benchmark multifamily properties EPA’s Portfolio Manager. through EPA portfolio manager, beginning with master metered buildings.” Ex. 43 (Wells), p. 7. BRIEF (7/13/15): CLAIMANT’S Opening Br., pp. 55-56. FINAL DECISION, D.16-11-022 (11/21/16): (p. 208): direct the utilities to “We benchmark multifamily properties through Environmental Protection Agency portfolio manager beginning with master metered buildings.” 5. Cost effectiveness TESTIMONY Verified CLAIMANT’S screening and threshold (4/27/15): We urged the Commission to Ex. 32 (Stamas), pp. 17-18 (seeking adopt the Cost-Effectiveness Commission guidance on inputs into cost-effectiveness calculations and a Working Group’s proposals regarding a screening timeline for resolution, and guidance on threshold. how non-energy benefits [NEBs] should be calculated). BRIEFS): CLAIMANT’S Opening Br. (7/13/15), pp. 18-21; Reply Br. (8/4/15), pp. 8-10. FINAL DECISION, D.16-11-022 (11/21/16): (pp. 211-221): Summarizing the efforts of the Cost-Effectiveness Working Group and the various parties’ position regarding the establishment of a threshold of 1.0; directing the “ESACET Working Group to continue to meet,” and providing guidance on the tasks that the Working Group should complete and a timeline for doing so; approving NEB study.
EPA’s Portfolio Manager. benchmark multifamily properties through EPA portfolio manager, beginning with master metered buildings.” Ex. 43 (Wells), p. 7. CLAIMANT’S BRIEF (7/13/15): Opening Br., pp. 55-56. FINAL DECISION, D.16-11-022 (11/21/16): (p. 208): “We direct the utilities to benchmark multifamily properties through Environmental Protection Agency portfolio manager beginning with master metered buildings.” 5. Cost effectiveness screening and threshold We urged the Commission to adopt the Cost-Effectiveness Working Group’s proposals regarding a screening threshold. CLAIMANT’S TESTIMONY (4/27/15): Ex. 32 (Stamas), pp. 17-18 (seeking Commission guidance on inputs into cost-effectiveness calculations and a timeline for resolution, and guidance on how non-energy benefits [NEBs] should be calculated). CLAIMANT’S BRIEFS): Opening Br. (7/13/15), pp. 18-21; Reply Br. (8/4/15), pp. 8-10. FINAL DECISION, D.16-11-022 (11/21/16): (pp. 211-221): Summarizing the efforts of the Cost-Effectiveness Working Group and the various parties’ position regarding the establishment of a threshold of 1.0; directing the “ESACET Working Group to continue to meet,” and providing guidance on the tasks that the Working Group should complete and a timeline for doing so; approving NEB study. Verified
180084975.docx