6. Setting energy efficiency Verified TESTIMONY CLAIMANT’S goals and/or targets (4/27/15): We presented evidence that for Ex. 32 (Stamas), pp. 8-14 (portraying three of the four IOUs, their declining savings IOUs project for projected energy savings are 2105-17, with exception of SoCalGas; declining and urged the noting the many other jurisdictions that Commission to set savings set savings goals; noting benefits of goals or targets for ESA so that setting savings goals) the program becomes more Ex. 41 (Robbins), pp. 2, 16-18 effective at delivering BRIEFS: effective energy savings. To CLAIMANT’S support this recommendation, Opening Br.(7/13/15), pp. 6-12; Reply we also provided evidence Br.(8/4/15), pp. 4-8 regarding the extent to which FINAL DECISION, D. 16-11-022 similar low-income energy (11/21/16): efficiency programs set energy savings goals or targets. (p. 6): A program change for the “key ESA program is to establish an overall portfolio energy savings target…” testimony provided by (p. 42): “In NRDC et al. the groups independently and proactively collected a sample of other LIEE programs to determine the prevalence of energy savings goals in similar programs. We applaud the thoughtfulness and initiative set forth in this effort and appreciate their serious review of comparable programs.” (p. 46): clarify that today we are “[W]e adopting an energy savings target (as opposed to an energy savings goal)… TURN and NRDC et al. have provided a thorough and rigorous analysis that has influenced this decision. These parties should also be recognized for the forward thinking approaches they have brought to the discussion…..” (p. 50): response to comments on “In the proposed decision, the targets have been adjusted upwards to match the savings targets first proposed by the utilities in their applications.” [NOTE that NRDC et al. submitted those comments, on 9/6/16.]
6. Setting energy efficiency goals and/or targets We presented evidence that for three of the four IOUs, their projected energy savings are declining and urged the Commission to set savings goals or targets for ESA so that the program becomes more effective at delivering energy savings. To support this recommendation, we also provided evidence regarding the extent to which similar low-income energy efficiency programs set energy savings goals or targets. CLAIMANT’S TESTIMONY (4/27/15): Ex. 32 (Stamas), pp. 8-14 (portraying declining savings IOUs project for 2105-17, with exception of SoCalGas; noting the many other jurisdictions that set savings goals; noting benefits of setting savings goals) Ex. 41 (Robbins), pp. 2, 16-18 CLAIMANT’S BRIEFS: Opening Br.(7/13/15), pp. 6-12; Reply Br.(8/4/15), pp. 4-8 FINAL DECISION, D. 16-11-022 (11/21/16): (p. 6): A “key program change for the ESA program is to establish an overall portfolio energy savings target…” (p. 42): “In testimony provided by NRDC et al. the groups independently and proactively collected a sample of other LIEE programs to determine the prevalence of energy savings goals in similar programs. We applaud the thoughtfulness and initiative set forth in this effort and appreciate their serious review of comparable programs.” (p. 46): “[W]e clarify that today we are adopting an energy savings target (as opposed to an energy savings goal)… TURN and NRDC et al. have provided a thorough and rigorous analysis that has influenced this decision. These parties should also be recognized for the forward thinking approaches they have brought to the discussion…..” (p. 50): “In response to comments on the proposed decision, the targets have been adjusted upwards to match the savings targets first proposed by the utilities in their applications.” [NOTE that NRDC et al. submitted those comments, on 9/6/16.] Verified effective
180084975.docx