climate zones where EC work best, as proposed by SCE, and directing SCE to phase out EC as an ESAP measure. TURN urged the Commission to retain EC because high efficiency EC can reduce energy consumption and lower bills for low-income customers more than efficient CAC in certain climate zones. TURN also suggested that the pros and cons of EC, including the safety risks identified by the APD, should be discussed between ESAP contractors and residents before an EC is installed. In response, the Commission modified the APD to direct SCE to offer households the opportunity “to elect either air conditioning or an evaporative cooler after receiving energy education on air conditioning as compared to evaporative cooler electricity and water use, maintenance, operational needs (e.g. an open window for evaporative cooler operation), and demand response program that end, the Commission capability.” To directed the IOUs to develop a “electric brochure in order to give customers the ability to make this informed choice rather than approving automatic exchange of air conditions with evaporative and coolers,” provided guidance on the contents of that brochure. ESAP Energy Savings Goal Verified D.16-11-022, pp. 46-48 – (discussing the influence The Commission relied on the “thorough of TURN (and and provided by TURN rigorous analysis” NRDC/NCLC/CHPC) on (and also NRDC/NCLC/CHPC) in the Commission’s reaching the conclusions adopted in analysis) regarding the role of an energy savings target or goal in ESAP. The D.16-11-022, p. 52 Commission also adopted specific TURN’s (“TURN’s four-step approach to developing an energy recommendation for a savings goal for application to ESAP in the four-part approach to future. developing this energy savings goal is reasonable In addition to showing on this TURN’s and timely, and issue, as presented in rebuttal TURN’s complements the decision testimony, opening brief, reply brief, and at to initiate the shift to an oral argument, TURN also assisted the energy savings program by Commission in developing the record on adopting [an interim this issue by facilitating the Commission’s energy savings target].”
climate zones where EC work best, as proposed by SCE, and directing SCE to phase out EC as an ESAP measure. TURN urged the Commission to retain EC because high efficiency EC can reduce energy consumption and lower bills for low-income customers more than efficient CAC in certain climate zones. TURN also suggested that the pros and cons of EC, including the safety risks identified by the APD, should be discussed between ESAP contractors and residents before an EC is installed. In response, the Commission modified the APD to direct SCE to offer households the opportunity “to elect either air conditioning or an evaporative cooler after receiving energy education on air conditioning as compared to evaporative cooler electricity and water use, maintenance, operational needs (e.g. an open window for evaporative cooler operation), and demand response program capability.” To that end, the Commission directed the “electric IOUs to develop a brochure in order to give customers the ability to make this informed choice rather than approving automatic exchange of air conditions with evaporative coolers,” and provided guidance on the contents of that brochure. ESAP – Energy Savings Goal The Commission relied on the “thorough and rigorous analysis” provided by TURN (and also NRDC/NCLC/CHPC) in reaching the conclusions adopted in regarding the role of an energy savings target or goal in ESAP. The Commission also adopted TURN’s specific four-step approach to developing an energy savings goal for application to ESAP in the future. In addition to TURN’s showing on this issue, as presented in TURN’s rebuttal testimony, opening brief, reply brief, and at oral argument, TURN also assisted the Commission in developing the record on this issue by facilitating the Commission’s D.16-11-022, pp. 46-48 (discussing the influence of TURN (and NRDC/NCLC/CHPC) on the Commission’s analysis) D.16-11-022, p. 52 (“TURN’s recommendation for a four-part approach to developing this energy savings goal is reasonable and timely, and complements the decision to initiate the shift to an energy savings program by adopting [an interim energy savings target].” Verified
182752276.docx