PD and APD should ensure Working Group should continue to meet that evaluation occurs at the in identify measures that should be program level using the included or excluded from the Adjusted test, was taken ESACET calculation. 89-97 into account in the final Ordering Paragraphs 54-56 (p. 462) Decision. Cost Effectiveness Working group build on mid-cycle work and continue it following series of directives outlined in Decision. Appendix B: Copy of Working Group white paper, to which NRDC substantially contributed. 1/12/2015, p. 22 Verified ESA Program NRDC Protest, Measures and Energy Ex. 32 NRDC Sponsored Testimony: Savings Evaluation (Stamas) pp. 18-20; Ex. 44 (Dryden) Process NRDC Opening Brief, 7/13/2015, pp. 27-33 on new measures NRDC provided energy and NRDC Comments on PD/APD, cost savings data on Tier 2 9/6/2016, pp. 8-10. Advanced Power Strips, FINAL DECISION, D. 16-11-022: contributing to the of Commissions’ full adoption Findings of Fact this updated measure. NRDC p. is reasonable to mandate 403, 28: “it also successfully advocated for switch to LEDs and away from CFLs as full phase-in of LEDs without soon as possible” delay and installation of thermostatic tub spouts. NRDC p. 403, to approve Tier 29: “reasonable also highlighted the need to set 2 power strips” a basic common core set of p. 403, 34: to authorize a “reasonable measures across utilities. common core set of ESA Program NRDC also highlighted the measures” need to increase the amount of stakeholder input and review of Conclusions of Law impact evaluation studies and p. 413, 17: should offer “IOUs the need to provide more replacements of second refrigerators” consistent savings values for p. 414, 27, 28: approving LEDs existing and new measures over time. p. 415, 30: Tier 2 power strips CoL 101: impact evaluation plan will be
PD and APD should ensure that evaluation occurs at the program level using the test, was taken into account in the final Decision. Working Group should continue to meet in identify measures that should be included or excluded from the Adjusted ESACET calculation. 89-97 Ordering Paragraphs 54-56 (p. 462) Cost Effectiveness Working group build on mid-cycle work and continue it following series of directives outlined in Decision. Appendix B: Copy of Working Group white paper, to which NRDC substantially contributed. ESA Program Measures and Energy Savings Evaluation Process NRDC provided energy and cost savings data on Tier 2 Advanced Power Strips, contributing to the Commissions’ full adoption of this updated measure. NRDC also successfully advocated for full phase-in of LEDs without delay and installation of thermostatic tub spouts. NRDC also highlighted the need to set a basic common core set of measures across utilities. NRDC also highlighted the need to increase the amount of stakeholder input and review of impact evaluation studies and the need to provide more consistent savings values for existing and new measures over time. NRDC Protest, 1/12/2015, p. 22 NRDC Sponsored Testimony: Ex. 32 (Stamas) pp. 18-20; Ex. 44 (Dryden) NRDC Opening Brief, 7/13/2015, pp. 27-33 on new measures NRDC Comments on PD/APD, 9/6/2016, pp. 8-10. FINAL DECISION, D. 16-11-022: Findings of Fact p. 403, 28: “it is reasonable to mandate switch to LEDs and away from CFLs as soon as possible” p. 403, 29: “reasonable to approve Tier 2 power strips” p. 403, 34: “reasonable to authorize a common core set of ESA Program measures” Conclusions of Law p. 413, 17: “IOUs should offer replacements of second refrigerators” p. 414, 27, 28: approving LEDs p. 415, 30: Tier 2 power strips CoL 101: impact evaluation plan will be Verified
182427432.docx