STATE OF MAINE Docket
No. 2005- 446
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
August 17, 2005
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION NOTICE OF PROCEEDING
Proceeding to Review Goals,
Objectives and Strategies for
Conservation Programs and to
Consider Revisions to Efficiency
Maine Program Plan
ADAMS, Chairman; DIAMOND and REISHUS, Commissioners
I. SUMMARY
Chapter 380, § 3(B)(3) of our Rules requires the Commission to review, and if necessary, revise the goals, objectives and strategies for conservation programs at least every three years. In this Notice, we state our preliminary views concerning our review of the goals, objectives and strategies, as well as our views about changes to the program plan. We seek stakeholder input on all matters raised in this Notice, both in the form of written comments by Wednesday, September 7, 2005 and oral comments at a public hearing to be held at the Commission on Wednesday, September 14, 2005 at 1:30 PM. We will allow additional written comments after the public hearing, and thereafter will issue an order establishing goals, objectives and strategies and revisions (if any) to the program plan.
II. BACKGROUND
Public Law 2001, ch. 624 (the Conservation Act or the Act),[1] enacted during the second session of the 120th Legislature, establishes the terms that govern an energy conservation program for Maine. Section 4 of the Act, codified at 35-A M.R.S.A. § 3211-A, directs the Maine Public Utilities Commission (Commission) to “develop and, to the extent of available funds, implement conservation programs . . ..” 35-A M.R.S.A. § 3211-A(2). Section 3211-A(2) also provides that "[t]he commission shall establish and, on a schedule determined by the commission, revise objectives and an overall energy strategy for conservation programs. Conservation programs implemented by the commission must be consistent with the objectives and an overall energy strategy developed by the commission . . .."
III. 2002
GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES
On September 24, 2002, the Commission issued Order Establishing Goals, Objectives and Strategies for Conservation Programs Implemented Pursuant to P.L. 2001, ch. 624, Docket No. 2002-162 (Sept. 24, 2002) ("the 2002 Order"). In the 2002 Order, we stated three broad principles. The portfolio of programs must be cost effective (a threshold requirement under the Conservation Act), create sustainable improvements in energy efficiency, and meet the Act's requirements on targeting programs to customer groups and geographic areas. Id. at 3.
We established the following five goals for the Efficiency Maine programs:
1. Improve the efficiency of electric energy use by Maine residential consumers, businesses and other organizations;
2. Increase consumer awareness of cost effective options for conserving energy;
3. Create more favorable, sustainable market conditions for the increased use of efficient products and services;
4. Promote sustainable economic development; and,
5. Reduce environmental damage associated with energy use.
Id. at 5. We noted that the first goal could be achieved without an absolute reduction in electrical use. The second and third goals are contained in the Act, and assist in permanent market transformation. The fourth and fifth goals are also contained in the Act, and represent related societal goals established by the Legislature.
We adopted the following objectives, which are designed to be observable or measurable:
1. Implement a portfolio of conservation programs pursuant to a Maine energy conservation plan;
2. Implement an organizational model for administration and management of energy conservation programs;
3. Review existing utility programs and implement a transition plan by the end of 2003;
4. Create an awareness of the conservation programs and the value of energy efficiency among the general public;
5. Increase the availability of energy efficient products and services through Maine businesses; and,
6. Save a pre-defined number of kWhs through program implementation by December 2003.
Id. at 7.
We stated that the first observable objective was "perhaps obvious". As to the second, we noted the Legislature gave the Commission considerable flexibility in establishing an organizational structure to plan and deliver conservation programs. In the 2002 Order, we decided to plan and deliver programs with Commission Staff because close Commission oversight was prudent, at least through the early years of the program. We also stated, however, that after we and other participants in the programs gain expertise, we will "consider the most effective long-term organizational structure and develop a recommendation for its implementation." Id. at 8 (emphasis in original).
The third objective was achieved and is no longer relevant. We stated that the fourth and fifth objectives are concrete expressions of the second and third goals. We concluded that the fourth objective, creating public awareness, could be measured by surveys. The fifth objective, increasing the availability of products and services, could be measured through baseline and follow-up surveys with retail providers.
We described the sixth objective as a measure of the most direct and easily understood short-term result of the statewide program. The objective could be measured primarily through metering and engineering estimates associated with each program. We concluded that, when combined with sustainable market transformation and evaluations that indicate cost effectiveness, the sixth objective constitutes a measurement of statewide program success.
In the 2002 Order, the Commission proposed to employ various strategic activities to ensure that the portfolio of conservation programs would meet the goals and objectives of the conservation plan. These included:
1. Market assessment;
2. Program design and implementation;
3. Monitoring and evaluation;
4. Funding; and
5. Communication, coordination and reporting.
Id. at 9-11.
A market
assessment estimates the potential for energy savings in a particular market
(e.g., the potential for replacement of particular motors). We decided not to conduct an overall market
assessment at the time of the 2002 Order because others were currently
undertaking that task. We stated that
we would consider performing an overall market assessment later, and would
conduct targeted market assessments when necessary.
Our first program design and implementation strategy was to implement a portfolio of programs that allows all major customer groups a reasonable opportunity to participate in one or more programs. We expressed the concern that if only small numbers of customers receive direct benefits from the programs, the public may consider the statewide conservation program to be an unfair and unnecessary expense. To avoid that, we stated we would implement a wide enough variety of programs so that all customers would have a reasonable opportunity to participate in at least one program.
Our second program design and implementation strategy was to target hard-to-reach customers, a strategy that reinforced our first program design and implementation strategy. This strategy highlighted the two hard-to-reach groups that are targeted by the Conservation Act, low-income residential customers and small business customers.
Our third program design strategy was to balance direct, measurable, short-term savings with the long-term, less quantifiable benefits attained through sustainable market transformation.
Our fourth program design strategy was to encourage the development of an energy efficiency infrastructure in Maine. This strategy is necessary to meet the broad principle of transforming the market, so that efficient products are sold and used in Maine without programmatic stimuli or subsidies. Relying on local entities to deliver sales and service also would provide a form of economic development that is encouraged by the Act, 35-A M.R.S.A. § 3211-A(2)(A)(3).
We also made the general statement that a program that offers only education is considerable less effective than a program that links education with direct action, and that we would limit the level of funding allocated to purely educational programs. Instead, we proposed that all programs include an education component that complements the program activity that is undertaken to reduce, or otherwise improve the efficiency of, kWh use.
One of the necessary preconditions to influencing customers' energy-related buying and usage habits is to increase their awareness of energy efficient products and services, and of opportunities to save energy in daily activities. In order to increase the knowledge and awareness of energy efficiency by individual citizens, we proposed an overall consumer-awareness approach, through a clear "brand image" and consistent message.
Our final program design strategy was to coordinate our conservation efforts with other states. By participating in regional activities, we could use approaches and materials that have already worked elsewhere and we could benefit from relationships that regional program participants have developed with retail chains that do business in Maine.
Our stated monitoring and evaluation strategies involved developing indicators to measure a program's performance against its stated objectives. These indicators would vary among programs and could include kWh usage before and after implementation, capital costs, administrative costs, costs and savings of other resources and customers' operational savings.
We also observed that many costs and benefits are difficult to determine precisely, because historic data are not available, measurement is prohibitively expensive, or the data being measured are not easily quantifiable. We wished to avoid spending any of our limited funds to achieve unnecessary precision. Thus, we proposed to gather data at a level needed to make reasonable business decisions.
Our funding strategy constituted accounting for revenue and expenditures so that ratepayers' funds would be used in the most effective manner. We stated that we would attempt to supplement ratepayer-provided funds with grants or matching fund programs when available. We also stated that program financial incentives should be no larger than necessary to cause customers to participate. As each program proceeded, we would continually re-evaluate and revise any incentives associated with the program. An important part of this re-evaluation is the formulation of an exit strategy, whereby we end incentives altogether as the market matures and is able to operate without intervention.
Our communication, coordination and reporting strategy included our commitment to engage in ongoing public stakeholder communication, using non-adjudicatory procedures to obtain input on plan development and program design. We also committed to coordinate with other state agencies where activities supplement or complement our conservation efforts.[2] We also committed to monitor regional activities so that Maine could benefit from their experiences and to report regularly to the Legislature, describing our conservation activities.
On April 4, 2003, the Commission decided to assess all T&D utilities in the state at the statutory maximum rate, 1.5 mils/kWh, for funding conservation programs. Order on Conservation Program Funding, Docket No. 2002-162.[3] The Commission found that the potential for energy efficiency is relatively proportional across T&D service territories in Maine. The Commission also found that the achievable potential energy savings is several times greater than the savings that could be achieved at the maximum funding level, and inferred a legislative intent that, under these circumstances, we should fund at the maximum level.
On October 20, 2003, in Docket No. 2002-162, the Commission issued an Order Adopting Conservation Program Plan. The Plan described the design and portfolio of ongoing energy efficiency programs and reflected the Commission findings and orders regarding program goals, objectives, strategies, funding levels, and cost effectiveness thresholds.
The Commission initiates this proceeding to conduct the three-year review of program goals and objectives, and also to allow adequate lead time for the design of any new programs or major modifications to existing programs that will be necessary prior to issuance of RFPs, as required by Chapter 380 § 3(B)(3), for implementation contractors.
IV. PROPOSED
2005 GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND STRATEGIES
In this section, we describe our proposed goals, objectives and strategies. We welcome comments on them, including suggested additions, changes and deletions. We continue to believe in the three broad principles that we stated we would follow in developing goals, objectives and strategies in the 2002 Order. Those principles, discussed above, reflect an approach to conservation that we believed would enable us to meet the Conservation Act's long-term goals, stated in 35-A M.R.S.A. § 3211-A(2).[4] The legislatively-stated long-term goals have not changed, and neither has our view that the three broad principles reflect the best approach to carry out the legislative intent behind the Act.
A. Goals
Four of the five goals we established in the 2002 Order are contained in the Act, and therefore should not be revised. The other goal, more efficient use of electricity, established that efficiency is not the same as reduced electrical use. We believe that this distinction remains important, and driven by our reading of the Act. Therefore, we do not propose to revise that goal.
B. Proposed Program Objectives
We propose to revise our 2002 objectives as follows:
1. Review, revise as necessary, and then implement the portfolio of conservation programs pursuant to the Maine energy conservation plan.
2. Continue to build awareness of the conservation programs and of the value of energy efficiency among the general public.
3. Increase the availability of energy efficient products and services through Maine businesses.
4. Save a pre-defined number of kWhs through program implementation by December 2008.
5. Review the program administrative structure. A key question is whether we should continue to operate the programs out of the Commission, or bid out the implementation of the entire program as Vermont does and as New Jersey is in the process of doing?
While still obvious, the first observable objective of the statewide plan is to implement a portfolio of programs that conforms to the plan we develop. Each program will be designed to meet the goals and objectives of the statewide plan, and the portfolio as a whole will result in the goals being met. The plan will include a means for determining that the goals and cost effectiveness criteria have been met and that results are reportable to the public and to policy makers.
The
second and third objectives are carried over from the 2002 Order, as
they are more concrete expressions of the second and third goals, that are also
carried over. Together, the second and
third objectives contribute significantly to creating an environment for
sustained market transformation. The
second objective - building public awareness of conservation programs and
the value of efficiency - will continue to be measured through surveys.[5] The third objective - increasing the
availability of products and services - will be measured through follow-up
surveys with retail providers, to compare with baseline surveys to see whether
the Efficiency Maine program is providing greater opportunity for consumers to
purchase more efficient products.
The fourth objective - to save a targeted number
of kWhs by programs implemented through the next review period (December
2008) - remains the most direct and easily understood measure of the short-term
results of the statewide program. We
will continue to measure primarily through metering and engineering estimates
associated with each program. When
combined with sustainable market transformation and evaluations that indicate
cost effectiveness, this objective provides a comprehensive measurement of
statewide program success. We propose
to set savings targets for each program as we review and revise our program
designs.
C. Strategies
1. Market Assessment Strategies
In the 2002 Order, we decided not to perform an overall market assessment at that time, because others were already performing that task. More recently the Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnership has concluded a survey which corroborates the findings of Office of the Public Advocate's study in 2002-162. We see no reason to conduct an independent study at this time.
2. Program Design and Implementation
Strategies
We remain committed to the strategy of implementing a portfolio of programs that allows all major customer groups a reasonable opportunity to participate in one or more programs, because all T&D utility customers contribute to the Conservation Fund.
The second program design and implementation strategy included targeting two hard-to-reach groups (low-income residential and small business customers) as directed by the Act.
The goals expressed in the Conservation Act require us to remain committed to the third program design strategy - to balance immediate primary results with longer-term secondary results. Each of our programs must balance direct, measurable short-term savings with the longer-term, less quantifiable benefits obtained through sustainable market transformation.
The fourth program design strategy - to encourage the development of an energy efficiency infrastructure in Maine - remains necessary to meet the broad principle of transforming the market. Local entities that deliver sales and service also provide a form of economic development that is supported by the Act.
The fifth program strategy - to assess utility programs - is now moot, as all utility programs have been redesigned into Efficiency Maine Programs.
We remain committed to the program design strategy of integrating customer education efforts into all programs to promote changes in buying habits and energy usage behavior. Educating customers is a fundamental requirement of a program that must create a sustainable market transformation. However, the energy savings programs that offer only education are considerably more difficult to document than savings from programs that link education with direct action. We continue to believe that we should limit the funding of purely educational programs, and that we should design all programs to include an education component that complements the program activity.
We
also confirm the program design strategy to implement an overall marketing
effort that develops a clear broad image for our programs, supports program
implementation, and increases public awareness of the benefits of energy
efficiency. For this reason, we
developed the brand name of "Efficiency Maine."
Coordination of conservation efforts with other states is encouraged by the Act. We have participated in regional activities since 2002, saved money by sharing advertising and development costs, and benefited from using materials or implementing programs developed elsewhere in the region. We propose to include a program design strategy to participate in regional activities
3. Monitoring
and Evaluation Strategies
Tracking and evaluation criteria include information necessary to determine whether a program is cost effective and meets other objectives specified in its design. For each program, we committed to develop indicators to measure performance against stated objectives. We also indicated, however, that we wished to avoid expending the limited funds available on unnecessary precision. Thus, we concluded that we would gather data at a level needed to make reasonable business decisions. We propose to retain our monitoring and evaluation strategy unchanged from the 2002 Order.
4. Funding
We propose to retain our strategy concerning funding unchanged from the 2002 Order. We committed to account for revenue and expenditures to ensure that ratepayers' money is handled in a fiscally responsible manner, that utility rates appropriately reflect Conservation Fund activity, and that there are funds available to meet contractual agreements. We tracked and reconciled conservation program assessments and the amount of revenue customers contributed through rates. We also implemented accounting procedures to track and predict cash flow and to track expenditures on each program as well as costs not attributable to individual programs. We propose to maintain this funding strategy.
We
also propose to continue to supplement ratepayer-provided funds with grants for
energy conservation activities. We have
pursued several of these including grants from the US EPA, US DOE, US DA, and
the Kendall Foundation.
We reaffirm our strategy of setting
incentive levels at the minimum needed to accomplish program objectives. This strategy requires us, as each program
proceeds, to continually re-evaluate and revise its incentive. As part of this re-evaluation; we should
determine an exit strategy, whereby we end incentives altogether as the market
matures and is able to operate on its own.
5. Communication, Coordination and Reporting
We remain committed to a strategy of using non-adjudicatory procedures to obtain stakeholder input on plan development and program design decisions. Using these procedures, we obtain written and oral comments through public hearings, informal meetings and responses to proposed orders. Indeed, we are using this procedure to review our goals, objectives and strategies.
We also will continue to coordinate our conservation efforts with related activities of other state agencies, such as the Maine State Housing Authority, Maine's Bureau of General Services, Maine Department of Education, and Maine's Department of Environmental Protection. Similarly, we will continue to monitor national and regional activities when they can assist the Commission in meeting its goals and objectives.
More detail on each program can
be found in the Conservation Program Plan and in the Efficiency Maine Annual
Reports to the Legislature, both available on the Commission and the Efficiency
Maine websites.
V. EFFICIENCY
MAINE'S PROGRAM PLAN
A review of our conservation program goals, objectives and strategies should, in our view, be accompanied by a complete review of the programs that have been implemented to achieve the goals and objectives. We should assess whether the portfolio of programs is achieving the desired effect. To the extent our goals and objectives change, or particular programs are judged to be failing to achieve them, we should add or subtract programs from the portfolio. An assessment of each program in our portfolio follows.
Low Income Appliance Replacement Program:
The Low Income Appliance Replacement program is a
collaborative effort between the Maine PUC and the Maine State Housing
Authority (MSHA) to deliver services that reduce low-income consumer electric
bills through energy efficiency. The
program is administered by MSHA under a Memorandum of Understanding with the
Commission and is delivered by the state’s Community Action Programs (CAPs) under
contract to MSHA. The program helps install
energy efficient refrigerators and lighting in the homes of qualified
low-income consumers and responds to the mandate in section 3211-A that we
target at least 20% of the total conservation program fund to low-income
customers. For three years program
activity has been very close to the 20% expenditure directive and has produced
approximately 8% of total program energy savings.
Residential
Lighting Program:
The Commission’s Residential Lighting
Program started in February 2003. The
program is tied to the ENERGY STAR ® brand, which is a combined United States
Department of Energy (US DOE) and United States Environmental Protection Agency
(US EPA) effort to raise consumer consciousness of environmentally beneficial
products. The goal of the program is to
create a market for efficient lighting in Maine.
The market transformation aspects of this program require
significant promotional efforts, including spots on television and radio, print
advertisements and news releases in home improvement sections of
newspapers. Efficiency Maine has
participated in the Augusta, Bangor, Lewiston/Auburn, and Portland home
shows. The Program has partnered with
fixture manufacturers to supply lighting for three Habitat for Humanity homes
within the State. There are 164 retail
stores across the State participating in the program. Studies conducted by the Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships
(NEEP) and others[6] continue to
show that lighting presents the largest pool (approximately 50%) of cost
effective electric energy savings potential in the residential sector
Business
Program:
The Efficiency Maine “Business Program” serves a variety of customers who may have similar equipment requirements. The statutory requirement to target 20% of program spending on small businesses is met by tracking the number of small businesses that participate in the program rather than by trying to develop a special offering tailored to small business needs. The Program also serves commercial & industrial, existing schools, agricultural, and local and county government sectors. The program design incorporates incentives useful to each sector. For example, incentives of prescribed amounts up to $5,000 are available to small businesses with no pre-approval required. Larger businesses, or those seeking awards of more than $5,000 must submit applications for pre-approval of incentives. Pre-approved incentives may be taken from the prescribed list, or may be calculated individually by project. The program uses a common implementation contractor to minimize administrative costs. Incentive levels are developed by reviewing industry standard practice and developing performance criteria for the equipment that will be eligible for incentives.[7] In addition, we review other programs in the region that are awarding rebates and incentives for similar equipment to ensure that the Efficiency Maine program is working in concert with other efforts.[8]
The program is delivered by Program Allies, who are the manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers, and contractors that work with Efficiency Maine to promote, install, and service energy efficient equipment. This method of delivery was chosen because Efficiency Maine has a small staff and because these are the individuals to whom customers normally reach out for service. The 225 businesses that serve as Program Allies are an important part of the program’s market transformation effort. Efficiency Maine’s incentives in turn, help the Allies to get the customer’s attention. For this reason, frequent training programs on new products and incentive updates are provided to the Allies.
The Program communications plan includes monthly e-mail newsletters to Program Allies and a quarterly newsletter that highlights projects, Program Allies, and technical information. The newsletter is sent to a statewide list of businesses and associations, as well as to Program Participants and Program Allies. The Efficiency Maine website provides paperless access to the pre-established incentive list, applications, and technical resources as well as a searchable database of Program Allies available throughout the state. The Geographic Information System (GIS) linked database allows customers to easily locate Program Allies whose businesses are within a prescribed radius of their location.
High Performance Schools:
Efficiency Maine’s High Performance Schools Program captures the
efficiency gains that are available in the construction of the five to ten new
public schools built in Maine each year.
A new school construction program was implemented because new school
buildings are the most significant outlay of public funds for new
construction. New schools are designed
to last at least 50 years so building them to high standards of energy
efficiency avoids many years of higher than necessary operating costs. Through better design and construction
practices, schools can reduce their annual operating costs by up to twenty-five
percent while improving occupant comfort at the same time.
The program is a partnership of the Maine Department of Education (MDOE), Bureau of General Services (BGS), and the Maine School Management Association (MSMA). The State Energy Program and the United States Department of Energy are also involved with a grant to help MSMA promote the program. The partnership of these agencies ensures that the program’s goals are considered at the very beginning of the process that leads to new schools being built in the State. Multiple studies have shown that the initial stages of commercial building design are the best time to incorporate energy efficient features. Seventeen schools are now involved in the program and are in various stages of planning and development.
Education
and Outreach:
The statute charges the Commission with operating programs that increase consumer awareness of options for conserving energy and that create more favorable market conditions for the increased use of efficient products and services. To accomplish this goal, Efficiency Maine activities include an educational component, with programs directed at various energy-using sectors of the State’s economy. They are described below:
Building Operator Certification
Efficiency Maine has hosted nine
Building Operator Certification (BOC) programs and trained over 250 building operators. The BOC is a trademarked curriculum that
provides a comprehensive overview of building systems to building
operators. Northeast Energy Efficiency
Partnerships (NEEP) is licensed to conduct the BOC training and provides it to
students who are recruited by Efficiency Maine. The bulk of BOC attendees in Maine have been public school
facility managers. We targeted this
group because they supervise many buildings whose operating costs are paid
through state and local taxes. Reducing
building operating costs, extending building lives, and improving occupant
comfort in this sector bring many benefits beyond simple energy savings,
although the latter are substantial.
Electricity use in commercial and government buildings can be reduced by
15% or more if building operators manage and maintain their structures and
building systems more effectively. In
an effort to distribute benefits as widely as possible and to provide better
opportunity to participate, the courses have been spread geographically across
the State in Portland, Bangor, Presque Isle/Houlton, Calais, York, Augusta, and
Auburn.
A survey of those who have taken the course indicates that 84% have improved the comfort or productivity of their building’s occupants or reduced energy costs from what they learned through the course. Based on a recent program evaluation conducted jointly with other BOC sponsors, the average savings experienced in facilities managed by BOC graduates was 174,337 kWh, and 3,700 gallons of oil. The final evaluation can be viewed on the Efficiency Maine website at http://www.efficiencymaine.com/pdf/BOCfinalreportdelivered.pdf
School Programs
Two classroom energy education
programs are funded through the conservation fund. The Maine Energy Education Program (MEEP) provides education on
energy issues to kindergarten through twelfth grade students in central and
southern Maine, and a program operated by Maine Public Service Company offers
educational programs in the northern part of the State. Both programs strive to increase consumer
knowledge of energy efficiency by providing school children with information on
electricity production, its use and conservation at home and at school, and the
effects of energy use on the environment and the economy.
In our program plan proceeding in Docket 2002-162, many individuals
commented that consumer education is an integral part of market
transformation. Although measuring the
energy savings effects of these programs is difficult, the Commission continued
both of these long-standing programs as part of Efficiency Maine’s ongoing
education and market transformation efforts.
In addition, the Commission contracted with the Maine Math Science
Alliance to report on what would be required to develop a comprehensive
curriculum that could be promoted more widely and reach more students than the
current efforts. The report's
recommendations were to: design a curriculum for each grade level (K-2, 3-4, 5-8, and 9-12); embed assessment
activities into the curriculum; introduce the curriculum materials with strong
professional development; and demonstrate the viability of the materials to the
teachers. The proposed cost ranges
between $300,000 and $480,000. Before initiating this project, we conducted
surveys and focus groups to determine whether material developed for this
purpose would be widely used by teachers. A randomly selected focus group of 14
teachers concluded that 8 of 14 teachers would use the material if it were
designed for short, self contained curriculum units focused either especially
on energy topics or woven into other curriculum areas such as mathematics or
economics. The material would have to
include activities appropriate for various levels of learning ability, and be
kept current on topics and research.
Finally, educators expressed a need for background materials,
professional development opportunities, and access to expertise. To view the "Teacher Focus
Group's Results and Recommendations" for the MPUC's Efficiency Maine
Program (proposed electrical energy curriculum) click on the following web
address:
http://www.efficiencymaine.com/pdf/FinalFocusReportforPUC7-14-05.pdf
Professional Training
Efficiency Maine is developing a training catalog to serve the needs of various energy-using sectors. The BOC courses, described above, are treated separately due to the eight-day time commitment required. Other course offerings include one to two day workshops and trainings in the following areas:
· Training in motor system management. One-day workshops teach management of motor systems for reduced energy cost and increased reliability. Our target audience has been water and wastewater operators. The course is offered in Partnership with the United States Department of Energy’s (US DOE) Industrial Technologies Program (ITP) and the Joint Environmental Training Committee (JETCC).
· Training in pumping systems. One-day workshops cover practical issues involved in field measurements of fluid and electrical data and present the Pump System Assessment Tool (PSAT) used to assess the performance of pump systems. The target audience for this training session is professional engineers, water and wastewater operators. This course too is jointly offered with US DOE’s ITP.
· Training in compressed air systems. One-day class demonstrates how to compute the cost of compressed air systems, how to measure and create a baseline of system performance, and how to determine the impact of different compressor control types. This course also is offered in cooperation with US DOE’s ITP program.
· Optimization of HVAC performance. Two-day program to provide the tools to design, operate and maintain energy-efficient chilled water and air distribution systems, resulting in optimum HVAC system performance. Target audience is professional engineers, and architects. The course is offered through the Association of Energy Engineers (AEE).
· Advanced Lighting Program. A half-day workshop on new concepts in energy efficient residential lighting and design. The target audience is residential building contractors. Offered in partnership with the United States Department of Environmental Protection’s ENERGY STAR program.
· Certified Energy Manager training. One-week course designed to serve the needs of facility energy managers. The course provides training on a broad range of energy management projects and on the economic analysis necessary in order to evaluate whether to proceed.
To make the programs more attractive and useful to the target audiences, the Commission has established Continuing Education Units (CEUs) and is working with the Maine Chapter of the American Institute of Architects and Maine Board of Professional Engineers to market the courses to their members. We are also working with the Joint Environmental Training Committee (JETCC), Maine School Management Association, Maine Chapter of the Association of Heating Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), Maine Association of School Business Officials, Maine Municipal Association (MMA), Maine's Homebuilders & Remodellers Association, Maine Water Utilities Association, Maine Rural Water Association and other organizations.
Sponsorships
Conference and event sponsorships were not specifically discussed during Docket 2002-162 in the development of the conservation program plan. Such sponsorships provide the opportunity to increase consumer awareness and create more favorable market conditions for efficient products and services. Jointly funded conferences and workshops are also in keeping with the Commission’s funding strategy to leverage ratepayer funds with other sources.
State Buildings
The Commission continues to work with the Bureau of General Services (BGS) to address inefficient energy use in State owned buildings. A grant from the Conservation Fund assisted with the installation of more efficient lighting, heating, and ventilation at the Baxter School for the Deaf in Portland. An audit of all State owned buildings was conducted to prioritize which facilities would be most attractive for efficiency upgrades. Lighting upgrades have been installed at 20 facilities, saving 142 MWh/yr with a net present value over measure lives of $112,000. A guaranteed savings performance contract has been entered into for the Maine State Prison Facility in Warren Maine. The contract is for nearly $1 million and will result in measures that produce $250,000 per year in avoided energy cost and operational savings. Five other buildings in the Augusta area have been closely examined and determined to have high feasibility for a shared savings contract.
Partnerships
The Conservation Act directly charges the Commission with monitoring conservation planning and program development activities in the region and around the country (35-A M.R.S.A. § 3211-A(2)(D)). The Commission may also coordinate its program delivery efforts with similar efforts in other states in the northeast region for joint planning or program delivery. See 35-A M.R.S.A. § 3211-A(2)(I). To this end, the Commission has joined as a member of the Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP), and as a sponsor of the Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE). Membership in NEEP has provided direct assistance to the Commission in developing its Building Energy Codes model rule and also in the generation of its Appliance Standards report. Participation in the NEEP initiative working groups has allowed the Commission's Efficiency Maine program incentives and offerings to be more successful by remaining in step with other market transformation efforts in the northeast. Participation in CEE has enabled our Energy Program Division staff to stay informed of the latest information on technology efficiencies and product baseline data.
VI. MARKET
POTENTIAL, PROGRAM OPPORTUNITIES, AND BUDGET ISSUES
In the investigation that the Commission
conducted to implement the ongoing (as opposed to interim) conservation program
plan (Docket No. 2002-162), the Commission requested the parties to file
studies on the economic potential for energy efficiency in Maine. Maine’s Office of Public Advocate (OPA)
filed two studies: “The Technical Potential for Electric Energy Conservation in
Maine” by Exeter Associates, and “The Achievable Potential for Electric
Efficiency Savings in Maine” by Optimal Energy Inc.
Exeter Associates looked at electric end
uses throughout the commercial, institutional, and residential sectors, and
estimated the amount of energy efficiency available assuming each device were
replaced by its most economically efficient counterpart at the end of the
device's life. The Optimal study was an
analysis of the electric energy efficiency achievable through programs. While Exeter examined the end uses
individually, the Optimal Energy study grouped the various end uses into
discrete market groups (e.g. residential new construction, low-income,
etc.).
Optimal based much of their market penetration
assumptions on observed achievements by Efficiency Vermont in its early program
years. In the residential customer
segment, Optimal examined three different program markets:
·
Residential New Construction: the opportunity
for builders and home-buyers to invest in efficiency upgrades at the time a new
home is being built and outfitted with appliances and lighting;
·
Products, appliances,
and equipment replacement: the opportunity to encourage efficient
purchase decisions so that when the consumers are already in the market to buy
a new piece of equipment, they are persuaded to purchase a high rather than a
standard efficiency model; and
·
Low-income retrofit: the opportunity
to go to low-income homes and either add efficiency measures or replace
inefficient equipment.
The Optimal Study also examined three different program
markets for the commercial customer segments:
·
Equipment replacement
and remodel: the opportunity to encourage efficient
purchase decisions when consumers are already in the market to install new
energy using equipment (e.g. replacement on failure).
·
Commercial New
construction and renovation: the opportunity for builders and developers
to invest in efficiency upgrades at the time a new commercial or industrial
facility or addition is being designed and built or renovated.
·
Retrofit: the opportunity
to encourage discretionary decisions to replace existing equipment solely to
reduce operating costs (e.g. early retirement of lighting).
Table
5 of the Optimal study (summarized below) displays the cumulative benefits,
costs, net benefits, and benefit cost ratios that would result from running
five of the six “programs,” assuming funding at $15 million - the maximum level
allowed by law - over a period of ten years.
Because program funding was constrained, Optimal did not include Commercial
Retrofits as a program activity. In any
event, equipment that would be replaced in a retrofit will eventually need
replacement anyway and can be captured in an equipment replacement type of
program.
|
Optimal Study Achievable Potential: $15 Million Annual Budget Thousands of 2003 Dollars |
||||
|
SECTOR/MARKET |
Benefits |
Costs |
Net Benefits |
B/C Ratio |
|
RESIDENTIAL |
|
|||
|
New Construction |
$19,588 |
$13,477 |
$6,140 |
1.46 |
|
Lighting, appliances |
$44,882 |
$31,802 |
$13,080 |
1.41 |
|
Low Income |
$22,130 |
$18,009 |
$4,122 |
1.23 |
|
COMMERCIAL |
|
|
|
|
|
New Construction |
$60,088 |
$52,218 |
$7,870 |
1.15 |
|
Equipment replacement |
$63,947 |
$31,891 |
$32,056 |
2.01 |
|
Retrofit |
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
$210,636 |
$147,368 |
$63,268 |
1.43 |
The
projected cumulative energy savings available through implementation of these
programs was provided as Table 4 of the Optimal report and is represented
graphically below.
Programs
adopted by the Commission and described in Section V above address most of the
recommendations made in the report of Optimal Energy Inc. Two opportunities identified by Optimal
Energy were not included in the Commission’s final Program Plan. The Commission did not adopt the residential
or commercial new construction programs - primarily because the actual
Conservation Fund Budget was less than the $15 million per year budget assumed
in the Optimal report,[9]
and also because the Efficiency Maine staff at the time consisted of only three
people.
The
graph below compares the total cumulative annual energy savings projected in
the Optimal Energy report to the estimated savings from actual Efficiency Maine
program activities to date.[10]
The current portfolio of programs has been successful
compared to initial expectations. The
programs have achieved better than expected penetration ratios and an overall
estimated benefit to cost ratio of 1.9.[11]
The charts below
indicate that the distribution of program funds among current programs meet
legislative requirements. The
Conservation Act requires a target of 20% of program spending towards
improvements in energy efficiency in both the Low-Income and Small Business
sectors, with the remaining amount of funding apportioned among customer groups
and geographic areas in a manner that allows all other customers to have a
reasonable opportunity to participate in one or more conservation
programs. During the operation of the
Efficiency Maine “Interim Programs,” the Commission separately labeled the
“Small Business,” “Commercial and Industrial,” “Agricultural,” “Municipal,” and
“Existing Schools” programs. In the
transition from interim to full-scale programs, the Commission merged these
separate categories into a single generic “Business” program with special
offerings for each of the target groups.
The program database continues to track expenditures on “small” business
customers to ensure that the Program meets the statutory requirements of
spending at least 20% of total funds on this group.
|
Interim Program Spending – FY’03 |
|||||||||
|
Low Income |
State Buildings |
Residential
Lighting |
Traffic Signals |
Commercial |
Small Business |
New Schools |
BOC |
Education |
Other[12] |
|
$200,000 |
$0 |
$205,194 |
$200,000 |
$0 |
$179,290 |
$0 |
$69,257 |
$8,500 |
$77,582 |
|
Program Spending – FY’04 |
|||||||||
|
Low Income |
State Buildings |
Residential
Lighting |
Traffic Signals |
Commercial |
Small Business |
New Schools |
BOC |
Education |
Other[13] |
|
$748,578 |
$304,288 |
$617,333 |
$24,405 |
$443,957 |
$1,431,104 |
$54,538 |
$57,800 |
$77,479 |
$162,642 |
|
|||||||||
|
Low Income |
State Buildings |
Residential
Lighting |
Traffic Signals |
Commercial |
Small Business |
New Schools |
BOC |
Education |
Other[14] |
|
$1,480,328 |
$214,390 |
$1,637,482 |
$0 |
$1,385,259 |
$1,285,163 |
$92,747 |
$95,830 |
$105,969 |
$285,781 |
The
geographic dispersion of program benefits for each program offering can
be viewed in the 2004 and 2003 Efficiency Maine annual reports to the
Legislature.
Projected program
spending shown in the chart and table below was taken from the 2004 Efficiency
Maine Annual report to the Legislature and updated to account for CMP’s most
recent Power Partner contract cost estimates.
The projection incorporates the most recent estimates of available
funds. Spending is estimated by first
allocating 20% each to the low-income and small business sectors
and with the rest allocated among remaining programs based on current
expectations for program activity.
These projections do not contemplate any change in the menu of programs
the Commission is currently providing.
Current Program Expectations |
|||||
|
|
2005 |
2006 |
2007 |
2008 |
2009 |
|
Low Income |
$1,480,328 |
$2,362,833 |
$2,637,440 |
$2,925,513 |
$3,110,088 |
|
Residential Lighting |
$1,289,450 |
$1,600,000 |
$2,100,000 |
$2,050,000 |
$2,300,000 |
|
Small Business |
$1,887,739 |
$2,362,833 |
$2,637,440 |
$2,925,513 |
$3,110,088 |
|
Commercial & Industrial |
$2,503,287 |
$3,200,000 |
$3,250,000 |
$3,250,000 |
$4,000,000 |
|
Public Facilities |
$307,137 |
$1,267,000 |
$1,000,000 |
$1,000,000 |
$1,000,000 |
|
Education & Outreach |
$250,000 |
$450,000 |
$600,000 |
$600,000 |
$600,000 |
|
Administration |
$400,000 |
$450,000 |
$600,000 |
$600,000 |
$930,000 |
|
Market Research |
$50,000 |
$236,450 |
$220,000 |
$200,000 |
$200,000 |
|
Total |
$8,167,941 |
$11,929,116 |
$13,044,879 |
$13,551,025 |
$15,250,177 |
The decision on whether to modify or eliminate
existing programs or to add new programs rests in part on the findings made in
this investigation. In deciding on
whether to add new programs, it is important to consider the financial resources
available with which to run the program.
One possible way to estimate the funding available for future programs
would be to freeze spending at current levels for some existing programs[15]
and to use the expected program spending escalation rates assumed by Optimal
Energy for the programs included in their study. Since the current programs are still in their initial stages,
this approach has the advantage of including the natural “ramp rate” seen by
Optimal in other such programs. The
table below shows how spending under such a program approach might look. Low income and small business programs are
each allotted 20% of the expected revenues. The residential lighting program
and the C&I program are allowed to grow annually at the rates contained in
the Optimal study of 11 and 25 percent respectively.
Program Expectations Optimal Growth Rate |
|||||
|
|
2005 |
2006 |
2007 |
2008 |
2009 |
|
Low Income |
$1,480,328 |
$2,362,833 |
$2,637,440 |
$2,925,513 |
$3,110,088 |
|
Residential Lighting |
$1,289,450 |
$1,431,290 |
$1,588,731 |
$1,763,492 |
$1,957,476 |
|
Small Business |
$1,887,739 |
$2,362,833 |
$2,637,440 |
$2,925,513 |
$3,110,088 |
|
Commercial & Industrial |
$2,503,287 |
$3,129,109 |
$3,911,386 |
$4,889,232 |
$6,111,541 |
|
Public Facilities |
$307,137 |
$307,137 |
$307,137 |
$307,137 |
$307,137 |
|
Education & Outreach |
$250,000 |
$250,000 |
$250,000 |
$250,000 |
$250,000 |
|
Administration |
$400,000 |
$400,000 |
$400,000 |
$400,000 |
$400,000 |
|
Market Research |
$50,000 |
$50,000 |
$50,000 |
$50,000 |
$50,000 |
|
Total |
$8,167,941 |
$10,293,201 |
$11,782,134 |
$13,510,887 |
$15,296,330 |
Such an approach would provide the following amounts
with which the Commission could operate a new program. Due to assumptions regarding the growth of
the C&I and residential lighting programs, the amount of money available
for new programs shrinks each year. To
preserve a steady level of funding for new programs, the Commission would need
to also freeze spending on these two programs.
|
|
2006 |
2007 |
2008 |
2009 |
|
Available |
$1,520,964 |
$1,405,065 |
$1,116,677 |
$254,112 |
V. PROGRAM OPPORTUNITIES
The Commission seeks comment on
the conduct of its existing programs as well as ideas for new program
initiatives. We request that
individuals or organizations making such recommendations address how the new
program meets the goals, objectives, and strategies we have developed for our
current programs. Suggestions that have
already been made for each of our current programs are discussed below
Existing
Programs:
Low
Income Appliance Replacement Program:
As
stated earlier, the Commission funds the implementation of a low-income
appliance replacement program administered by Maine State Housing Authority
under a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Commission. The Conservation Act directs the Commission
to acquire service providers through a competitive bid process, but allows
exceptions for delivery of programs to low-income consumers. For this market sector the Commission may
use the delivery system for the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) for
Low-Income Persons Program administered through US DOE. For the purpose of this program, the
Commission has defined low income using the poverty guidelines in the US DOE
and US HUD weatherization and LIHEAP programs.
The Commission has relied on the administrative structure the Maine
State Housing was already using to administer the US DOE WAP program.[16] We seek comment on:
·
Whether to combine this method of
delivery to deliver other services to this customer classor whether some other
method of delivery for current services and any others suggested is more
efficient;
·
Whether it is appropriate to
consider replacement of electric hot water and space heating systems in
conjunction with this program;
·
Whether the current definition of
low income customer continues to be appropriate for this program; and,
·
Whether we should make any other
changes to this program.
Residential
Lighting Program:
Studies
of economically achievable energy efficiency conducted in Maine and elsewhere
continue to indicate that residential lighting has the greatest potential for
cost-effective energy savings of all residential end uses. To date, the Commission has only lightly
promoted this program in order to remain comfortably within program
budgets. The Commission seeks comment
on possible options for this program, including more aggressive marketing of
lighting products, changes in delivery mechanism, or the addition of other
residential appliances.[17]
Business Program:
The
Commission’s business program (including both “small” and large businesses)
comprises about 50% of the total program budget and so far, has captured
approximately 60% of total program energy savings for FY’05. This program has the potential to expand
rapidly with increased promotion,[18]
but we have been conservative in our program promotions to prevent outstripping
program budgets. The Commission seeks
comment on possible options for this program including:
·
Adding an energy audit component
to the program. Under the program’s
contractor/ally delivery mechanism, consumers sometimes do not know where to
start when they consider making energy improvements. Energy audits can help such individuals prioritize their
investments. Efficiency Maine
contractors have referred such customers to the State Energy Program (SEP) for
free walk through audits that can often help, but the referrals have the
potential to outstrip the Federal funds available to pay for the audits. In addition, some customers may want audits
that are more sophisticated than the walk through audits. We seek comments on whether the Commission
should allow transfer of funds from the conservation fund to the SEP to pay for
audit referrals. In many cases, the
type of information provided through such audits is all that the business needs
to get going. In addition, should the
Commission develop a program component for a more sophisticated audit that
would perhaps require a customer contribution?
Other jurisdictions have programs in which more sophisticated audits are
initially paid for by the customer and then, upon taking actions recommended in
the audit, the customer is refunded the audit cost.
·
Changes to the incentive
structure. Efficiency Maine’s current
incentive structure caps the maximum allowable financial incentive at $50,000
per customer per year. For many of the
State’s largest consumers, this level of funding does not provide an incentive
that is adequate to generate energy savings projects. If the incentive structure is changed to allow for larger
incentives, how should the Commission define the class of customers eligible
for larger incentives? What should the
maximum incentive level be? How can the
Commission prevent all of the available funds from being spent on only a few
customers?
High Performance Schools:
As
mentioned above, the MPUC’s High Performance Schools program is unique among
new construction programs because its partnership with other State agencies
that are intimately involved in the construction of school buildings allows the
Commission to intervene early and effectively in the process. New rules regarding school construction
have been enacted since the inception of this program. 20-A M.R.S.A. §15908-A "School Energy
Efficiency Standards Rule" directs the Maine Department of
Education and Bureau of General Services to adopt rules that increase the
energy efficiency of new public buildings to more than 20% of the commercial
building energy codes. This change in
State law raised our baseline for calculating programmatic savings. Despite this "raising of the bar,"
we have concluded from our reviews of new schools that adequate cost effective
energy savings remain to continue the program.
The Commission does seek comment on a number of possible options for
this program including:
·
Commissioning component.[19] There have been several suggestions that
program funds should be used to assist building owners with the cost to
commission buildings. We seek comment on this idea. In particular, we ask for comment on how one
should measure the performance or cost effectiveness of a service whose purpose
is to ensure a building operates the way that it should.
·
Elimination of LEED Certification
grant. We seek comment on whether the
Commission should retain the component of this program that awards up to
$10,000 to assist new schools in the cost of achieving LEED certification. While it is possible the certification
process may cause school owners to pursue energy efficiency opportunities more
keenly, energy efficiency is only one part of achieving LEED certification and
it is difficult to show that conservation funds spent in this manner will
achieve energy savings. We also question
whether the grant to assist with LEED certification may create false
impressions or confusion about the goals of this program.
·
Greater focus on design. The shift in baseline caused by changes to
State law has forced an increased emphasis on the use of architectural features
(e.g. daylighting) to improve building energy performance. A common remark among architects and
engineers participating in the HPS program is that the grant for more energy
efficient design does not provide enough compensation to spend the time
necessary for truly efficient designs.
Because they do not receive the design fee until the final project
proposal has been accepted, designers feel they must expend considerable
un-reimbursed time manipulating designs and cost-effectiveness calculations to
achieve grant-driven (versus good school design-driven) goals. Designers universally say there is no
practical connection between the $20,000 award and either their level of effort
or the end school design. We seek
comment on whether a greater amount of funding should be shifted to the
building design process and if so, how to quantify the value of the
architectural features. We also
question whether we should, as is done in some jurisdictions, retain a design
consultant to recommend to A&E firms advanced designs while cutting against
the program objective of building local industry capability?
·
Process oriented program. The E-Benchmark for Maine,[20]
the Massachusetts Collaborative for High Performance Schools, and other new
building programs seek a collaborative approach to building planning, design,
and construction. We seek comment on
whether a reward for this type of approach should be built into our program
design, and if so, how it could be justified in terms of energy savings.
Education
and Outreach:
35-A
M.R.S.A. § 3211-A(2)(A) directs the Commission to promote programs that
increase consumer awareness and create more favorable market conditions for
energy efficient products and services.
The Commission’s current education and outreach efforts are described
above. Our current budget projections
for activities in this area are that approximately 5 percent of the fund will
be devoted to expenditures in this area.
We seek input on whether this level of funding is appropriate. Questions for each of the topical areas are
listed in order below.
Building
Operator Certification: The Commission has
directed the course and offered it to school building operators across the
state free of charge. Every publicly
funded educational facility has had at least nine opportunities to enroll its
building superintendents in this course.
In addition, we are now expanding our efforts to include water
districts, municipalities, and other institutions whose operating revenues are
generated through State and local taxes.
We will continue to subsidize the tuition for all such entities. By lowering their operating costs, program
benefits will be extended even to attendees who do not directly participate in
other programs. We are also attempting
to market the course to private sector businesses at reduced levels of tuition
subsidy. We seek comments on whether we
should continue to expand the scope of this program.
School
Programs:
The current level of program effort devoted to educating grade school
students is described above. Commission
staff has reviewed the Maine Math Science Alliance report, describing the
development of an energy curriculum tied to the Maine Learning Results with
initial development, promotion, and training costs of $300,000 to $480,000. The ongoing annual costs of the
support activities requested by educators are unknown at this point. Based on the responses provided in the focus
groups, it remains unclear how extensively the program would be used by
educators. Due to the limited
availability of funds and uncertain use of the product, it is our intent not to
proceed with a curriculum development process at this time. We intend to maintain the activity of
in-school programming currently being provided by the Maine Public Service and
Maine Energy Education Programs. We
seek comments on whether this or some other level of educational activity is
appropriate.
Professional
Training:
We seek comment on our approach to professional training. In particular, we are interested in whether
there is general agreement that this activity should be a component of the
activities funded through the conservation program fund. We would also appreciate guidance on whether
there are other groups we should approach and with which we should and what
topics to offer to create lasting change in energy behavior.
Sponsorships: As mentioned above, sponsorships for
conferences and workshops were not specifically discussed during initial
program planning efforts. We seek
comment on whether interested persons agree with our interpretation of our
responsibilities under the Act in this area and whether we should continue to
fund the activities. We are also
interested in what other efforts should be conducted in this area.
State
Buildings:
We
intend to continue to work with Maine’s Department of Administrative and
Financial Services’ Bureau of General Services to develop guaranteed savings
performance contracts that will allow the State to self-fund energy
improvements at State facilities.
Although it would be possible to direct money from the fund to purchase
efficiency improvements for State facilities outright, we believe the
development of performance-based contracts is more consistent with the
directive that we effect lasting market transformation. We seek comment on whether others believe
this is the right approach.
Partnerships
Our
current level of involvement in the Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships
(NEEP) and the Consortium for Energy Efficiency (CEE) represents one-half
percent of our expected program budgets.
These expenditures allow us to “monitor conservation planning and
program development activities in the region and around the country.”[21] We invite comment on this level of
involvement and method of monitoring.
Potential
New Programs:
As
indicated above, if current levels of program spending are held constant for
certain programs, and the ramp rates assumed in the Optimal study are assumed
for others, approximately $1.5 million would be available for new program
expenditures in FY’06. This amount
would decrease to $1.4 and $1.1 million
in FY’07 and FY’08 respectively, and finally be reduced to $254,000 in
FY’09. Additional responsibilities
mandated by the 122nd Legislature would consume available funds and
staff time. New responsibilities
include implementation of a solar incentive program (up to $500,000/yr.),
enforcement of appliance efficiency standards, and education and enforcement of
building energy codes ($100,000/year).
The Commission is currently authorized to add one staff position to its
energy program division whose responsibility will be to implement all of the
new legislative mandates. Therefore
given current funding and staff resources, the Commission will need to
carefully consider whether it wishes to add any new programs to its
portfolio. Programs that could be
considered are described below. We seek
comment on whether such programs should be initiated.
Residential New Construction:
The report of the Office of Public Advocate’s consultant, Optimal Energy Inc., on achievable economic potential recommended a new home construction program as a way of increasing energy efficiency while attaining market transformation. In the report, Optimal estimated the program would cost approximately $600,000 annually in its first few years increasing to $1.5 million per year after 10 years and averaging a benefit to cost ratio of 1.46 to 1 over its life. The program would assist builders and buyers in creating homes that are resource-efficient, less expensive to operate, comfortable, durable, healthy, models for national best practice and possessed of a high resale value.
The
program would work by increasing the market share of ENERGY STAR rated homes
through promotion, and by providing technical assistance services and training
opportunities for builders. The program
could also provide financial incentives for recommended approaches and
equipment.
Commercial
New Construction:
OPA’s consultant also recommended adoption of a commercial new construction program. Optimal estimated such a program would cost approximately $1.5 million in its first year of operation rising to $9 million per year after 10 years and averaging a benefit to cost ratio of 1.15 over the ten year study period. Construction, major renovation and tenant fit-up of buildings provide critical opportunities to embed enduring energy efficiency in the built environment. The program would work by engaging all principals (architects, engineers, developers, building owners, etc.) of new construction projects and assisting them in setting project performance goals and collaborating with them during the design and construction process to provide resources that enable the achievement of the goals. Support services would include customized comprehensive design assistance, financial incentives, plan review, energy analysis, and direct outreach.
Existing
Homes Program:
Rising
energy prices have created an increased interest in home weatherization and
insulation services. Other states
(e.g., NY and VT) with programs similar to Efficiency Maine have teamed with US
EPA to offer “Home Performance with ENERGY STAR.” This program provides training and certification of contractors
on all aspects of a home and treats the house as a system. Certified contractors are listed on
databases and web pages (e.g., the program and US EPA websites). Based on projections for similar programs
elsewhere, we estimate that such a program could be implemented for about
$200,000 in a first year effort and expand to about $500,000 annually over a
five-year period. Since most of the
housing in Maine is heated with fossil fuels, the benefit to cost ratio for
this program could be uncertain in terms of electricity savings, but the
program might also be combined with efforts by any gas utilities or oil dealers
who would like to promote efficiency services or products to their customers.
Manufacturing
Program
Many
of Maine’s largest manufacturing businesses have been slow to utilize the
current business programs. Reasons
stated for this include the complexity of their manufacturing operations,[22]
and the current incentive award cap of $50,000 per customer per year. One possibility for this group might be to
maintain the current program structure, but with a larger incentive award for
businesses beyond a certain size. If
such an approach were taken, the Commission seeks comment on how to define
customers that could participate in such a program component and also, how to
prevent the number and size of incentive awards from overwhelming program
budgets.
Advanced
Lighting Package
An ENERGY STAR Advanced Lighting Package
is a construction option that can be selected by homebuyers to upgrade fixtures
commonly used in new homes with quality
high efficiency, ENERGY STAR qualified models.
The residential building contractor would receive the incentive to
purchase the fixtures.
VIII. EVALUATION AND MARKET RESEARCH
In October 2005, the Commission’s “Ongoing” energy conservation programs will mark their first full year of operation. Aside from a joint evaluation of the Building Operator Certification Program,[23] and market data being gathered through our implementation contractors in the residential lighting and business programs, the programs have not been formally evaluated. The Commission seeks comment on whether it is appropriate to begin evaluation activity on any of its programs at this time, or whether more time should be allowed before contracting for a formal evaluation. If parties believe some more formal evaluation activity is appropriate at this time, we seek comment on how such efforts should be prioritized.
IX. PROCEDURE
FOR REACHING DECISIONS
The Commission issues this Notice to obtain comments from interested persons regarding the goals, objectives, and strategies for the Efficiency Maine's program plan and any ideas for new programs. Interested persons should submit written comments to the Commission's Administrative Director, 242 State Street, Augusta, Maine 04333-0018, no later than September 7, 2005. Comments should refer to this docket number.
A public
hearing will be held on Wednesday, September 14, 2005 at 1:30 PM at
the Commission's offices at 242 State Street, Augusta, Maine, 04333. At the hearing, the commission will pursue
matters introduced in the written comments,[24]
and persons may offer additional comments on goals, objectives and strategies,
as well as on the current or future portfolio of programs. Follow-up written comments may be submitted
no later than Friday, September 23, 2005.
Please notify the Commission if reasonable special accommodations are needed to make the hearing accessible to you, by calling 287-1396 or TTY 1-800-437-1220 at least 48 hours before the hearing.
The Commission will consider the comments and will issue a final Order establishing goals, objectives, and strategies for Efficiency Maine, and an updated program plan sometime after September 23, 2004.
A copy of this Notice of Proceeding will be sent to the service list of Docket No. 2002-162.
Dated
at Augusta, Maine, this 17th day of August, 2005.
BY
ORDER OF THE COMMISSION
_______________________________
Nancy
A. Goodwin
Acting Administrative Director