CALMAC MEETING

January 29, 2001

Minutes

ATTENDEES

Athena Besa – SDG&E, Out-going Chair

Joy Yamagata – Sempra

Bill Miller – PG&E

Marian Brown – SCE

Catherine Cordova – SoCal Gas

Craig Tyler – SoCal Gas

Jim Green – SoCal Gas

Noah Horowitz – NRDC

Chris Ann Dickerson – PG&E

Marylou Sutton – PG&E

Michael Rosauer – CPUC/ED

Mike Wan – PG&E

Valerie Richardson – PG&E

C.K. Woo – e3 (Energy and Environmental Economics, Inc.)

Tory Weber – SCE

Zenaida Tapanwan-Conway – CPUC/ED

Ann Primo – CPUC/ED

Lynn Marshall – CEC

Monica Rudman – CEC

AGENDA

1. CALMAC Chair Rotation for PY2001

2. Update on Statewide Studies/MAESTRO

3. Presentation on Avoided Costs Multipliers

4. Discuss Draft/Alternate PD Comments on Utility Specific Studies

5. Reporting Requirements

DISCUSSION

1. Valerie Richardson--PG&E, will serve as the CALMAC Chair for PY2001

2. Marylou Sutton—PG&E, provided an update on the MAESTRO activities to date. MAESTRO has hired a contractor to begin scoping work on establishing a market/actor contact tracking database. The database will help minimize over-contacting large nonresidential customers. The MAESTRO Project Managers are moving forward with statewide work that is carried-over from last year’s evaluation plan. Finally, MAESTRO is currently updating the Quarterly Report via the MAESTRO Project Tracking database.

3. C.K. Woo – e3 presented study results commissioned by PG&E which entailed taking a second look at developing multipliers for generation avoided cost. C.K.’s conclusions: multipliers e3 derived are consistent with those presented in the CALMAC workshop report from October 2000 and used to calculate avoided costs for the existing PY2001 program application. C.K. recommends using the consistent multiplier of 4.1 on-peak and 1.8 off-peak over the next five years. He then recommends dropping to 2.0 on-peak and 1.5 off-peak beyond 2010. For years in between 2005 and 2010, C.K. recommends using a linear interpolation.

4. Regarding the CPUC comments on Statewide Specific studies. The utilities asked for more clarification on whether changes to statewide write-ups were required in the 60-day deliverable mentioned in the PDs. The ED folks stated that the CPUC is giving the utilities flexibility on making necessary changes given the policy direction and updates to the Statewide studies should go in the quarterly report.

The utility spokespersons unanimously stressed that they need more flexibility in how they approach planning and implementing MA&E as a whole (statewide and utility specific.) The MA&E activities need to be flexible with the programs. Sometimes it is necessary to shift budget from one study or study area to provide more resources to a study or study area that requires more support. This is how budgets and plans were determined and managed in the past. The utilities also sought clarification regarding whether the PDs’ comments withholding approval of utility specific work also included the performance indicator studies from OP76 and the segmentation database tracking needed for Hard-To-Reach tracking since funding for these were included in the utility specific studies. There was also a concern as to the continued relevancy of these studies given the focus on resource programs. ED folks suggested changes utilities make to the evaluation plans and budgets that reflect changing priorities.

SDG&E raised the issue regarding what is the process for filing our modified utility specific plans. She stressed that CALMAC should come up with a schedule for a workshop/process for presenting the new plans. The question was also raised as to what is the normal process for submitting items for approval that are non-compliant (i.e., studies per OP76.) ED’s recommendation is to make sure plans support the final decision. ED also stated if the need arise, the utilities should make recommendations to deviate from studies that were established to comply with Ops.

PG&E expressed the desire to provide details of utility specific projects in the Quarterly reports as the projects are developed and to provide broad descriptions of major areas of data collection in the plans. However, PG&E will provide as much detail that is available in the plans with the provision that plans may need to change as studies are designed.

In regards to developing a process for presenting the plans for public review and how to file the modified plans, CALMAC recommends the following:

n Hold workshop to discuss utility specific evaluation plans at next meeting, February 21, 200,

n Post discussion documents on CALMAC website no later than February 14, 2001,

n Produce a workshop report that covers public comments and includes utility plans as attachment to CPUC.

Other items discussed related to MA&E plans:

PG&E asked for clarification on PDs’ comments regarding ORAs role in the verification of utility programs. ED perceives ORAs verification to consist primarily of audits on utility tracking systems.

Measurement and verification for Summer Initiative (SI) programs. The utilities are conducting a comprehensive evaluation of the Pools SI Statewide program. The utilities and ED agree that all other SI programs will rely on some sort of do-diligence checking of program tracking data from third-party implementers.

5. Monica Rudman reported on CEC measurement and verification activities in support of AB970. The CEC is currently finalizing M&V plans. They will have plans unique for each program. For TPI – will conduct do-diligence on estimates provided from implementers; LED – will rely on engineering estimates; Cool Communities – will evaluate based on savings per square foot using engineering, will also do some research to test assumptions; Price Responsive – will have Schiller do audit of sample of participants to measure savings, will be looking for five minute load data from utilities; Wastewater – post-installation audits. Schiller will do a substantial amount of the evaluation work. CEC would like to coordinate on data collection involving actual metering work.

6. Reporting Requirements. ED states they do not have any Ops instructing them on what to do regarding reporting or workshops. ED requests for 2001 AEAP:

n Pre-98 reporting requirements format (RRM1) remains unchanged from last AEAP reporting.

n Report all applicable budget and energy savings tables in RRM2 format with the 14 buckets itemized, use the suggest format submitted at CALMAC.

n Report all applicable cost-effectiveness tables in RRM2 format, no change from last AEAP reporting.

ED will review reporting requirements with ORA for their input. ED would like comments on hand-out in order to develop straw-man of new guidelines by February 2, 2001. The utilities stressed that if changes are not final prior to April 15, 2001 it will be too late to incorporate changes into the May AEAP Filing.

Finally, PG&E requests to submit the Pre-98 DSM Monthly Expenditure Report (OP4 ) as modified by OP16 quarterly with the quarterly status report.