Ex Ante Alternative
ANNETTE BEITEL
SEPTEMBER 24, 2015
Executive Summary
2
 Status Quo
 Compared to longstanding CPUC goals
 Compared to State policy goals
 Technical Reference Manual Best Practices
 Process
 Structure
 Content
 Path Forward
 Electronic TRM
 Proposed implementation process
Ex Ante Alternative
September 24, 2015
Longstanding Commission Goals
Compared to Status Quo
3
 Collaborative

Only PAs and CPUC staff involved in measure development
 Process is adversarial rather than collaborative
 Transparent

Virtually impossible for third parties to understand process and end product
 Well-Documented


Extensive Cal TF staff DEER documentation work has yielded very little clear
documentation
Most information in DEER cannot be traced to sources, nor are values reproducible
 Uses Best Available Information

Ex ante consultants frequently request more data collection
 Balances Accuracy, Precision, Timeliness, Cost, and Certainty



DEER is very complex – result is false precision, not increased accuracy
Measure review timelines are not adhered to
Measure values are not fixed from cycle to cycle – over a dozen changes to DEER
this year alone
Ex Ante Alternative
September 24, 2015
State Policy Goals
Compared to Status Quo
4
 Use credible, statewide consistent values for forecasting
and planning

POUs were unable to continue using DEER-based framework

Too complex, opaque, hard to use and understand
 Increase inter-agency and regional coordination

CEC uses EnergyPlus for Title 24 and CPUC uses DOE-2.2 for
DEER
 Efficiency as a resource

Efficiency can’t be a credible resource if IOUs and POUs use
different savings
 Double energy efficiency savings by 2030

Won’t happen if it takes years to introduce new measures into the
portfolios (e.g. LEDs)
Ex Ante Alternative
September 24, 2015
Overview of TRM Research
5
 Reviewed over 20 TRMs from jurisdictions across the country
 Interviewed developers and users in “top jurisdictions”
 Massachusetts
 New York
 Pennsylvania and Mid-Atlantic
 Illinois
 Texas
 Review prior literature/analysis on TRMs
 Most analyses are about 5 years old

TRMs have evolved considerably since then
 Identified best practices for all aspects of ex ante framework
 Process
 Structure
 Content
Ex Ante Alternative
September 24, 2015
Key Finding
6
Clear, written technical guidelines and effective
processes are used concurrently to address
complex technical questions, including:

Measure complexity


What is best available data?


How many iterations of a measure are sufficient?
When and how should more data be collected?
Avoiding false precision
To create an effective ex ante process
Ex Ante Alternative
September 24, 2015
Process Best Practices
7
 Technical collaboratives open to the public
 Predictable and regular update processes
 Existing measures must be updated regularly
 Participation by regulatory staff is key
 Speeds issue resolution
 Speeds regulatory review
 Fosters technical understanding between regulators and other
stakeholders
 Builds regulator trust of results
 Collaborative consensus sends strong signal to decision
makers

Regulators maintain final approval authority but can depend on robust
process and results
 Regulatory Commissions, not staff, approve final values
Ex Ante Alternative
September 24, 2015
Structure Best Practices
8
 Standard format for each measure characterization, including:
 Narrative explanation of measure
 Base and measure case technical specifications
 Energy and demand savings algorithms
 Other key parameters (measure life, costs, etc.)
 Pertinent implementation details (e.g. exclusions)
 All measure parameters clearly linked to measure
 Measure is well-documented and values are reproducible
 Citations to primary sources, not other TRMs
 Primary sources linked to or hosted by TRM
 Embedded calculators and look up tables
 Non-measure specific tools and information included as
appendices

NY TRM has excellent descriptions of building prototypes
Ex Ante Alternative
September 24, 2015
Content Best Practices
9
 Written guidelines for addressing recurring technical issues
 NW RTF and Mid-Atlantic state use process language



Use of reproducible methods, diligent review of all sources…
PA and IL use more specific data hierarchies
NW RTF has several guidelines on measure complexity, statistical
significance, other
 Careful consideration of modeling vs. engineering equations
vs. field data

No “one size fits all;” consider pros and cons of different approaches
 Key parameters (from modeling or engineering equations)
should be validated with real data!



Field conditions and human behavior may alter forecasted savings
Collect data through implementation or early EM&V
Identify and implement use of AMI data (e.g. EnergySavvy) and other
tools (DOE Building Performance Database)
Ex Ante Alternative
September 24, 2015
The Move to Electronic TRMs
10
 Key benefits to be gained:
 Improves documentation



Reduces cost and increases efficiency of data management



Ability to embed tools and supporting documents
Enables more detailed revision histories
Through APIs, automatic download of values into utility tracking and planning
databases
Highly transparent workflow management for new and updated
measures.
Keyword searchable
 Available tools include:
 VEIC
 Nexant iEnergy
 Energy Platforms
 Frontier
 Department of Energy Platforms
Ex Ante Alternative
September 24, 2015
Ex Ante Alternative:
Statewide Electronic TRM
11
 All measures are fully documented with a ‘workpaper’


All measure parameters are clearly documented and linked
Source documents are clearly cited and hosted in the tool
 Modeled values are linked to models

Uses EnergyPlus for measures that should be modeled
 Better enables updating due to changes in inputs—
weather files, code updates, etc.

Clear update and revision histories for each measure
 Allows for easy workflow management

Generates all key outputs: Ex ante planning, reporting, CEC
forecasting
 Keyword searchable
 Allows for necessary confidentiality layers
Ex Ante Alternative
September 24, 2015
Proposed Implementation Process
California Ex Ante Measures
Approximately 187
DEER Measures
Overlapping Measures
POU TRM Measures
(No WP, POU Overlap)
(DEER, non-DEER, POU)
(No DEER/WP Overlap)
17
36
9
Create WP
Create Single
WP per Measure
IOU Non-DEER WPs
(No DEER Overlap)
125
Detailed Cal TF Review –
Specialized Subcommittees
Full TF
Review and Approval
Populate Statewide Electronic TRM
Ex Ante Alternative
September 24, 2015
Ex Ante Alternative:
End State
13
 Create a statewide repository for all ex ante savings
estimates and parameters
 Enable easy access to measure documentation for
industry and the general public
 Lay the foundation for a materially collaborative and
transparent technical update framework
Ex Ante Alternative
September 24, 2015
Subcommittee Deliverable
14
 Expected in draft form for October TF meeting

TF approval sought at December meeting.
 Three page executive overview document supplemented
by evidentiary appendices:


Evaluation table for current state and alternative according to predetermined criteria
Narrative form of implementation plan (slide 15)




To include timeline, proposed roles and responsibilities, and
estimated resource requirements
Technical specifications for end state electronic platform
Comparison of DOE-2.2 and EnergyPlus and case for switching to
new engine
Business case for change

Estimated cost savings from reduced inefficiencies
Ex Ante Alternative
September 24, 2015