, Benchmarks and Beyond) and working with local governments and tribal nationsImproving buildings operations through retro commissioning and ongoing commissioning, building operator training and advanced building controlsPromoting behavioral energy efficiency strategies to capture cost-effective energy reductions and sustain savings over time.Support CHP development by advancing the recommendations from the 2015 CHP Action Plan.Agricultural Strategy: Promote industrial and agricultural efficiency practices by sharing state and federal programs to improve energy productivity, and strengthening peer networks to share best practices on energy managementLocal Planning: Advance local energy planning by developing resources and tools to assist local governments and tribal nations in their energy-related planningImportant Notes:Most strategies can be implemented without legislationDedicated leadership is critical, and each strategy has a defined champion and key participants to move it forward over the ten-year period.All strategies have cross-sector opportunitiesPennsylvania Energy Efficiency and Conservation (EE&C) ProgramClick here to read Act 129 and its component sections, including the EE&C, in full. Purpose: Act 129, signed into law in 2008, directed that by July 1, 2009, all electric distribution companies (EDCs) with at least 100,000 customers were to develop and file an energy efficiency and conservation plan with the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) for approval. Act 129 also added several new sections to, and amended several existing sections, of the Public Utility Code. The Commission will implement the Act in phases. The first phase will deal with the Commission’s obligation to adopt an energy efficiency and conservation (EE&C) program by Jan. 15, 2009. Subsequent phases of the Commission’s Act 129 implementation process will address EDC and default service provider responsibilities; conservation service providers; smart meter technology; time-of-use rates; real-time pricing plans; default service procurement; market misconduct; alternative energy sources; and cost recovery.Primary components of the act:Statewide Evaluator (SWE)??- The PUC sought a Statewide Evaluator Contract to evaluate the energy efficiency and conservation programs required by the Act 129 of 2008.Established a registry for Conservation Service Providers (CSP) who meet the Pennsylvania PUCs minimum qualifications to provide consultation, design, administration, management or advisory services to an electric distribution company regarding energy efficiency and conservation plans required under Act 129 of 2008, P.L. 1592. A Conservation Service Provider must be on this registry before it can provide consultation, design, administration, management or advisory services to electric distribution companies.Total Resource Cost (TRC) Test?- The TRC test analyzes the costs and benefits of the energy efficiency and conservation plans.Smart Meter Technology Procurement and Installation?- Requirements for EDCs with greater than 100,000 customers to submit a smart meter technology procurement and installation plan.Training Certifications for Weatherization Installations & Audits?- Comments on the current training required by EDCs and NGDCs who conduct weatherization installations and audits, as well as the impact on the companies’ Low-Income Usage Reduction Program (LIURP).On-Bill Financing Working Group?- The Working Group is to investigate best practices from other states and identify working models of on-bill financing and on-bill repayment issues.Electric distribution companies participating in Phase III EE&C PlansDuquesne Light Co. - Docket No. M-2015-2515375Metropolitan Edison Co. (Met-Ed) - Docket No. M-2015-2514767Pennsylvania Electric Co. (Penelec) - Docket No. M-2015-2514768Pennsylvania Power Co. (Penn Power) - Docket No. M-2015-2514769West Penn Power Co. - Docket No. M-2015-2514772PECO Energy Co. - Docket No. M-2015-2515691PPL Electric Utilities - Docket No. M-2015-2515642The Commission has also been charged with the responsibility to evaluate the costs and benefits of the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Program (EE&C Program) by November 30, 2013, and every five years thereafter. 66 Pa. C.S. §2806.1(c)(3).Funding: unclearProject Team:Energy Association of Pennsylvania (EAPA), Industrial Energy Consumers of Pennsylvania (IECPA) and PPL Electric Utilities Corporation (PPL)South Carolina Energy in ActionClick here to see the 2016 plan in full. Purpose: A comprehensive blueprint for a reliable, resilient, clean, and affordable energy system for South Carolina residents and businesses. The State Energy Plan is designed to maximize (to the extent practical) reliability, environmental quality, energy conservation, and energy efficiency while minimizing the cost of energy throughout the state.Funding: unclearProject Team: Energy Office (Office of Regulatory Staff)Stakeholder Advisory Committee:Conservation Voters of South CarolinaDuke Energy CorporationElectric Cooperatives of South CarolinaSouth Carolina Association of Municipal Power SystemsSouth Carolina Coastal Conservation LeagueSouth Carolina Department of Health and Environmental ControlSouth Carolina Electric & Gas Company South Carolina Energy Users CommitteeSouth Carolina Office of Regulatory StaffSouth Carolina Public Service AuthoritySouthern Environmental Law CenterState Regulation of Public Utilities Review Committee staffStakeholder Engagement Plan:The Energy Office organized its effort in accordance with the tenets outlined in state statute (SC Code Section 48-52-210).Phase I (Baseline of current energy landscape)Five public engagement sessions (what should be addressed in the state plan)Three stakeholder surveys to solicit input from the public and specific industry sectors130 professionals (60 organizations) 6 working subcommittees (45 subcommittee meetings)Additional workshops (co-ops and SCCCN)Comments from public welcomed in person at public hearings and onlinePhase II (Policy recommendations)80 recommendations submitted to stakeholder advisory groupReview resulted in 8 recommendations (or themes) that emerged as ones that could encompass several policy ideas, or were particularly timelyIntegrated Resource Planning ProcessNatural Gas InfrastructureBuilding Energy CodesFunding for Needed Energy UpgradesAct 236 progression (renewable energy integration)Environmental Justice AssessmentLead by Example – State TransportationFacilitation of State Agency Energy EfficiencyPhase III (Implementation)Integrated Resource Planning Process: Establish a committee to study matters related to IRP process including the costs and benefits that can be achieved by changes to the process. The process must demonstrate that access to energy supplies at the lowest practical environmental and economic cost and that demand-side options are pursuedBuilding Energy Codes: Establish a task force to investigate the impact of the adoption of most current building efficiency standards as well as other changes to the state’s energy code.Funding for energy upgrades: A study committee established to examine solutions for financing energy efficiency improvements, including on-bill financing, public benefit funds and other financing mechanisms.Environmental Justice – Establish a statewide environmental justice advisory panel to advise all entities throughout the state on EJ issues.Facilitation of state agency energy efficiency – Office of State Engineer (OSE) will propose a policy to enable the office to put qualified firms on a state contract to provide energy audits for state agency buildings (guaranteed energy savings contract process is too long and there is lack of knowledge about the work).EmPOWER Tennessee: EmPower TN is an initiative to reduce energy consumption and costs across state-owned and managed facilities.The state can implement an enterprise-wide energy management strategy across its real estate portfolio by:Measuring and controlling energy use;Investing in increasing energy efficiency and renewable energy generation;Creating an operational environment of excellence; andPromoting energy cost savings across the state through conservation and efficiency in local government and the private sector.While the focus of EmPower TN is state-owned and managed facilities, the hope is that the program will be a model and training tool for local Tennessee government and attract the support of private and nonprofit organizations interested in promoting energy conservation, clean and renewable energy development.Conservation measures encompassed by EmPower TN:Optimization of Building Automation Systems (Existing Building Commissioning)Installation of LED lighting and control systemsInstallation of wireless thermostats for unitary equipmentMechanical upgrades for chilled water valves (Energy smart digital valves with controls)Replacement of inefficient HVAC equipmentBoiler replacements (condensing boilers)Cooling Tower replacementsFunding: state budget for 2015-16 allocated EmPower TN approximately $43.7 million$37.5 million for state energy efficiency projects.$6.2 million for acquisition and implementation of a statewide energy management system to manage the state’s utility bills and identify future priority efficiency opportunities.Virginia’s 2018 Energy PlanClick here to access the 2014 Energy Plan, its subsequent update, and progress on the 2018 plan.Purpose: The 2018 Virginia Energy Plan is intended to provide a strategic vision for the energy policy of the Commonwealth over the next 10 years. This plan is being developed in accordance with Chapter 2 of Title 67 of the Code of Virginia. Per the statute, the Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy is tasked with submitting the Plan to the Governor, the State Corporation Commission and the General Assembly by?October 1, 2018.Funding: unclearProject Team: Dominion, Regulatory Assistance ProjectStakeholder Advisory Committee:Stakeholder Engagement Plan: The stakeholder process includes a 60-day written comment period, in-person public listening sessions and a series of facilitated stakeholder discussions.June 25, 2018: Discuss the 2014 goals - 10% Energy Conservation Target (voluntary), Lead-by-example 15% reduction goal for state facilities. Recommendations for discussion:Track and compile electric consumption data to measure progress to 10% goal (ongoing)Outreach to local governments about value of lighting replacements (streetlights, etc.)Develop single-brand strategy (EnergySense) for all energy efficiency programming (SCC, completed) Recognize “champions” through awards (e.g. VAEEC Energy Efficiency Leadership Awards, VA Municipal League “Go Green Virginia”, Viridiant Sustainable Leadership awards)Support legislation to enable commercial building benchmarking (DMME stakeholder process resulted in HB 204 in 2018, which would have authorized localities to establish/require benchmarking for buildings >50,000; bill failed, but may be re-introduced in 2019)Develop school curriculum to educate students about energy efficiency (SCC completed development and accreditation achieved in 2018July 18, 2018 – sameAugust 1, 2018 – Energy efficiency financing and building codesPlan Requirements: The Code also requires the Plan to include:Projections of energy consumption;Analysis of the adequacy of electricity generation, transmission, and distribution resources;Analysis of siting requirements for generation, transition, and distribution resources;Analysis of fuel diversity for electricity generation;?Analysis of efficient use of energy resources and conservation initiatives;Analysis of how Virginia-specific issues relate to regional initiatives;Analysis of whether there is a disproportionate adverse impact on economically disadvantaged or minority communities;Analysis of the costs and benefits of federal regulation under § 111(d) of the Clean Air Act; andRecommendations for legislative, regulatory, and other public and private actions.?Policy: Virginia’s Grid Transformation and Security Act of 2018. Click here to read the legislation in full.Signed by Governor Northam on March 9, 2018. Became law on July 1.(xviii) requires APCo to continue funding its pilot program for energy assistance and weatherization for low-income, elderly, and disabled individuals at no less than the existing levels, and requires DEV to fund its similar pilot program at no less than $13 million annually;(j) require APCo and DEV to develop programs of energy conservation measures, with APCo's program costing not less than $140 million and DEV's program costing not less than $870 million;? ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download