All right. So for those of us who maybe joined a little
bit late. Um we kind of switched things up. We were
doing non-ERCOT in the first batch and then ERCOT. But
El Paso Electric had some travel woes. So CenterPoint
already has gone in uh to present a great research
study. Now, we're excited to see El Paso and then we'll
come back to the ERCOT. All right, great. Uh (item:3.1:38578, Crystal with El Paso Electric discusses their programs) Good morning
everybody. You guys aren't missing much, okay. Um I'm Crystal,
I'm with El Paso Electric. I've been in the department
now for over 8 years. Uh with me, I have my supervisor
(inaudible) over there and then my colleague, Don Johnson right
there on the front row, on the end there. Um so if
you wanna go ahead and get started. So as I mentioned
we aren't missing a whole lot. There are not a lot of
changes to our 2023 projections. The one change that
I want to highlight for both our budget and our energy
and kWh savings. Is we did reduce our projected energy
and demand savings for our residential Load Management
program. One of the key reasons that we went ahead
and did this is when we originally did those projections.
We were offering the demand response pre-enrollment
through our marketplace 365 days a year. However, in
order to maintain, to contain our budget within that
program. We have to limit that feature to our customers.
As a result, we saw a decrease in savings and we project
to continue to see that decrease in energy savings
and not so much demand savings. It will start
to grow and stuff. But after that first year, we saw
a little bit of a dip. Um and that was a result
of the uh thermostats that first year. When we first
elected to go ahead. So in 2022 we decided to reduce
the, the DRPE number of days. The OEMs would
not offer the same promotions to the customers. If they
didn't have the DRPE option available to them. Um
that was something that took place in the first year
in 2021 and then it got corrected as we moved through
2022. So we did see a drop off in the savings. Um
but we wanted to chew them up and you'll see that in
our filing this year.
Some of the things that are coming in 2024 and 2025.
Is for the most part, everything is going to stay the
same. We are in the process of launching our AMS.
So we want to stable, stable as we prepare for 2025
to come around. So one of the things that we are looking
at to do. Is to start to consolidate some of our programs
and we're going to do that in 2024 in our commercial
programs. We're going to be consolidating our large
commercial solutions program and our score program.
Our score program is geared towards the schools, government
sector, public sector. And then the large commercial
is everything that has an average demand greater than
100 KW. So we're primarily serving the same sector
there. So we're going to just go ahead and combine
that into one program. We will still keep our small
commercial solutions program. Which is all commercial
customers with an average demand less than 100 KW.
On the residential sector again, no major changes there.
Um the biggest change is going to be our educational
programs right now. We have the Futurewise Educational
program which is new. It is geared towards the high
school students. And then we have the Livingwise program
which is geared towards fifth grade students. Um those
are two different kits. They offer different measures
that go to the schools and then to the homes. And energy
efficiency measures get installed by the students and
they uh return surveys and stuff back to us. We're
gonna go ahead and combine that into just one program.
With just two different kit offerings um, all in the
up to minimize admin costs. Um and then one of the things
I'm really excited about in our area is to start a
midstream distributor program, that's going to take
place in 2025. And we want to have that available for
all commercial classes or not commercial, for all classes.
Um, primarily the equipment that we're looking to target
is going to be your commercial grade kitchen equipment.
Any like home appliances, um HVAC units, those hard
equipment um that it might be easier at a point of
sale discount. As opposed to utilizing an energy uh
service provider. I'll talk about that a little bit
more. So we're excited about that in 2025.
All right, 2022 successes that we wanted to talk about.
Um as I mentioned, our residential Load Management
Program. When we relaunched it in 2020, it was like
a runaway train. Um it moved through its budget the
first year and it exceeded it 2nd year. We adjusted
the budget and it continues to exceed the budget. So
as I mentioned, we went ahead and put some restrictions
in that program to slow it down. So one of the things
that we saw, even with those restrictions. We still
saw over 8 megs of demand savings, which is still
20% over what we originally projected. Our energy savings
was significantly lower at 492,000 kWh, with that
restriction in place. Um we only allow the DRPE for
114 days last year. Um so that's where we saw
that drop off from the prior year where we had 2.6
million in energy savings from the solid smart thermostats.
Um so for just for 2023 for information sake, um we
actually have the DRPE open. And that'll stay open
from January 1st through the end of July. And then
we'll shut it down again. As a result of that, we had
projected a budget of $453,000 in 2022. As I said, we
exceeded it. We were at $538,000 and that was with the
restrictions that were in place in 2022. But as we
anticipated, we were going to see those savings shift
on over into our residential marketplace. So that was
a big win for us. Because we did gain a lot of
energy savings there. As you can see from 2021, we
went from $2.2 million to almost $3.2 million. That was
all primarily driven by the shift in the thermostats
going over to the marketplace and those cost shifting
over to that program. But one of the other things that
we also saw, we saw an increase in demand in the marketplace.
And that right there was driven by the energy star
purifiers. That was a new product added to our marketplace
last year. It is one of our most popular measures um
on the marketplace aside from lighting. So for the
marketplace itself, all sales pretty much stayed flat.
And so our increase came from the new product of the
energy star purifiers and the shipped in thermostats
from the Load Management into the marketplace. Um so
we were well below our budget there. But when you combine
the two budgets together, we were at 95% of the total
of those two programs.
What does DRPE stand for? Demand Response Pre-enrollment.
Yeah. So when they're in the marketplace and they're
looking at purchasing a new thermostat. They have may
have entered the marketplace either through our Energy
Wise, which is the residential Load Management, uh
web page itself. And there's an option there where
they can select that I have my own device. So they
go BYOD option or I need a device. And
then they, that will direct them back to the marketplace.
Where they can select the thermostat, and then it'll
give them their $50 rebate for the purchase of the
smart thermostat. And then they can elect at that point
in time to automatically enroll that thermostat into
the Energywise program and they get an additional
$25. So, is that kind of what you meant by, you said
that pushed him over, rolled him over something into
the. Yes. The thermostat sales are they still in the
program or you're shifting them out of the program?
So yeah. What, what we still will happen to see that what
we see happen is so we're not allowing them. So if
they're now in the marketplace and they're purchasing
a smart thermostat. They may be doing that with the
intent to enroll on our thermostat. Right. But they can't
do it automatically anymore through the marketplace
because we turn off that feature. So they still purchase
their thermostat. So now they're getting the rebate
for the marketplace, and then we'll see a separate transaction
later through the Energywise program. Where they go
the BYOD route and now we're only paying them
a $25 incentive. So, um we eliminated the $50 expenditure
from the Load Management Program. And we made it unfortunately
a little bit more difficult for the customers, but
they want to participate they go the extra steps.
So you're not hiding it from them. You're just taking
away the $50 benefit? It's still available, they just have to
make an extra step to enroll. It's just moving the
expenditure to another program. Oh, okay. All right,
thanks.
And just for 2023, I didn't put on the slide. But we
do have a new product coming out as well. That's going
to be the TSRVs are going to be
added to the marketplace. That's going to be available
for our customers that do have electric heating, electric
water heating. It's not a large population within our
service territory. However, it is something we want
to make available to the customers. So that will be
new in the 2023 marketplace, that's fixing to launch.
(inaudible)
(inaudible). Yes.
Thank you Pete for asking, because I wanted to know too.
So, so yeah. It's a device that helps to conserve water
and while the water is heating up, um it kind of slows
the water flow to dribble. Um so that you're not just
you know, wasting cold water and stuff, so it heats
up and then you can do it manually. I believe there's
some automatic ones as well. So once it's a set point
it will go ahead and release.
All right, some of the opportunities that we saw this
year. I, I can't sit and cheer real happy with our
programs this year. We did finally start to see the
impacts of the pandemic and inflation and everything
start to hit our programs this year in El Paso. Um
one of the ones that we saw, was in our commercial Load
Management program. And that was quite shocking actually
that's been a very stable program. It's been fully
subscribed for many years. Um we were in dire need
of that program here in early June, uh this past Summer.
Um but due to um inflation, there are some inflationary
issues and the supply chain issues. That actually caused
one, one of our participants, one of the larger ones their
generator failed. They were not able to get the parts
in, in time for the season. And as of today, they still
do not have their parts in. So they were not able to
participate in the program. And then we also had a
manufacturer who threw out COVID with the supply chain
issues. Was expressing his concern about, you know,
not being able to fully operate and stuff and not knowing
if he could hit his demand and stuff. He finally uh
their operations were finally relocated over the border
to Mexico to save cost. Um so we've lost two participants
there and we're kind of still on the edge of the 3rd one.
So we saw a significant decrease as you can see here. Our
demand was down 7.6 megs um or we achieved 7.6 mags
down from the 12.3 in 2021. And that was for the most
part, a pretty stable number that we were seeing above
10 megs in that program. Now, we are looking to recruit
new uh participants in the commercial Load Management
program. Um so that when we have those long stressful
days, um we have that Load that we can depend on. Our
educational programs as well. The Livingwise programs
specifically, we did not launch our Futurewise program
um due to some delays last Fall, like we had anticipated.
However, we saw teacher attrition in our educational
program. We had approximately 50% less teachers um
participate in the program this past year, as compared
to prior years. Um and that was due to a large retirement
teachers not returning to the workforce. So we're in
the process of teacher recruitment, at this point in
time. I am reaching out to the school um reeducating
and trying to build that trusted relationship that
we had with the outgoing teachers and stuff to rebuild
that program. Um so we saw about a 50% decrease in
savings in that program as well. One of the cool things
that we're excited about in the educational programs
that's going to be new in 2023. Is the behavioral savings
that we're looking forward to cleaning for the temperature
setback. So part of the programs, both the high school
and elementary school programs. The students are taught
about looking out their water heaters, seeing where
the temperature is set at, you know. The opportunity
to save energy there and then also on the thermostats
themselves. So they can adjust the thermostat and both
water heater and HVAC side of it. To save energy and
stuff and that comes back through surveys and stuff.
So those are the savings that we're looking forward
to claiming is the behavioral aspect of it. In that
program which we haven't done historically. And then
also coming some new opportunities in both our commercial
and residential programs. Is we have an energy efficiency
hotline. I'm sure most of you guys may have this as
well. Um we receive a lot of calls from our customer
base. It may be a small business commercial entity
or it may be a residential home owner. Where they've
been advised by their energy efficiency service provider
who is enrolled in our program. Um to reach out to us
for energy efficiency rebates after it's been installed.
Okay. So we've had a lot of missed opportunities, some
upset customers not being able to receive incentives
and rebates. Um so we have got or just incentives just
in general. So we're gonna go ahead and start to expand
the rebate offering to our customers. To provide them
you know, the benefit because they are making this
making a decision to go with high-efficient equipment.
Under the expectation that they're going to get an
incentive from El Paso Electric, but they're not receiving
it because the process isn't changed. So we're going
to go ahead and change that some in our area.
Any questions?
So did anybody talk about the fact that you had less
commercial Load management? You could have replaced
them with all those enthusiastic residential that you're
making it hard on. Am I the only one that sees the
irony there? Uh we are still replacing them, but we
have to keep in mind that we do have our cost cap.
So we are above the cost cap and both the residential
side of it and on the commercial side as well. So we
are trying to maintain that. And so we have to be able
to monitor our budgets and kind of control that at
this point. Because this is the sort of thing that we're
talking about, I think is it. That the cost cap does apply
to each of those categories independently. Yes. So you can't
add it all together and make up for commercial and
the residential side? No. Okay. So that's, that's interesting.
Thank you. Um, one other point. Um, just so that El Paso
doesn't feel they've been on the hot seat for that.
It's my understanding at CenterPoint or correct me
if I have this wrong. You all also have had to, you
have more demand than you can meet for your residential
program. So they also have had to not grow it as exponentially
as you could. So it, it's throughout the territory.
So El Paso just uh really had to take some steps this
particular time.
All right, we got nothing else. Thank you guys. Thank
you, Crystal.
(clapping)
I think it's Oncor, right? I think so. Yes, Oncor.
Gary, Dean.
(silence)
(item:6:38578, Jean Perez with Oncor to discuss their energy efficiency portfolio) Good morning, everyone. My name is Jean Perez,
and I'm here on behalf of Oncor Electric Delivery. To talk
about our energy efficiency portfolio. In the room
with me is Gary Jones, our Director as well as Paul
Jack, our Operations Manager. I specifically called
out their names. Such as if there are any questions
I can't answer. They will be (inaudible).
Next slide please. For 2023, um we are expecting $52.21
million in uh budget. That includes incentives, admin
costs, R&D as well as EM&V. Um this
will is forecasted to generate 215.95 megawatts as
well as 294,270 Megawatt hours. Um I don't have, we
have the results of our program year 2022, not including
the EM&V and that is due to be filed this
Friday, March 31st. Next slide, please. So for 2023 and 2024
specifically for 2023, we are offering 19 programs.
These programs include standard offer as well as market
transformation programs. New in 2023, we are offering
the low-income A/C tune-up or specifically the cool saver dedicated
to the low-income population. As well as the smart thermostat
program specifically for the multi-family sector. Um
we are within the (inaudible). We are chunking it into
three sectors specifically driven by great codes as
well as which market it caters to. The benefit of that
is we are able to dedicate a specific budget to each
sector. So on the (inaudible) you'll see it as a smart thermostat
multi-family offering, smart thermostat low-income multi-family,
as well as a smart thermostat (inaudible) Program. Uh
in 2024, we have a different program expansions but
specific to 2023. The low income A/C tune-up, as well as
the smart thermostat program is (inaudible) portfolio.
Next slide please.
Energy efficiency is constantly changing every year,
I think everyone in this room is familiar to it. Utilities
are familiar with it are implement their stakeholders.
It's really driven by customer behavior the way we
approach our business and even the amount of savings
that we generate from lighting. What's new this year
in 2023, where a majority of the utilities have really
shifted their focus is the ISA 2007 baseline lighting
standards. As of March 1st, we can now only claim it
at the tier two baseline level, which essentially means
that majority of the savings that we used to see from
the retail products program for lighting is now at
a 30%. Um at least I think on a smattering of skews,
you'll see it differently. One, you'll see a 30%
realization the other. You'll see a 70% overall within
that specific space. You do see a hit on 30 per uh
you will only see a 30% realization rate for your lighting
savings Which means that starting in 2024, for our
retail products program. We are no longer offering
lighting, we are still offering it this year. Um as
we continue to scale down the lighting measure specific
to our residential retail products program. Of course
the other change that has also affected utilities and
the way we do business is the shift from (inaudible)
(inaudible) through HVAC. Um essentially what that means
is increasing baseline. But what is not apparent within
program processes as well as the way you talk to our
customers is how you're able to compare both. Because
you use your (inaudible) replacement, which has a different
baseline. And of course, you're now installing it with
the (inaudible) equipment. Um which also has uh a different
baseline as well. Now state our state evaluator, Frontier
we have several stakeholders that has helped us identify
how that impacts our customers. But at the end of the
day, it is it, would be very imperative for me
to not call on the fact that. Within the first 3
years of our operation in 2023, several of our discussions
from (inaudible) change out specific to the residential
home energy efficiency program are hard to reach
HVAC platforms. Have a lot of our conversations has
happened to that. What does this mean? What, what's
the impact for this? Where's where's your cost effectiveness?
So those are the two biggest changes that we've seen
for our measures. With that being said, the goal of
my team is to always continue to look for ways to expand
our program as well as introduce new measures within
our programs. So for 2023, we are introducing a
radiant barrier for all of our standard offer programs.
Our standard offer programs to cater to a radiant barrier
is a residential measure and say I wrote it down. I
thought I memorized it, but apparently I didn't. So
a radiant barrier as defined in the Texas CRM. Is
a highly reflective material designed to block radiant
heat transfer between a roof and added space installation,
insulation.
This is introduced in all of our programs and I have
a, I have a great team. Um and the team has designed
a way as to engage our, our service providers to be
able to introduce this measure. We just introduced
it this year and essentially launched it for our standard
offer program. We'll be able to assess what the pick
up of that would be for, um in the, in the 2024
discussion on the program. Also in our small business
direct install program, I will couch that our small
business direct install program. Is a market transformation
program that's specifically designed to attract small
businesses less than 200 KW outside of the rural area
within the DFW Metro. That they are considered as
part of our commercial standard offer program. But because
there's a niche and a necessity to ensure that all
of our energy efficiency incentives are scattered across
the service territory. We designed uh what, what we
call internally as an SBI Market Transformation
program. New this year is we're introducing HVAC
tune-ups, refrigeration as well as um other uh HVAC,
HVAC measures within, within this program. Um why they're
new this year as opposed to last year. It's predominantly
our SBI program is majority fixed on commercial
lighting. So it's, it's retrofit lighting that we mostly
see for that program. And as I mentioned earlier for
a retail products program, because we are using lighting
as a measure. We're seeing less savings this year and
definitely none for 2024. What we're, what we're ensuring
is the continuity and sustainability of that program
So we are continuing to introduce new measures into
that retail platform and this includes heat pump, water
heaters, pipe insulation, clothes washers, clothes
dryers. And we're always con continuously looking at
ways to be able to introduce high energy efficient
measures where customers purchase. Um these measures
more than the direct install specific to our programs
We are also expanding our programs. So for the new
homes program and this will start in 2024. Our current
program is designed to um I believe ser has mentioned
this earlier um where it's looking at rated star energy
star rated homes as well as V O E zero Energy Ready
Home. But and in addition to that, we also look at
prescriptive measures that we also add within each
uh individual premise. Of course, the incentives are
paid to the builder. What's new in 2024 is we are expanding
that program to now incentivize individual units for
multifamily properties. So that's an expansion that
we're doing for the new homes construction. So it's
looking at it not from a building perspective but still
at the residential premise perspective. Our Load Management
Program where we historically um launch events for
the Section 25.181 as well as the PRM define peak
demand within certain um days, months, as well as time
for both Summer and Winter. We're expanding our Load
management for both are Summer, residential and commercial
Winter and Summer. So now we have 24/7 road management.
What it essentially means is if and when you have an
event at 1 in the morning or 10 in the morning, outside
of the parameters of what's defined as a TRM.
We have the ability to be able to call on those resources.
We're call, we are defining these parameters still
within ERCOT guidelines. And we will be calling them
starting at PEA Level 1 as well as PEA Level
2 where this um where how the program is currently
designed is we're only able to call them at PEA Level
2 and able to calculate savings only if the event
is within the Summer and Winter. That definition um
and I've mentioned the Smart Thermostat program before
and commercial midstream. So commercial midstream is
a program that we always have within our portfolio.
What it is is we're trying to determine where our energy
incentives make the most impact. We follow them through
the supply chain, whether they make the most impact
at the manufacturer level, distributor level, um
or even at the service provider level. For commercial
midstream, the current measure we offer is the HVAC.
We started in 2024, we will be launching the commercial
kitchen equipment specific to commercial midstream.
And what how that design, how that program is currently
designed is we're go, we're going to ensure that our
incentives actually hit um across the supply chain.
So whether it's more impactful at the design level,
at the architecture level or even at the installation
um or distributor level.
Apart from the new programs, program expansions, as
well as new measures that we plan on introducing our
portfolio, whether this year or next year. Uh what
we always constantly do is research and study evolving
technologies. So some of the emerging technology studies
we have currently or will be participating. One is
the CEE emerging technology study, CEEs and Organizations
Consortium for energy efficiency. So CEE Consortium
for energy efficiency and they run an emerging technology
study. Prior to that, we also have participated in
an emerging technology study for one of our implementors.
It's always an ongoing study that we want to see how
other states operate their, um their technologies,
whether it may or may not be applicable for Texas. One
thing that we've always, um one thing that we've always
stated is some technologies that apply safe for New
England or California may not be applicable to Texas
But with weather constantly changing, um California
had snow and um our win will Texas had snow as well
We had a winter storm here. We're actually just now
trying to see and anticipate what technologies that
may not have been applicable for us would potentially
be applicable for us. Five years down the road and
a lot of it is expertise that we don't have. So we
rely on other experts to be able to tell us how it
works for them. Second is we're always looking at new
measures. So we're looking at a study for cold climate
heat pumps. We're also looking at study for storm windows.
Um my team is always looking at studies for understanding
the impact of solar and battery storage. But one of
the R&D studies that we will be launching this
year is the managed EV charging study. So, so we um
established a portal where we're able to see and understand
who or what fleet commercial feats are coming into
our system, understanding the number of premises, they
need the type of reconstruction, they need number of
meters, the number of commercial premises. And we're
looking for a certain number of participants where
they can talk to them about operational strategies
as far as how they can maximize or be able to reduce
their demand through the managed EV charging studies. How
we're looking at it at this time is essentially understanding
what their peak demand is. What the operational requirement
for these specific peak premises and be able to fully
understand what they as an operation can do to be able
to reduce their demand. Um we have talked to, to this
study with Tetra Tech. And we're always going to ensure that
at the end of the day, a a study is great, but
we're always looking for ways to potentially enroll
uh potentially convert that study into a program. If
and then feasible, feasible by cost effectiveness and
feasible by of course. Um technological applicability
as well as market pick up.
Um and that's it for the Oncor energy efficiency portfolio.
Yes, questions? I'll, I'll ask the question
again. The smart thermostat program for multi-family
is that also just um like a deemed or a calculated
savings for getting them to install it? Or is it related
(inaudible) Correct. So at this time, what's the, how
the program has evolved is we have a multi-family uh
program. Where we have one implementer instead of focusing
only on HVAC, they will now focus on HVAC
as well as smart thermostat. There's separation
there from a demand response. Um however, one of the
ways and benefits with understanding who our installers
are. Is also understanding whether or not there's a
capability in getting them enrolled as part of the
Road Management program.
And could we go back to the first slide again? I'm
sorry, I'm rushed down all the details. You gave me
about 15 seconds on that. I just want um I noticed
you only asked for about $214,000 for R&D. Given all
the things happening is uh that doesn't seem like very
much for $52 million program. Absolutely. So funny
story. This are, this forecast was created last year
where majority of the managed EV charging study and
the whole climate study came at the latter part of
the year. So we're always ensuring that the R&D
study we save, we're gonna spend. Uh we say we're gonna
spend, it's actually how we actually spend for the
year. Um for the 2024 forecast, we've increased it.
So for example, for the managed EV charging study. Majority of
what we're doing now is outreach, recruiting and effort.
We're going to see the impact of from a dollar perspective
on those, if not the latter part of 2023, potentially
into 2024. So we bid at a higher R&D cost
for 2024. And, and I don't quite understand how the
Summer/Winter peaking thing works, and now you're complicating
it further. But, so here you said 35,000 for the winter
commercial Load Management. Oh, that's a pilot. So
those are different customers than the ones and the
other one? They could be or they could be the same. So,
difference is they have to enroll. Some of the 60,000 are Summer and the 35 are Winter
and some of those are the same customer? That's correct
That's correct. They could be, but they don't have
to be. (item:6:38578, Gary Jones with Oncor responding to question) Yeah Bob, (inaudible) they're two separate
programs. We've had two separate incentives. Uh, right now. So
if they, they would reenroll in the winter program
if they chose to participate. And it's, it's not always
the same customers, but we don't eliminate that as
a possibility if they wanna continue operating in our
program. What we're doing right now, the primary thing
that we're doing is expanding it to a 24/7 program. And come
2024, we'll be expanding and, and, and broadening both
the winter and the summer peak or the winter and summer
start date and end date. So that we have a year round
program also. It will still be two separate programs
with one program will end. Uh, and the next day the
uh, the new program will start. So but it, it will
be a winter program, a summer program that will be
24/7, 365 days. But you're adding the 60 and the 35
together toward your goal? Correct.
But they are two separate programs, two separate incentives
and for two specific (inaudible).
Ok. I'm still having a little trouble wrapping my head
around. You have an annual goal for reduction capacity.
Seemed like that should be an annual reduction. If we,
we have identified two peaks and now you're going to
24/7, you know, 365. That would only be one program
but, um. It would be difficult to get customers to
sign (inaudible).
(inaudible) capability.
(inaudible) Ok. Sure. Um, and, and to shed a little bit of light
on that too. Historically, based on the Texas weather
we've always only had the summer um, peak demand. But
we've, we've had the winter peak demand definition.
But our Load management has always been predominant
indicated to the summer. When due to the Winter Storm
Uri, we've had to identify a winter Load Management
program for emergency level resources if and when needed.
So, having the two um, separate programs is viable.
So, because we can't call the one for summer and we
can't call the one for winter. Specifically because
sometimes some of your custom, sometimes some of your
customers for summer peak will not peak in winter.
Um, our summer peak is between 1 to 6 pm from June
to September. Whereas our winter peak is 6am to
10am and 6pm to 10pm in the afternoon for
winter. Your uh, your premises majority of your premises
um, operations would be different. So catering to two
specific programs would help us really make sure that
the impact of our peak demand is best depending on
the requirements and the needs of specific premise
So again, though, your commercial program is addressing
generation shortages when you say emergency. That's
correct. So it's not based on local congestion or local
like your own utility. Not at this time. That's correct. It's not paying
for demand response. So would help you operate the
utility better. Correct. As it, it's currently defined. It is
based off of ERCOT emergency level alerts. Um, however it
is one of those where we are identifying whether or
not it is a viable potential. Because at the end of
the day, there is local congestion, there is no targeted
demand response. But within the framework of what we
can and can't do within the Texas CRM. What makes
the most sense for us is to identify and um call
resources. Based on are third party emergency level alerts.
Um we do run a test event because the test event helps
us identify what the potential for that specific premise
would be. And absent and call EA Level 2 events
how the program is currently designed. We pay our commercial
premises based off of how they function on the test
event.
Um Jean, I'm gonna timekeep you guys. Just because
if you don't mind. Because we really want people back
at 1 for our afternoon. Sure. So yeah, so I'm gonna call
up AEP.
That's me, that's me. My bad. Let's go Bob. I'm sure Jean will be available and Gary when we break for
for lunch. But um, thank you. Thank you very much.
(clapping)
All right. Now your coming downhill.
All right. (item:6.1:38578, Robert Cavazos with AEP Texas discussing their programs) Well, I'm Robert with AEP Texas and our
programs are not as complicated. Right up front, as you'll
see in the next slide here. Uh our budget pretty much
stayed the same about $18.7 million. We don't have
many differences here. Uh for the exception on the
next slide, please.
You'll see that uh we too entered into the winter
program, Winter Load program this year. Um we started
it in December 1st and it expired February 28th of
this year. So it's a '23 program, that's our pilot. In
'24, it will no longer be a pilot. It will be a
viable program itself. Uh we also are starting up a
commercial food service pilot for this year. That's
just now getting off the ground and identifying customers.
So we're eager to see how that works out for us as
well. But as far as the other programs, they're thriving
they're doing well. We do have a couple of hurdles
that we have heard from the field and that is from
our implementers and our third party vendors. Their cost
of doing business is going up. Not before we had uh
during the pandemic, we had a supply issue. Now that
we're starting to see more supplies come in little
as they are. We're seeing the cost of the supply go
up for them. So their cost of doing business within
our territory has increased. So we're having to find
a midpoint for them. To keep them interested and keep
them engaged in our footprint. As you know, our footprint
covers 97 counties. I believe it is 94, 97 counties.
So it is widespread and it is difficult to get to all
of them and we are encouraging them to get to all of
them. But with the cost of materials, it does put a
hamper on that. Next slide, please.
As I mentioned, we've got the Winter Load Management
program that we're going to be highlighting here in
23 and 24. Moving forward, that program is geared for our
commercial customers with 5 KW and above. It is
also a 24/7, 365. We're not there yet,
but it is a 24/7 operation or program. These customers
that participate in this program, they get a 30 minute
notice from us. Yeah, email, text and a phone call and
they will be shed and Load for 4 hours. Okay. It's
a mandatory 4 hour shed. Uh The participants in
here uh can be anybody as you see. A commercial customer,
energy efficiency service provider or any aggregate
or REP can participate in this program. Uh of course
uh they just follow the rules of the manual and, and
registered to be a provider. The other program here
is our food service pilot. Like I said, that one is
just now getting off the ground. Our targets here again
is commercial food services. Okay. And it's going to
be a point-of-sale type of program. So we're expecting
good things from this one in the coming years. This
one is going to start off slow. We expect that, but
we want to build a foundation so we can expand that
throughout the footprint. Uh a couple of highlights
that we had that are not on the slides. Is our um
we had a program. Excuse me, I'm going to have to see
this on my other eyes. Uh we had a low-income heartery
solar program out in the (inaudible) Springs area. How many
of you know where that is? Okay. It's very rural, right?
Very small town. Well we, we're the first utility
to actually partner up with NREL to
provide solar panels for a low-income community. Okay
We installed uh solar panels for 13 units. Um and by
at this point, everybody's happy things are working
out really well. They met their deadlines. Um the installations
were there. Customers are happy and we're going to
turn them back on and go on to the next project. But
we're very proud of that fact. That we were able to
participate with Frontier Energy. Uh in providing that
service to that part of the community service territory.
Um yeah, that's all I had. I just want, I wanna make
sure I touch bases on that solar project that we had.
Just real quick here. A four hour on your, your uh winter
Load Management. So if you call over to that, it is
four hours in duration period. Yes. Ok. Yeah, it is
a four hour period.
Can I ask you to go back to the budget too? Sure
(inaudible) So I do want to quickly say all of these presentations
will be filed in EEIP. So everyone will have access
to them.
Yes, sir.
He's internalizing. Oh, he's getting it. (inaudible)
Just wanted to see it. Yeah, yeah. It's, it's actually
uh pretty straightforward. And like last year, it's
just a little tweak here and there. Uh based on some projections
based from '22 and 2021.
The participation and of course our, our growth that
we're expecting were in AEP Texas.
Yes, ma'am. On that solar project, was it a government funded
and you just partly incentive or did you fully fund it?
No, no. It's uh partnered with NREL government.
It's a National Renewable Energy Laboratories. Yeah.
Yeah, so we partnered with them. And then you just gave
them an incentive for. Yes.
Was that the multi family property? It was 13 units,
right? It's uh the owners of it was the Community Service
Agency of South Texas.
They had to come up with a portion of the funding to
participate in the (inaudible) project. But in our and
the tenants are benefiting. The benefit, the benefit areas
are the tenants.
Yes. For this uh winter management program,
so the customers really get paid for that
(inaudible). Yeah, they get an incentive based on the
kWh that they produce or they shed during that
4 hour period. When
the Load is set (inaudible). We get the meter
data based off on. Uh we do a test um prior to the
season starting at the beginning of the program period,
we'll do a test run. That test run is about an hour
I believe it is. And then we, that's our baseline. And
then from there we do the 4 hours uh Load shed. And then
we get the meter data after that then compare the 2 and
come up with the,
incentive. Is that that funding boost from the (inaudible).
No, that's from our incentive. That budget.
Very good. Any other questions? I told you it'd be easy.
Morgan.
(inaudible)
This is how many notes I have, not very many. Um gonna
go up here, so I don't have my back to anybody.
(item:6.2:38578, Stefani Case with TX-New Mexico Power Co., discusses their programs) My name is Stefani Case. I'm with Texas-New Mexico
Power Company, TNMP. Um Manager of the Energy Efficiency
portfolio there. Perks to going last, everything I'm
about to say you've heard at some point throughout
this morning. So, um hopefully I can add a little something
at least, you know flair. Next slide, please.
Like you've heard from other utilities, our budget
has remained fairly steady over the past maybe 5
years. Um same with the goals that we have set. Everything
in these projections is gonna be basically the same
on the next slide. However, when we, when we filed
our (inaudible) last year, we did not um consider a Winter Load
Management program. So that's one program that is missing
from this slide that will be on the next. Uh we developed
the budget for that later on in the year,
since it starts in 2022. If you would, um next slide
please. Uh Mr. King?
Yeah, it's fine. Thank you. So under the commercial program list, you
can see we've added Winter Load Management and changed
the name of our Load Management, SOP to Summer Load
Management to avoid confusion. Everything else here
remains the same. As one of the other utilities mentioned
earlier, some of these programs operate as umbrellas.
And what we do every year because of a variety of reasons.
Um is focus more on what's going on inside, adjust
the measures, try to target things differently. We
focus more on program design and trying to make tweaks
based on lessons learned. Instead of necessarily adding
new programs. However, we are in talks with a few um
implementers and working on a couple of proposals for
2024 that we started last year. We just wasn't comfortable
enough um committing to them on a slide. But we're
hoping to add um potentially one maybe two new programs
to our residential portfolio for 2024, if not
2025. Just trying to work out the cost effectiveness
to see if it's something that we can include in our
portfolio. Cost effectiveness specifically is something
that has, that we've seen
as a greater challenge as we go on throughout the years.
Our commercial portfolio used to come in, in more of
the 4-6 range. And now every, almost every one of our
programs is more of a 2-3 range. So it's becoming more
expensive to get the same savings that we used to get
to spears credit. Thank you for bringing that up earlier.
We, you know, would also like to see cost effectiveness
at the portfolio level. To allow us a little bit more
flexibility to pilot some programs. So thank you for
bringing that up and I think we'll be talking about
that this afternoon.
Um next slide.
Like some of the other utilities you've heard today,
we have a winter Load Management pilot program. I wanted
to go back a little bit and start with the history
of this. So in response to Senate Bill 3, as a
you know, in response to Uri. Uh the 87th Legislative
Session, we set up an interim Load Management pilot
program. We're in Docket No. 52689 AEP, TNMP and
CenterPoint filed petitions um in order to design
and set up the programs. That started uh December of
2021, and ran through February of 2022. Based on the success
of that, we then decided. Well, that was for TNMP
specifically run outside of energy efficiency. We ran
it as a regulatory asset, but because it was successful.
Because it proves useful to potentially in the event
of an ERCOT emergency. We moved it into the energy
efficiency portfolio. So that's why I'm highlighting
it for you
today. And then just basically wanted to focus on the
differences between the winter and the summer program.
Which have also kind of been covered a little bit today.
Um for winter, the operating period is different than
summer based on the winter and summer peaks. But also
in the winter program, we're operating 24 hours a day
seven days a week. Summer is what you're used to the
1pm to 7pm, June through September. The baselines
are also different for each of the programs, calculating
their savings.
That's something that we worked with Tetra Tech on
to develop. Um it just seemed more appropriate to be
using a different baseline. Winter is more variable,
so it has a few more days than Summer. Thank you. And
then the similarities are just that each one has at
least a 30 minute notification. A total of 5 curtailments
which includes the scheduled test, running for anywhere
from 1 to 4 hours. Not a firm 4 hour requirement
The energy of um, what's it? I wrote it down back to
notes. ERCOT emergency, Energy Emergency Alert Level
2. I've always said EEA Level 2. So that is
our trigger for both programs and the incentive is
the same $40 per KW curtailed.
That's all I have for you today, unless you have questions?
Okay, I'm gonna pick on you a little bit. Go ahead. So tell
me about this 24/7 thing. Since ERCOT hasn't seemed
to think that's necessary ,why do you? I believe that
came out of our settlement negotiations. When we were
it's, it should be listed in the docket for 52689. When
we developed and designed the programs. Not sure who
recommended it. I'd have to go back and look, but it
was part of it was part of our negotiations in the
program design. So you got forced into it, I got
it. So that also eliminates a lot of people from participating,
because you have to be a 24 hour Load to be able to
participate. Is that right? It is, it could be seen
as that
however. All together looks like a 24 hour load basically. We
try to make sure that the Load would be available,
but it's not a requirement of the program that you
be available 24/7. So you're right, it would exclude
a lot of participants. If they had to be available,
then.
We're still working on, on how to make sure that there
is Load available 24/7, which is why it's a pilot program.
And we hope to take lessons from that requirement.
This is the second year in trying to run it and um
it does still need a lot of work. So, so it could
be like the alternative baseline on ERCOT is. As long
as you don't come on during those periods, it counts
that sort of? If you're already off, I believe we would
encourage you to stay off, yes. Right, right. If we were in
one of those EEA Level 2. So don't go back
to the office and turn on the lights. Internally, it's
also been a challenge, because I don't work 24/7. So
we've had to reach out to our.
I like to sleep. So we've had to reach out internally,
and that's another difference in the operation of the
program. Is that I have had to recruit participation
from our distribution. Um
guys who um who are available on a shift level for
24/7. To teach them how to work the notification system
and make sure that we're all in communication about
that. I forgot to mention that we do also communicate
uh my second bullet. We have a memorandum of understanding
with ERCOT. To communicate the enrollment program capacity
and deployment. So there's also transparency between
the ERS program and this program. And then for specifically
the winter program, if our customers uh authorize us
to, we will notify their retail electric provider of
record. Of their participation and curtailment amount
Yeah. Thanks for reminding me to elaborate. Anything
else?
Thank you.
Well, we are almost ready for lunch and we're gonna
break until 1. (item:6.2:38578, Reminder for updates to technical reference manual) But before we do, I just wanted to
remind everybody that it is this time of the year. That
we ask for um potential updates to technical reference manual.
So each year, you know, we look at the technical
reference manual. We look to see what could be updated
changed, improved added. And we solicit those um update
between now and May 1. After May 1, you know,
the engineers start buckling down and looking at what
they can achieve, what's feasible. And then they'll come
back to us for the Fall EEIP. Where they will
make a presentation of what they recommend.
the TRM should be. And at that time, we will get the opportunity to take
a look and we have a review period. After that is when
the TRM (inaudible). Um but today, we're very fortunate to have
Tina Yoder with us. She is Tetra Tech's TRM lead. And
if you have any questions on how the updates should
be provided. And what she needs to see with your ideas.
You know, Tina is here all day. So please pull her
aside and you know, cover her with questions.
And I'll phone a friend (inaudible).
So that's all I have before lunch and I will see you
all at 1pm, and we'll talk about the (inaudible).
(item:7:38578, Therese gives initial remarks concerning Energy Efficiency Working Group) And for each of these, Tetra Tech provided a summary of all
the working groups to address the key issues. And so
the next step after Mark's presentation. Will be a request
from Commission Staff to please provide input. So we
solicit input from the larger EEIP group. And because
this is a very busy season, it's also we're also a
Legislative season right now. I'm asking my comments
by April 20, which may not sound like a long time,
but it's actually more than we typically give for comment
um in the EEIP. And so with that, I
all right. Thank you.
All right. So this is really fun. Um So I got to
meet Eleanor in person. I got to meet Carl this morning
in person. Like we've been these talking heads and
to actually be living together is really, really cool
Um for those of you who have worked with me for the
last decade, you know how I like geek out about human
and bee um I'm gonna geek out about the stakeholder working
group. It has been like a highlight of my professional
career. Um getting to like be on these and listen to
everyone and brainstorm and I'm really excited about
where we're going. Um all these great rides together.
(item:8:38578, Working Group Overview) So what we hope to accomplish today is really, we are
it's that report back to EEIP we've been working
in these individual four different working groups,
right? So this is a chance for us to talk about it
all together, but also we all know awesome traffic
We're trying to let everyone out at four. Um So we
have about a half an hour for our overarching themes
and best practices and a half an hour for each working
group. So it's not a lot of time, but the point is
that we're hoping everyone feels empowered, you know
and educated enough about the process and where the
information is that they can submit comments on the
full memo. So the full memo as we said was filed yesterday
it is over 50 pages because it includes all those summary
tables as well as over arching. So hopefully we have
everyone feeling good about, ok. Now I know where to
go look for. Um I run a new term. People are gonna
laugh at me, they already knew it but
term but it is um so to go look at that Uber
summary and submit comment. So um with that, go on
to the first thing which I think there really already
covered for us is just this has been a process and
as Commissioner Jackson said this morning, thank you
so much for all the work today and kind of we're just
getting started. So, um, you know, again, we've been
working on this since October launching an EEIP really
good results for anyone who didn't see the stakeholder
survey results that were used to form these working
groups. They are also filed in the EEI project. They
were filed in December, some really good analysis there.
I'm really pleased that the representation, we've got
our stakeholder groups. So, you know, everything from
you know, cities and reps to trade allies. Um It's
just been great. We really have everyone implementation
contractors and of course, you know, the utilities
as well on these calls. So that's been really, really
great too that we've had diverse voices in these. So
moving on to the next slide, uh these were the objectives
for those of you who are on a working group. You've
seen these, we thought it was worth going over these
again. Is that really what the working groups were
to do was to identify the key issues, what are the
top issues we want to address to make these programs
better and then um discuss them. We didn't necessarily
have to reach consensus. What we'll find out is there
are actually quite a few areas of agreement. Um But
there are also a lot of things to still discuss and
hash out. So we have those. So we really work on capturing
all the different perspectives. When you go to that
Uber summary I referred to and all the high,
you're good. We have like a tight agenda so we have
to get going. Um So when you go to that Uber summary
um with all the summary tables, you, you'll see we
have different perspectives listed and we will discuss
today. Here are some of the areas we had a range of
perspectives. There's still some discussion to do,
right? Um To kind of reach agreement. And um, well
I guess I shouldn't say reach agreement to give different
perspectives to the commission who will make that decision
All right. And then the next, so what were our outcomes
from these working groups?
Um I know what we were gonna, is it not advancing for
you? Oh, oh, yeah, it's ok. I was like, I know I
didn't it hard enough. I'm like, well, we made it,
we made it, we made it to the EEIP. And
um uh it was a lot of work to get to where
we are and we have a lot of work to present and
discuss today. So again, thank you to every single
person in this room who has been part of this effort
So we are, um you know, gonna talk about those areas
of agreement areas of debate. And then as s said, there
are things that look like they can uh could be addressed
in a rule making. So we'll talk about those. Um, there
are also a lot of process improvements identified that
don't necessarily need a rule making change, some other
sort of change to make sure it happens. Um, is perhaps
something to discuss like a performance metric or more
transparent reporting. Several ideas have been brainstormed
on that. So another thing to think about and there
are some things in statute. So there also are, are
some things recognizing would actually require a achieve
statute. So couldn't be directly addressed with the
rule. So we do have those identified in the summary
tables. All right. So for those of you who sat in the
working group, we went back to this slide from workshop
one where uh we had this slide with customer in the
middle because we wanted to frame the working group
as reminding all of us we have different opinions of
how energy efficiency should be improved. But all of
us are about the customer. And so keeping that customer
top of mind as we have these discussions. So you'll
see we actually are using these as our transition slides
to each of the working groups. (item:8.1:38578, Best Practices and Overarching Themes) So this first batch
that I'll go through um and discuss with you guys are
the best practices and overarching themes. So, a little
history on these best practices, um we weren't originally
going to come up with best practices across all the
working groups. We were just gonna really look for
overarching themes, but in the Demand Response working
group, um one of the sessions was best practices for
demand response. So we spent a whole session working
on those best practices. Well, then when we start working
on the overarching themes, we're like, wow, these are
like going back to a lot of these best practices that
were identified. So we took those best practices from
the Demand Response working group and ran them through
the other working groups and we word smithed, we fine
tune them, we expanded them out. Um And so I'm actually
really excited about this because uh you know, people
have heard this analogy. I originally got it from Gary
back, you know, a year ago a North Star. So we
actually came up with kind of a North Star for the
programs. Uh here's a place we would like to go with
energy efficiency and these best practices. And then
in the next slide, we'll talk about the overarching
themes of, ok, well, here's our North Star, how do
we get there? So, you know, kind of start talking about
how we can build the rocket ship. But, you know, that's
more a frame when a lot of the, like how that propel
propulsion is gonna work, that's get worked out and
we're taking or further discussion. So, um I like,
ay. So, um so this is gonna be I'm really just gonna
read these out and have thoughts because these are
things again, that have been run through all four of
the working groups. Um So the first one is focus on
the customer by providing tangible value. And this
was a recommendation made is let's not just say tangible
value, but what do we mean by that tangible value?
So specifically listing it out energy savings, demand
reductions, increased affordability and resiliency.
And this is actually about the customer when we see
resiliency, we we do talk about that a lot with the
grid, but this is about actually the customer. So if
the power does go out is that home weather rise, so
they can withstand that longer um with multiple options
to participate for a big approach to meet the customer
where they are. So multiple options, customers have
different amount that they think about their energy
use, think about energy efficiency, willingness to
participate. So this is really about different options
If it's just that customer, you can get the smart thermostat
in the home to, you know, a commercial customer who's
ready to sit down and put together a multiyear strategic
energy management plan and everywhere in between. So
you know, really multiple tasks. So this is again one
that really got fine tuned and attitude in the working
groups. Thoughts, what do you think, sir? What do you
think about that first one?
Yeah, no, we're definitely supportive. That's one of
the things the Spear is focused on is how we can really
be customer focused and understanding that the, the
energy burden that not just low income but moderate
income and all, all types of consumers have to have
to deal with. And kind of looking back at what we talked
about a lot today is that pass the survivability aspect
of energy efficiency and s we can really make a difference
You any other thoughts on that 1st 1?
All right. Um The second one, this is actually one
that the demand response came up with that. We didn't
end up word smithing across the rest of the working
group everyone. But yeah, that's about right. So one
feasible, that's key, right? One feasible, integrate
energy efficiency in demand response. So, you know
there was a thought, you know, isn't it great if you
are going to control the home during, you know, a weather
event, it's weather rise already so that, you know
while you're controlling it, you're really seeing those
savings and hopefully keeps a level of comfort. Um
Another one we talked about was, you know, just that's
a residential example. Going to a commercial example
is um you know, using the building systems, right,
when you're going in and could you, you know, use the
building automated system to, you know, do the controls
for energy efficiency and respond to a demand response
event. So that the fact that there are a lot of opportunities
to integrate those together, that's to the benefit
to both the customer and the brand. Thoughts on, on
that one.
No vote.
No, I was gonna take that one. Now, the thing I like
about that one is that demand response becomes so much
more valuable. It's durable. And one of the problems
we have, you're talking about the sulate, weatherization
you know, refrigerator is a durable, Load because it'll
go 34 or five hours and air conditioner won't without
having very angry customers. So I think that that really
does give legs to the value of the DR. So that, that's
a great point. Yeah, that was some, some people talked
about some really good studies that were, you know
provided to kind of support how when feasible and it
again was recognizing uh this time another, another
version I used so I can see a video.
Ok. All right. Um So the third one was compliment other
offerings. So here we have ERCOT programs. We take
it from ERCOT ERS just because what if ERCOT changes the
name of its program, right? So we just wanted to um
get that and coordinates with other market actors.
Um So examples are retail electric providers in the
ERCOT market and service providers
and data sources. So this was a really cool one added
by the low income and under sort of segment group.
I think we have El Paso to thank for that. Is, you
know, there are also data sources out there that aren't
we aren't kind of some barriers to using right now
that can really help serving people. So the the Texas
Department of Housing and Community Affairs
that's not a list that the utilities currently have
access to for their low income and hard to reach programs.
Wouldn't it be great since that exists that they did
So they could also have another tool to help outreach
to those people. So other data sources like that, you
know, it's also hard to know what's already available
in smart new Texas for example. So this is one where
we did kind of add quite, quite a bit um complementing
coordinating thoughts on that one.
So can you clarify the
um so it's our understanding that there's a list of
low, you know, homes that um households that qualify
for low income services so that they could automatically
be funneled into the energy efficiency programs that
are given with higher incentives or free. Um So that
it could be part of routine, not having to qualify
them through other ways you can get the tax.
Okay? I can send you, okay. Say it again what we can
get. In other words, if uh if there's a property that's
a tax credit property that is going to be
Okay. They put out
a okay. I, yeah, because I, I wasn't aware of
that. I mean, one of the utilities are shaking their
head. I heard a lot in the peace uh
presentation this morning. So I disconnecting with
that. So that would be wonderful and yeah, that would
be great. Thank you. And that's exactly the thought
is we know there's data out there that can be used
So how do we identify, how do we tap into it so
that thank you.
Oh, great. Anything else on this 1?
All right. Um This is another one. We did some word
smithing up across all the working groups. And proves grid
resiliency and reliability. And specifically, we talked about
GEO targeting, um integrating as DERs increase. You
know, that's, you know, Bob's gotta have something
to say on that one and the seasonal needs. Right. We've
talked a lot this morning about the fact that there
are winter programs now and, you know, the fact that
there are seasonal needs, summer, winter and shorter
seasons. Um And then the outcome of that is reducing
risks, thoughts on that.
All right.
This next one is uh another one that again, uh didn't
have a lot of wordsmithing, um, taps into potential
across all eligible customer segments. Um For those
who were here this morning, um and saw the research
you know, CenterPoint was doing. That's so great.
It's great to say caps to all eligible segments. But
how do you actually do that? Right. And we'll talk
about that. Uh What Tina presents the low income and
under served segments. I'll talk about that hard to
reach is a lot more than low income. Um um there's
all sorts of other barriers, Mark and I Mark DeAngelo
and I were chatting informally and he was
you know, talking about some of those areas right north
of Beaumont where it's so hard to get people. Um So
there's all sorts of barriers and ways that really
to get all those eligible customer segments so that
we do really need to think about that,
Thoughts on that one?
All right.
Um This one was another one that really striking the
balance. Um, employees consistency with flexibility
to adapt to different markets and local system needs
So there was a lot of discussion of, if there was more
consistency across the utility territories, it would
be easier for some service providers or for the REPs
to scale up and participate across. Um But at the same
time, it has to be recognized that each utility territory
is so different, their customers are so different.
You know, again from the presentation this morning
you know, Tim had talked about how CenterPoint has
a very convinced territory we know Oncor and TNMP
and AEP are all over the place. And so just
really, really different. Um, you know, I know talking
with Scel different things they have to do to adapt
to their customers and their weather zone. Those are
really different too. Um Like it'll pass that it really
has a challenging weather zone. So, um sometimes you
get those savings. So while everyone agreed that there
was benefits of consistency. It really was reiterated
that flexibility is also needed. So that's why we have
that balance there.
All right, I'm about to start calling on people.
I know, I know because we've been all over these together
But again, for those of you where these are new, please
ask us questions. Uh These are things that the working
groups have all seen and worked on together. So um
here's another one when we talk about again, this is
these are our North stars. So how do we operationalize
a lot of these things? This is one you'll see that
will come up on the slides I present and the slides
that Tina presents on the value. What is really the
real value of demand response and energy efficiency
People really don't think we have that accurately captured
in the way we do it now. So our best practice is
to accurately reflect the value of demand response
and energy efficiency to the grid. And how do we do
that? You know, lots, we do lots of discussion room
So those are the best practices. Anything missing from
that with anyone? Let me get all the way.
Yeah, it's not. The projector is yes low. I see that
Um looking at those, does that feel like it hit on
all the important things to people? Utility? Will someone
from the utilities? Tell me, do you see anything from
your perspective? Um You did say you didn't get picked
on for IRA this morning. So, anything from this list
from the utility perspective missing from best practices
I, I don't, I don't think so. I mean, you know, I
think it looks, looks good and, um, I don't wanna speak
for everyone on the national. I like shake from your
personal, I guess to kind of talk around if, if you're
kind of looking from the IRA and that perspective.
Um
No, I think just um that's to me kind of goes to
like since, since you brought that up, you know, just
tapping potential across all eligible customer segments
and then complimenting different offerings. So I think
right now, at least for a CenterPoint, probably for
a lot of to use how to leverage maybe the opportunities
with the federal funding available for efficiency,
approves both retrofits new homes, the tax credits
Um I think it complements our program as well at any
time that, you know, I look at that opportunity as
like being able to educate our program sponsored participants
the agencies we work with on benefits to customers
I think there is still a lot of waiting around kind
of how that uh works with state agencies involved.
But um to me that's kind of captured the cap capture
here, um particularly in that third point. Yeah, it
does make me wonder though if we should add, we have
ERCOT in there. And I guess this would be a thought
if anyone wants to add a comment or if people think
that's a great um other offerings is, is much more
than that, right? So just what that would be tax incentives
it could be pace financing that we talked about this
morning. So maybe just having a few more examples in
here could be helpful to make that more comprehensive
I think that was a good point. You made say that it's
captured in there, but sometimes, you know, we can
be a little more specific. So
sounds like that might be a place to add a couple more
examples.
All right.
How about from clear results perspective as an implementation
contractor, do you see any best practices missing from
there? It's hard to say that there's any missing. I
I, I think what stands out to me is um and just
the attempt at comprehensiveness right? Being um inclusive
of uh customer type, uh geography and uh sort of considerations
for customers and measure availability and that sort
of thing. So I think it's, yeah, as a, as a
a North Star, I think it's a good starting point, star
and stop there.
You couldn't fit into one of those buckets for it.
All right. Uh I'm gonna focus on just one word, uh
affordability and only because at the end of the day
consumers pay the cost of all the programs. And I,
I like that the goal really, I read into all of this
is for providing these services more efficiently and
more effectively and, and so the most cost effective
way possible. Um, so I just, I just want to keep that
in mind at the end of the day, there's a cost to
everything that we do. Um, consumers end up paying
paying that cost. So as long as they're getting their
money's worth, yeah. Um, that's, that's really good
for you. So, on that idea, by using the word affordability
to me, that wouldn't, they would have to pass cost
effectiveness, right? Because you don't have improved
you're paying more for energy efficiency than the benefits
you're getting from it you wouldn't have, right? I
mean, that's one of one of the issues that we reported
us is pro the programs need to be cost effective. And
I know we talk about how to measure cost effectiveness
but at the end of the day, if it costs more to
provide uh energy efficiency program, then then the
value that the customer receives or even the larger
grid receives, it doesn't really make sense that
so cost effectiveness is required by the Legislation.
So it is, but, but there are different ways to, to
define that, that cal Yeah. Well, I just wanted to
jump in on that us Green Building Council, Kenan
Um I think the cost effectiveness and affordability
are kind of connected together, but it's also the market
segment part. Um You know, we have a lot of different
programs for each level income and so forth. But to
me, the, you know, we're, we're way behind in energy
efficiency overall. Uh compared to other states, I
think a large part of that is, is that the ability
to get access to, you know, whatever it is that you
need in a way that is portable, especially in our current
market with, with high interest rates. And so programs
like focusing, you know, we're focusing legislatively
on creating programs that would allow people to do
like low interest or zero interest uh revolving loan
pro programs that goes back in and this is work with
water and other places and those kind of programs,
especially if there's good coordination and communication
continuing to happen across all the different um uh
providers. Um you know, at, I think there's a good
chance a good opportunity to kind of hit that market
if we can come up with a Legislative approach that
will make us think more into the future. Where is we're
a fast growing state? There's a lot of opportunity
if we can hit that market segment correctly, but we're
kind of all approaching it from different angles. And
then like what I promote Legislatively might be a pretty
good idea, but it might not be best, the best idea
if we had more communication. And so I'm encouraged
by this, but I think it has to be forward thinking
and moving forward. Hopefully, we will get the energy
Efficiency Council that's up for Legislation. I think
that will facilitate this. I think it's on the PUC
even within its current programs that it's doing to
further these discussions, keep the best practices
moving forward and the best ideas so that we can all
think about and, and propose those things Legislatively
enough that we're on the same page on what ideas work
out.
Thank you.
All right. I'm gonna move on to over our two themes
just because we do wanna have plenty of time for all
of our working groups. So again, this is, you know
Okay, what's gonna be needed? Really? Actually, I didn't
pay you for that safeway.
Um You know, how do we get there? So just to that
point is that we do need, you know, there can be changes
to both the statute and regulatory framework, but also
that's all there. There's also that increased transparency
and coordination, um that's needed to improve energy
efficiency. So it's kind of absolutely everything you
said, that's basically what we came away with is, uh
(item:8.1:38578, Overarching Themes) You know, yes, we have identified a lot of changes
but we've also identified a lot of process improvements.
I mean, just the fact that we learned about the, uh
you know, a way to get that list this day was great.
You know, that's a great example of connecting those
odds. Yeah. So, um another thing also just that really
needs to be kept in mind is so there's a lot of
discussion around goals. That's great. These programs
will operate in a silo. So we just have to keep all
of that um in mind that um you know, what are feasible
goals that make sense, kind of to Carl's point, Samantha's
point of. You know, we really want programs that benefit
uh the customer. Um you know, from a cost effective
standpoint, there's lots of things that affect that
some of that can be addressed in the regulatory framework
but there's a lot of stuff that can't. So we heard
again this morning from the utilities, they talked
about, you know, inflationary pressure that made things
hard. They talked about supply chain constraints. You
know, we know when you talk to people, some people
are really worried when the IRA programs roll out that
there's, it's not gonna be enough staff to go out and
motorize homes right between all the programs. So there
is more going on that affects things than just the
regulatory framework. So yes, we need to focus on these
things that we can do. Um But also keep in mind the
overall market that they work with them. So we have
these listed out in this overarching um theme of a
lot of the things in the rule that need to be discussed
I'm not gonna spend time on it here because we're gonna
get to them when we talk about in our individual working
groups, our areas of agreement, things that still need
to be discussed. We'll talk about customer cost cap
cost effectiveness and all of these things. So this
is just kind of a bucket list of all the things that
need to be talked about in, in the regulatory. Um And
this gets back again to that best practice of um you
know, the value of these programs. And I think you
said it, you know, we're doing show so on energy efficiency
That is kind of a something that came out is that maybe
Texas as a whole, right? We could do better in capturing
and conveying all that we're doing in energy efficiency
So, you know, we talked about, you know, we have, you
know, the IOU programs and the PUC but we also
know Austin Energy and C P S Energy are doing a lot
and that's getting reporting up to um the new uh
I'm sorry, not the new that Cobos maybe also reporting
it to the. Sorry, I took an allergy pill.
but they're fear. I know that's why I see right now
I offered her.
But uh you know, the industrial opt outs could we measure
that? I grab my water here, have that reported and
measured on too. Um So just if there's a lot going
on um in energy efficiency that we maybe don't all
capture. Um And then the other thing here is the the
other benefits, you know, and again, I won't spend
a lot of time on that here because we're going to discuss
it. But you know, really capturing the benefits these
programs deliver um over how they're currently reported
All right. Um This was another thing just really to
keep in mind is um complexity, adds barriers and costs
streamlining and flexibility, foster success. So there
are multiple objectives for these programs, multiple
things that we want to happen from them. We want that
customer to see the savings on their energy bill, right
We want those um demand reductions to be available
when we need them here in Texas. Um we want that low
income customer to feel more comfortable in their home
So there's all sorts of things that we really, you
know, want to accomplish through these programs. Um
But also when you start slicing and dicing a bunch
of different goals and a bunch of different requirements
that can also make it harder. So just kind of keeping
that in mind again of, you know, how do we get the
programs to those who know stars without adding so
much complexity that it actually becomes a barrier
So keeping that in mind seem really important in the
discussions too. So,
so I did go for the timekeeping and I went fairly quick
over the overarching themes because they really touch
on things we're really gonna dive into. But before
I move on is everyone feeling ok about there is anything
missing before we get into more of the details.
I love all these friends. You always give me the best
Smile
close.
Yeah. All right. So what we have for each just to kind
of lay out again how we hope to work this afternoon
Oh, yeah, I'm sorry. Did someone have a hand raise
Um So we have three slides for each working group.
The first slide is with all the issues that we identified
and we're not gonna spend a lot of time on that slide
because we're gonna get into those areas of agreement
and areas of need of discussion. One of the things
I want to point out before we get to that slide. So
thank you for not forward yet. No, not yet.
There's a lot of misunderstanding of which we put like
a priority um from high to low on the different key
issues. That's not anything on there is a key issue
it needs to be addressed in one way or another. And
it's very important to stakeholders. The priority was
if it needed a rule change. So things that are high
it's very clear looking at the rule that in order to
make these areas of agreement happen, there's got to
be a rule change or it it can't have it. The medium
is boy there's a lot of area of agreement. So um maybe
some minor modification to the rule change language
but not that much like um so a really good one would
be calculation of goal in the program, goals group
that we're about to get to. Um, right now it's calculated
over five years. Everyone really agrees that a multiyear
look is good. But there's some discussion. Should it
be three years, should it be trending or is the five
year hours the best? Well, it is so good to have
you.
Sorry, I was just testifying on a Bill in the House.
I know, we know, there are tons going
on.
Oh, you always ask such good question. We're just getting
going. We already went through the best practices and
overarching themes, which you've seen. And then I
was just kind of reiterating before we get to that
priority slide, that everything on there is priority
but that high is really the rule change. The medium
is lots of areas of agreement. So maybe some minor
modifications, but it's pretty much there. Um The other
thing that's in medium is that there's uncertainty
that there needs to be a rule change. So a good example
there is geo targeting that came across all the working
groups of that would be really valuable to bundle,
you know, energy efficiency and demand response, you
know, congested feeders and ways that can really help
the local um TND systems. There's nothing in there
necessarily prevent, but there's also nothing, you
know, is it, you know, do we need lawyers to give some
advice if it would be helpful to have some role in
order to add it. So that's kind of what's in the medium
is it may not be. And then that, which I'm calling
low again, really high priority, but it's just that
a rule change isn't needed. And as one stakeholder
said, you know, and I quoted her a few times, she's
not here today, which is good. She's probably sick
of me quoting her, but she's like, just because a rule
change isn't needed, doesn't mean change. Is it need
it. So a really good example that, that we'll get to
is we went over, um a lot of the reps would like
to participate more in the programs. We went over the
the language, it's all there. So it's just making that
happen. So it's really a process improvement, you know
whether it's that coordination connecting the dots
however, but it's not that the language needs to change
So that's what that flow is coming from. So hopefully
that makes sense as we walk through. But again, we're
not going to spend a lot of time on the priority so
we can move straight into the areas of agreement and
um areas to discuss. The other thing I wanted to tell
you. Um So at the beginning, so Cyrus, one of the things
I had let off with is given, we have a half an
hour for each working group. What we're really hoping
is that every one feels really good about reviewing
the Uber summary and submitting comments. So that's
part of our objectives today too. So we did collapse
the priorities down across each working group. So we're
reporting back to you on each working group. But in
that Uber summary, you know, we we worked in silos
to get discussion done, but these things aren't Load
at all. So they're all collapsed in that Uber summary
across all working groups. So it's no longer in these
pockets that you'll see here today, which is another
reason we're not going to spend a lot of time on it
All right. (item:9:38578, Program Goals and Demand Response) So here are the key issues that we identified
in the program goal. So program goals. So I got two
of the working groups, program goals and domain of
response. Um We will take a break after you guys get
done listening to me for the next hour. We'll take
a 15 minute break and then we'll go through half an
hour with the two groups at Tina Led, which is low
income under served and then program planning. So we
are going to time keep because we do have kind of an
aggressive and I have one minute to start program goals
or I'm behind.
Um So again, here's the list, I am not gonna spend
time on this since I think it's gonna be more productive
um that we go straight into the areas of agreement
and then the areas to discuss in our time here today
All right. So again, I was really pleased. I didn't
know when we kicked off this venture if we find a lot
of areas of agreement and we did. So, one of the biggest
ones that came out of the program goals is as people
know right now, the, the only legislative goal is the
demand reduction is the PKW um, savings. Now in
the energy efficiency role, um, energy savings KW
8 are set in relation to that PKW goal.
And actually that was a big area of agreement in the
program goals working group is PKW is very, very
important here in Texas. Keep that as the primary Legislative
goal. That's good. We, we like that, you know, we do
that differently than other states. A lot of states
their main goal is just energy savings and they really
don't even have anything on PKW like PKW
saying the focus in Texas. The other thing that came
out is, you know, we know measures some save a lot
in the summer peak, some save up a lot in the winter
peak. Those are important. Um The program goals is
all the same as uh they like having knowing what summer
savings are, they like knowing what those winter peak
savings are. Really, everyone would like to see those
tracked and recorded whether or not however goals are
set or whatever, understanding the benefits of the
programs in both winter peak and summer peak seem to
be a wide area of agreement. The TRM is already
set up to allow that. So that was a big area of
agreement with the importance of both of those. Um
The other thing is in, in the rule. Um And it got
talked about this morning when, um I think Jean went
over it when she was talking about their winter Load
Management program. We have very defined peak periods
of, you know, this is the uh you know, December 1 to
the end of February or um winter. And within that,
it's just Monday through Friday. No holidays and then
very specific times of the day, 6 to 10, in the
winter summer, same thing. No holidays, no weekends
May 1 to end of September.
1 to 7, I think I have those right. But yeah, yeah
Oh, 2 to 1. Yeah, but very, very defined. So,
um that was another thing is as needs evolve. It's
nice to have flexibility to respond to future needs
So when you set very defined things based on historic
needs, it doesn't allow us to adapt to future needs
So how do you know, how do we look at those peak
periods or even (inaudible) seasons? For example, how do we
look at those things to be more flexible and more so
in the future needs? So that was a big area of agreement
there too? So, um, all right, program goals grew. Anything
to add on the peak KW on the areas of agreement.
Gary are those all looking right to you? Okay
You, you're not on the hot seat at all? Okay. Um
KWH Savings, I really love this discussion. So even
though the group was like, yeah, we get PKW really
matters but to the customers they don't know what the
heck that is and they don't really hear so much. Maybe
you know, maybe a little bit more people are aware
but they want to see that energy savings, they wanna
see their bill, they want more money in their pocket
right? So even though it was agreed, PKW is
just such an important metric. We want to keep it as
the primary one. Um We want those energy savings to
customers. That's how they feel they directly benefit
So that's really, really important that those kWh
savings are preserved and delivered different ways
to do that. Lots of discussion there. But people are
a hard crowd after lunch. Like
so in the discussion on peak KW, was there any evaluation
of the difference between peak and net peak? In other
words, peak these days with the abundance of solar
on the system is a very different exercise than net
peak, which may actually occur between 6 and 8.
Um not really. We did talk more about taking that into
account. In the demand response group. But I don't
recall us really talking about that in the program
But it is a good, it's a good point. But I would
also say to me and correct me if I have this wrong
I think it's a really good point and the fact that
we do need to be flexible to respond to those future
needs. Right? So as you have more, you know, solar
and such coming on at peak, it, it's good to respond
to that, right? Um Things are
Yeah. No, it's a great, it's a great point. We didn't
talk about it in program roles. It came up a little
bit in demand response. Yeah. Good point. Sorry.
Oh, good. I was gonna say someone for program go anything
to add to that uh to Liz's question. No, there was
discussion however, that peaks, um the value of peaks
can differ across seasons and recognize that there
may be looking at peaks at different time periods.
So maybe that gets to the fact that there, there might
be more importance for that 6-8 period than there would
have been 20 years ago. Yeah, we did. That's actually
really good point. We did spend um
carbon banks with recur. She also worked for the California
PUC She spent quite a bit talking about some of the
models they have in California where they really are
valuing it every single hour um across the year and
taking into that net more. So we did discuss it and
she did post something. So that, that's a good point
So, we did touch on it. And is it, is this list
for the Oncor? Oh, hi. I have not ever met you before
I'll talk to you. Yeah. Good.
And I don't know how accurate this observation is,
but I, I made it during our discussion is that, you
know, we look at it, you know, weekends are different
But when I think about seeing the charts that I've
seen of how much residential use was like, you know
driving demand when we did have the winter, uh you
know, and so forth, it, it really doesn't matter if
that happened on a Saturday, we were demand. So, you
know, I don't know if that, you know, including weekends
would, would be valuable, but it's just something,
it's, I think that's a perfect example of needing more
flexibility because that was a perfect example of when
the current defined periods looking historically wouldn't
have helped us out in three years. So I went to one
year. So that's, that's a really good point. Yeah,
I didn't take part in either one of these but from
a demand response. So that comes up demand response
But the observation, the customers really want to see
that the D R matters than the producer. And no, and
I agree that one of the problems this market has is
from the day competition start customers looking for
cheap, you know, which one is the cheapest. And that's
why the only real innovation we've had in this market
is reps coming up with more creative ways to say I'm
cheaper than the other. And it's, it's, uh, I've been
in the business since the market opens and that's about
all we've done well as we've come up more creative
in our messaging. But demand response has really never
resonated with customers who understand it. Traditionally
it's, well, we'll give you 50 bucks and maybe we will
or maybe we won't mess with your thermostat this summer. They don't
understand the 50 bucks is all the value they see. And so I think
that part of this, for this effort to succeed, we have
to have a widespread residential consumer buy into
it. And it's hard to picture a world in which we're
gonna be able to give them so much money that everyone's
gonna raise their hand and say, please turn off my
lights and adjust my thermostat. And so there's a
messaging component that goes back to that importance
home of the peak, explaining to them that there is
more than just money. There's value that the resiliency
of the market that you can do your small part to have
a big impact. And I think that's what has been missing
from this market from day one is all about. Well, we
can be cheaper than the next guy. So sign up with me
until three months pass and then sign up for the next
guy and we haven't been driving any real innovation
We certainly haven't been driving very smart
is not that smart, but we need that interaction between
Load as, as generation becomes less interactive and
that's the kind of thing. And I haven't seen anything
about just general education. Just a general dissemination
of what value is, not just price, it's value, but we
haven't sold up in Texas.
So we do. There is on one of the, it is about
better. Yes, agree. The working group,
I forget it if I waited too long. Well, it was, it
wasn't the best practice, but we didn't do it uh on
it in your specific example, I get it. Thank you. Um
Yeah, so kind of on just building on your point. That's
part of the reason two people talked about. Yes, demand
s response. Yes, absolutely. People need to understand
Wouldn't it be great if they understood PKW and all
of that? But again, reaching customers with not just
okay, here's a smart thermostat. You know, we're gonna
use it for demand response, but here's the savings
it delivers all year round too, right? So that they
also see that benefit. So, yeah. All right. And, and
just to be, we, we're looking for agreements that want
to be. But um, I'll say energy savings goals are important
as well. And, well, the Legislature said peak demand
is what we want you to focus on, they do say administer
you know, energy efficiency programs that include both
demand and, and energy savings. So I think there's
clearly a need for both. Um and whether that's a separate
goal or how we calculate it, I think it's clear is
there if I could just Yeah, I agree. I I my point
is not that anything up there is wrong. I think that
the one of the reasons demand responds in Texas has
not been broadly accepted. People don't understand
and they understand why they should care. And so I
think to drive energy consumption reduction to drive
reduction to lower peak during times of high demand
um we're gonna have to, we're gonna have to have to
come up with another way to articulate consumers. Why
why it matters? Is it environmental, is it enhanced
reliability is reducing overall cost of the grid? All
of those are going to resonate, but we're not saying
that
good, good, good, good point. I, you know, it was really
and I knew Austin Energy already had this uh program
But it's interesting to hear Mark talk about, you know
energy program and I was like, you know, people were
willing to pay that extra that, you know, have a renewable
energy or buy into a so there is receptivity with the
right marketing for some of these ideas, I think. So
I think that's a good point. Um I do want to Cyrus
I thought yours was a good thing way. So again, in
that KWH recognizing how important that is, that's
how the customer, that energy savings, that's how the
customer really experiences the benefits. Um Here is
what was really surprising to me. So, working across
multiple states, right in states that have, it's very
common to have that um percent of um sales set as an
energy savings target. I thought that's where this
working group was gonna go. Um It's not where they
went. They were like, you know what, we want to make
sure those energy savings are delivered, but we want
to make sure they're delivered in a way that makes
sense for Texas. So again, this is where there's gonna
be a lot of discussion. Um but there was a lot of
receptivity of,
we might not need this separate, you know, percent
energy savings goal, whether it's through the existing
energy conservation, Load factor that's set in relation
to PKW or whether it's through some ideas, we throw
out as like where you uh set the uh hard to reach
goals or low income goals or if you set a certain percent
that is low management and the rest above that has
to be, there was just a lot of brainstorming is there
are different ways to get there. Keep the focus on
PKW and use these other mechanisms to make sure those
energy savings happen. That's just not what I expected
Um having worked in other states, I thought, oh, people
will really want what happens in other states and people
were really creative and thinking about how do we make
this work the best with Texas. So lots of ideas were
thrown out care. Um So are you saying that that was
an agreement though? An agreement was that PKW
is the main Legislative goal and use other goals or
mechanisms to make sure that PKW is also delivering
energy savings. So, for example okay if the PKW,
this is only how much can be from Load Management,
the rest needs to be from energy efficiency programs
Um another one was um so Alison Silverstein isn't here
but she argued that like, hey, if you have this amount
that needs to go to low income and hard to reach, you
know, and that's where the energy savings are and um
you know, that PKW, you know, get the track and
the rest of residential. So, yes, there was a lot of
agreement that we don't need to adopt what's from other
states, which is that percent of annual sales to Texas.
Um You know, and we did and Todd was really great.
So we were put in their report um where you guys do
show that metric, you know, and uh Texas I use, I looking
great at that and I thought that was gonna be advocated
by the group, but it was really energy savings is really
important and there are different ways we can get those
delivered. Keeping our eye on the ball of PKW
Yeah, I would, I would say as the person who did the
rulemaking petition, we still think an energy savings
goal is very important. Uh But I do think there are
different ways to get there. Yeah, that, that's what
I'm trying to say is there are others. So for example
Cyrus, one of the takeaways I had from you is, you
know, hey, this conservation Load factor that's set
in relation to PKW. It, it kind of makes sense
for Texas We want it higher, right? Sierra Club wants
it higher. But you know, we don't have to scrap that
and do something another state's doing. Maybe that
really is the best for Texas. So that's what we're trying
to capture is I really thought we would come away from
this, of people saying we ought to do what other states
do and instead of people are like PKW
right? Let's get those energy savings happening in
some way. That makes sense, giving that main metric
of PKW or to say another way, what we care
about ultimately is results, right? So if the way to
get there is to set a specific goal and that's how
you get results fine if there are other ways to get
there or think about commercial and residential and
low income slightly differently in terms of the goals
that may be. I really like how you said that we were
really, it was so results focused. It was, we want
those results to happen. There are different ways that
it could happen. Let's talk about it. Let's figure
out the best way to Texas to make that happen. So,
um, all right, um This one, I think it's gonna not
be, it's gonna come up over and over again. So let's
talk about it now because it'll be on every slide probably
is, you know, people are like they'd like to see GEO
targeting, right? Um In Texas where we have bundled
energy efficiency and demand response options where
it makes sense in local utility systems, they see that
as a big benefit. Um
Anybody disagree with GEO targeting as something that's
beneficial to.
Can you, can you define what view targeting is in this
context? Like Gary sitting right next to you with a
lot of thought and some of the ideas you guys have
had. Well, I think predominantly it's, it's looking
at various parts of the service area where you may
have issues. It may not be related to grid, it may
be a, a public thing, it may be uh but not in
my backyard or it may be that we need additional funding
to do the additional infrastructure build out whatever
the reason, providing a concentrated effort in that
area with demand response energy efficiency, potentially
renewable to identify what's the problem in the area
that we're trying to correct and then put the proper
resources against that to make sure that we're addressing
the issue that's there and that, that, that could be
different for different areas. Mhm. And I think at
the memo dean, we put, uh you know, specifically, like
you know, meeting locational needs through data, you
know, we added a little more definition in the memo
So that's a really good point. But since I knew you
guys, I put thoughts on it, I love
that.
Anything else on geo targeting?
All right. Um OK, I'm gonna try to wrap up ayes agreement
in two minutes. We have 10 minutes for our areas to
discuss um consideration that affect goals again. You're
gonna see these come up over and over again. So it's
not that we agree on what they should be as we get
to the next slide on things to discuss, it was disagreed
Wow, these things really matter, like what goal feasible
and attainable where they set matter. So cost caps
came up, right? So there's a certain, um you know,
in the rule, there's a certain amount per customer
it's different for residential commercial. I cannot
put it off my head, but it's in the memo um of
what those are and then they can go up based on the
CPI um that fund the Energy Efficiency program so
especially a lot of the smaller utilities are already
at their cost cap limit. So that's something that everyone
agreed. Ok, we need to discuss this more. Um, another
thing that was, uh, an area of agreement on that was
um, performance bonuses. Everyone agrees they're needed.
Now, that doesn't mean they don't need to be, you know
more discussion on it. But the fact that, yeah, I mean
if we're gonna, you know, ask the utilities to do this
there needs to be some sort of uh care involved. So
that was an area of agreement, not the exact specifics
Um Another one, um that was another big one is that
when we're looking at goals, all these goals matter
right? So, you know, in particular, the one that's
gonna keep coming up is the feasibility of a PKW
goal really matters of the role Load management plays
in that. So you're gonna hear that over and over again
That's kind of at one time, I think we just called
it the elephant in the room. So in order to make progress
let's assume Load management is in the energy efficiency
portfolios and move forward because that's the elephant
in the room. I don't make that call, but we needed
to make progress. So just recognizing that is something
that keeps coming up is there's uncertainty around
that. Um And then uh Ken, I think this was um your
point here, it did kept coming up you know, effective
marketing education of the customer. Um, that is really
important too. Um, and that there are ways to doing
that. So there were ideas discussed a lot about increased
coordination with the reps. Um, all the way to right
now and the rule that lists out what is in administrative
cost caps. Marketing is in there. Maybe there's a separate
line item for marketing or customer education or we
just recognizing that, um marketing is important that
marketing to customers. So, all right, I made it to
10 minutes for our areas to discuss. Um All right,
so this is where s
participated in these working groups. This is working
but I was on the road or in another meeting. Um Did
the idea of where to put the performance bonus, whether
it needs to be under the cost cap or it can be
considered separately. Did that come up in our discussions
or was that it didn't in program goals? But I in program
planning, we had performance s will we get to that
then? Yeah. OK. So, yes, yeah. Yeah. Yeah, it is. So
we'll get back to it. So again, that's why I was trying
to say it's not that there's not a lot to be discussed
on it. It's just agreement. Everybody was like, yeah
this is, this is needed. So um so we talked about all
the agreement on PKW uh everybody recognizing it's
really important, but there are a lot of things still
to work out. So, um how, how are both summer and winter
peak to be valued? So right now, the rule has for,
you know, a measure that's installed, you can either
claim the peak savings in the summer or in the winter
but you can't save both. So, a lot of discussions.
So, should those be additive if they're additive, how
do we avoid double counting? Should there be separate
summer peak goals, separate winter peak goals? Lots
of discussion on that. And then the other thing was
and then what about the shoulder seasons? Right? You
know, we, there's not any value for reductions in the
shoulder seasons or is there a need to address the
shoulder season? So even with the wide agreement on
how important that PKW is exactly how it's valued
and addressed, there's still things to work out.
Thoughts on that, on the, the PKW items to work
out on it.
I'm really kind of at a loss of how I'm supposed to
participate today. I have to tell you. Okay. Um So are
you asking now for the whole group to discuss those
issues or are you just still tee up? And sometime we're
all gonna get into small groups. I heard you say. Yeah
so, well, so we have, we have two objectives in trying
to get through today is one because we have a condensed
amount of time for each working group of half an hour
We're trying to give a enough of an overview of what
the working group discussed that people feel comfortable
We have that giant memo filed in EEIP yesterday that
people feel comfortable reading it and submitting comments
so that then their comments filed. So that really is
the main objective. But it is important. Also in the
time that we have obviously there are details that
have to be hammered out. So if I said to Cyrus, well
Cyrus, where do you want that conservation Load factor
set? If we agree with that, that's not for today, that's
for down the road if the role is open, but we want
to make sure in this bigger group, right? So you earn
demand response. If you see anything really missing
from the program goals group, this is your opportunity
kind of to, you know, think of this and another opportunity
is once you review and submit comments on the full
memo. So does that give you a better feeling of what
we're hoping to accomplish today? Yes, I think so.
I think the one overarching thing I would say is you've
done a great job of boiling down a lot of very diverse
comments to make it sound kind of homogeneous. And
I didn't pick that up. So we don't think so. I think
so. We're, we're doing two things. So I just went through
areas of agreement where there was, but even the areas
of agreement that, you know, you said some inoffensive
things generally, but there's issues buried in every
one of those, right? And I'm trying to recognize that
and those are details to get worked out. So, for example
on the performance bonus, I said it was, it was agreed
everyone was like a performance bonus is needed. But
revisiting that looking at best practices, you know
there were things like, ok, well, let's quit a cap
on how much of the budget can go to performance bonus
There is a lot to be discussed to me that's a process
that once the open. So we're just trying to organize
the issues and we are trying to
identify, there is a lot to build on, right? Like if
you just focus on all the things we disagree, there's
a lot to build on the areas of agreement. And then
this slide which I went to is trying to point out there's
a lot of things in the weeds that need to be discussed
and worked out. So I'm not trying to gloss over that
I'm trying to introduce how much is in the weeds. So
in the detailed summary tables, we list all those different
perspectives. Um because there's a lot, um
I just haven't seen as much opportunity to recognize
areas in need of further discussion. That could be
you know, that seems to me that more because I just
know. So we have this for Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And I think
maybe Bob where I lost, I did also start with best
practices and over a themes. So I presented a lot of
areas of agreement and now I'm to the working group
So for each working group, we have both the areas of
agreement and all the areas that we discuss because
there's a lot. Yeah. Um So on that, here's the huge
one KW 8 Savings. So again, I said everybody
recognizes those are really important. Everyone recognizes
their different ways to get to those results as Cyrus
put it. But, oh my goodness, the different perspectives
and opinions of the ways we set KW- 8 savings in Texas
is big. So this is a big thing that's gonna need a
lot of discussion. Do we stay with the energy conservation
Load factor that sets it as a percent of PKW
that's currently at .2. And does that go up or do we
cap how much of the PKW can be from Load
Management or do we set goals from hard to reach to
low income that force a certain amount of that to be
energy efficiency? Like how KW 8 savings is set
This is an area that when the rule is open is gonna
everybody's gonna have to debate that out. So Bob,
you've been in a rule making before Cyrus, you have
like this is quite the process more than I have in
the two minutes. I have left for this program. So I'm
just trying to let everyone know this is an area. Be
ready, think about what you want. Commissioner Jackson is going
to be listening, submit those comments. Um
uh Same thing level of goals for both huge, huge discussion
People want them increased, say they're way too low
Other people say, hey, we have rising baselines, it's
getting more expensive. They said this low growth,
keep them where they are, the perspectives on that
level of goals is all over. So again, be ready for
that, Mr Jackson is going to be listening.
Um The considerations that s huge customer cost cap
where should that be? Are they set about? Right? So
you know, my guess not to put Carl and Samantha on
the spot, but as representing the cities, you know
representing Oncor they're gonna want to really make
sure they'll stay reasonable. They'll be submitting
comments on that as um Cyrus putting you all on the
spot again, Cyrus may be like those can triple, right
I'm not really not that you would say that but Okay,
yes,
so yes, so really a lot to be worked out. So we're
just trying to queue it up is these are the main issues
there was a lot of agreement, but there's a lot still
to be discussed so that the Commission is ready. They
know what is important to stakeholders. So, you know
that cost cap, it did come up, you know, Hey, Austin
and Energy and CPS Energy, those are much higher
Um Here's that maximum performance bonus, you know
it's a metric to kind of manage that cost effectiveness
came up this morning. You know, how is cost effectiveness
gone? Can it be said at the program level, we have
some stakeholders who really want it at the program
level. We have other stakeholders who really want it
at the portfolio level. We do not have agreement on
that. Um So this is just showing this is a consideration
So because I'm out of time for program goals, I want
to make sure everyone, again, the main objective in
our limited time is to make sure people understand
the issues, the range of issues feel good about going
to look at that Uber summary that was filed and feel
good to submit their own individual comments because
people are gonna have very different opinions on these
areas and need a further discussion. So,
all right.
OK. I'm gonna move on to the next one, demand response
and Load management. Um Again, we're not going to spend
a lot of time on the key issues because they're gonna
come up. But we really spent time identifying, we brainstormed
together. Here are all the things that matter for demand
response. Now, demand response is than the other working
groups because we spent a whole, we have four sessions
and it is only working group. We spend a whole session
on best practices. Um So you'll kind of see those come
up again in the areas of agreement. All right. So we
already kind of talked about this. So there's a lot
of discussion, um demand response of, you know, responding
for the ERCOT utilities for EEA 2, right? We all
know that that's something that's expected. So, an
area of agreement was what we talk about in the program
goals of, hey, there's also benefits um for local needs
So that geo targeting comes back, I I did say you would
keep seeing that that came back again as an area of
agreement, you'll see this, this ended up in a best
practice. But the point that the demand response programs
in the energy efficiency portfolio need to complement
other offerings, right? So they shouldn't be there
to compete with ERS they have, they should have their
own specific role. There are, you know, different opinions
on that so again, in the summary tables, for example
Bob, one of the um perspectives we captured for you
that I thought was really interesting is, hey, when
you have people participating for a long time in a
utility Load Management program and they really know
what they're doing, maybe it's time for them to move
to ERS right, and then kind of use the utility programs
as a way to educate people about demand response, how
they can curtail in their facility, you know, and then
move them on. So that was uh for example,
a perspective that was captured in there.
Um And then we again, this shows up in our best practices
that integrating the demand response with energy efficiency
did first come up in the demand response working group
to the extent possible. And that was kind of a coordination
point too. So, um I think our, our person from Reliant
is out at the moment. Um But they made that comment
of, you know, what if uh you know, the IOU
program, weather rises, you know, the home and make
sure that it's efficient and then passes it off, you
know, gets the rep involved to get, you know, do the
demand response. So that kind of coordination uh was
something talked about.
All right. Um That's the role of demand response that
we had that really. Then we spent a full session on
their best practices. The next one
I need for my demand response people. So I'm trying
um you were in demand response
and AEP was in demand response and Xcel was in
the
and trying to think of what about the um
Kenan the retailers here because I know that they wanna
make sure they're included. And I'm just so was here
this morning. And did she, did she been sitting back
with you this afternoon or did I? Oh, wait, oh, there
you are you, you switch places,
I'm sorry, you are here.
I'm sorry. I was curious about was the programs being
accessible to the, to the reps so they can more fully
participate came up. And if there was any agreements
or resolution of that issue, I don't know if there
was an agreement or necessarily too much, but I think
there's some of that will never feel like we've had
so many discussions in terms exactly what was in that
the, the discussion that day. But I mean, s do need
to be involved on that involvement. Yeah. Yeah. So
I, to me that was really a message that was loud and
clear and why it got integrated into the best practices
And Eleanor, don't you, you represent the right? Yes
Yes. So, I mean, I think this goes sort of back to
the, the, the first working group where because this
is a right, a regulated program, the more parameters
you put on, the more goals, the more the more granular
the goals, all of that, it shifts the focus away from
sort of innovation and, and how to, you know, how to
serve the customer best and instead makes the focus
on, you know, how I get a program that meets the criteria
And so I, you know, I think whether it's demand response
in concert with the energy efficiency or something
that, that there is not a lot of integration of, you
know, the customer facing entity, which in our part
of the rep to try to, you know, to try to enhance
the reach to the customer. So, so I actually represented
a rep position in that committee. And so this is kind
of an example of how you've managed to say things very
politely compared to what I said. So,
so I'm just saying, I, how's that working out for you
So my opinion was actually that the um commercial Load
management really belongs to ERCOT that particularly
given all the effort that we're going to, for example
for the new capacity in the market, we're already at
24% capacity and we're adding additional programs,
the legislature, the PUC I want to add more gas generation
So some of that peak demand response is less relevant
and this is an efficiency program. So I'm a little
concerned about losing that. But my point was reps
are the ones that can capture the value of demand response
and should be the ones because they have the commodity
responsibility. And if we go to an LSE obligation,
they've really got an even capacity obligation.
We need to think about how to pair the program so that
the utilities are giving a rebate for something, maybe
like a smart device which allowed a customer maybe
require a customer to get the rebate to sign up for
a rep program so that you're beginning to get complimentary
and synergistic kind of interaction where the market
works the way it's supposed to, the utilities are doing
things that make sense for them to do in the same way
that the, the geographic or you called it something
uh geo targeting. Um You know, this morning we were
talking about demand response. It has been operated
as if the capacity of the ERCOT market is what's being
addressed. But that's ERCOT job and the utilities
we have to build out reliable infrastructure should
be trying to target things like here he is talking
about that support the infrastructure. So localized
demand response incentives that could even be like
in certain areas
that would make a lot of sense for a TDU
to be doing. So I I agree. So we have that like
number one on the list and I guess on the rep point
we very much I think we haven't been there. I think
it's been great to have the rep participation, more
coordination is needed. And that's the one that makes
me so nervous because it keeps showing up as below
because we reviewed the whole language together, right
together. We're like, Okay, it's all there. So how
do we make it happen? And I think you keep quoting
right? I think it's Christina. Oh OK. Maybe it's Christina
I keep quoting. Oh I, I still, I was like, no, I
keep quoting
but um but to me that also, so Bob offered one opinion
of how the reps should do it. But to me that is
again the detail to get worked out like is there some
smart thermostat program, for example? Right. That's
like the details to work out on how to increase that
coordination with the rat. So I'm not trying to gloss
over it. It's just that their different opinions. So
it's more it needs to be addressed
but there's work to be done.
I mean, just to reiterate that, I mean, what we're
trying to talk about here is things that need to be
changed in the rule that is in the rule we discussed
that. So the fact that it is in the rule and that
if the reps wanna have that communication with the
utilities, they can do that. That's not an issue that
you need to identify it. It, it's an issue of this
is really important, but it's a low priority. That's
what I keep saying because it's
so I was the
well with that too. But uh but you know, put a different
way. So it's in the rule but, but utilities and endeavors
to all my utility friends here and elsewhere tend to
behave in the ways in which they are incentivized to
do by legislation or people. So the ability to do that
is in the room, but there is no incentive for the
TDU for the utilities to actively engage reps who
are actively engaged with the customer. We have that
relationship with the customer. They get a bill from
us, they get messaging from us. It comes back to the
education part that I was talking about. Our company
We started in California. It's a demand response company
that now does retail electricity in Texas And we came
here specifically to try to drive a broader acceptance
among consuming pop, but we can't do the amount of
We need incentives in the rules. So maybe there
is a rule change. We need to be incentives in the rules
that, that then transform the motivation of why the
utility gets up that morning. And what are we going
to accomplish? Not just can I check the box, get the
right efficiency reductions or those time metrics?
What can we do to drive a broader acceptance? So the
rules that they extend don't preclude cooperation,
but neither do they incentivize it. And that's where
I would argue there needs to be a rule. Well, and the
question needs to be asked, why are there not more
reps involved since the original Legislation was written
with reps and third parties meant to be the implementer
Part of the answer is because the size of the programs
are so small. So you would almost have to increase
the goal or do less demand response so that there's
enough money to make it interesting to reps to serve
because they're going to have to scale up to serve
all their customers who are trying to. So I would again
so that everyone feels good about like the end objective
So that was such a great point. I think that's exactly
but I'm just a facilitator. Right. So that's exactly
the kind of comment that I think the Commission is
looking to be filed. Right. So that they understand
your perspective on that of ways to have more participation
and, you know, the utilities may have a very different
opinion that they filed. I,
that is my job. I'm just here to facilitate this session
So, um, I guess that's what I would encourage is I
think we've clearly identified. It's been very identified
This is an important issue. There are different opinions
on it. So I, you know, um we, we captured those opinions
or summary table to the extent they were ex um expressed
in the working group, but that was a whole new thing
I had heard. So great comment, get a file. Um So yeah
very good. Um All right. So on the value of demand
response, this is another big one. Tina will talk about
it more in her cost effectiveness too when she talks
about what it costs and such. But it's right now. We're
not. Okay. So if there is more TND done, right
I mean, more benefits, you know, to T N D through um
geo targeting or we're not, we're not recognizing that
in our current structure, right? So do we need to look
and I'm not gonna spend a lot of time on this because
this was really taken up by program planning, but just
recognizing this came up in demand response that. Ok
well, how do we really value the benefit to the grant
of demand response? Um And the same thing applies to
energy efficiency too. So, um I think we already talked
about that already came up and program goals, we worked
in these working groups, but these issues on siloed
of the need for um peak periods to be more flexible
So you can see why that definitely came up in demand
response. So, um you know, we already made that point
of uh what, what was like on the weekend. So, um so
this is again a program design. So what had come up
on the areas of agreement on program design which ended
up working its way into best practice is the fact that
um there does need whether it's consistency or maybe
there's other ways to an incentive, but there needs
to be something that does make it easier for reps to
participate that I think was something that was agreed
and service provider. So like, I don't see Tim with
TRC here now that, you know, you know, he's a
service provider, he does a lot of the main response
too. So really that need of making it such that others
really can participate,
keeping that flexibility too. So this was the really
big one that came up too is um processes of support
improvements need to be discussed. And agreed upon
So, um, not getting the weeds, but everyone agreed
to the point of the rights again that it's in the rule
But you know, are there processes that help that happen
more and again, nays are gonna be different opinions
on what that should be. So, all right. So going from
role of demand response and program design, anything
on those top three s of areas of agreement from the
demand response group. So Jeremy AEP um
that I missed and that anyone else in the demand response
group that oh no, Ken, you were, I keep thinking you
were on program go but you were demand response. Yeah
um of areas of takeaways for areas of agreement because
then I have the kind of the other considerations to
hit. But those are gonna have a lot of the ones we
already talked about under program goals.
Yes, I, yeah, I think the only thing I'd say is that
you know, similar to what was said before about integrating
the role and value of the DERs And now it's got to
be more than just on utilities for the reps. There's
a larger responsibility of educating, look about demand
response and how we communicate about it and to create
some consistency because we don't know what it means
But when you express the value of it and, and just
like anything else, it isn't just about money in your
pocket, we have to communicate that we are in all this
together. And when people recognize that, I think they
will get that, you know, of moral value and why they
need to participate and those things can be integrated
by having better coordination between uh what we're
all. Yeah. Yeah, I really like, you know, we really
need to add some more on that, in that overarching
one we talked about, you know, the value proposition
but I really like adding more of that to the customer
hoping that the customer understand has come up a couple
of times. It's a really good point. You made that point
too of, yeah, that really is a key piece. So I appreciate
that.
Ok, so the other considerations are going to have a
lot of things we already talked about. So we already
talked about that. Um There's uncertainty around the
role of demand response and the energy efficiency portfolio
Um We already talked about customer cost caps that
a lot, especially the smaller utilities are at them
And then we uh talked about, you know, again, that
outreach is always a barrier and ways to do a better
job of that. Um So those were kind of the same things
as we had under program goals came up there. So I'm
gonna move on to areas to be discussed unless we have
more on areas of agreement,
we're still on time. We're making it. Tina's like,
don't start me late.
All right, next one. All right. There we're there.
Okay. Um Okay. So again, this is where we're gonna see
some of the things come up. Um That PKW period
absolutely needs to be discussed. We already saw it
on program goals there. It is absolutely needs to be
discussed that value um of how to um show the benefits
whether it's to avoid a cost or in the cost effectiveness
calculation. Um that increased coordination. We really
talked about that. How does that happen? Really needs
to be discussed? And um well, the same considerations
that affect goals, there was a lot of overlap actually
in those considerations and program goals and demand
response because they're very much tied there. So um
I think the biggest thing that's different here to
work out is this is really where um that coordination
with the reps came up a lot even though um so Christina
was in demand response and I think you were in program
planning. Oh, you were in program. OK.
Oh That's what. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. OK. Um Yeah. So
this is this really uh you know, came up a lot there
too. So I'll make one more suggestion when you use
terms like process improvement. That sounds like getting
the check through the process faster. But if what you
mean is program changes to be more effective, we have
to use those. So that's not, it's the reason I use
the term process improvement is because it's a catch
all because it's not necessarily a program change.
So that was one idea out there was to have, it consists
of smart thermostat program, right? Other ideas were
um a performance metric of reps involved that they're
measured against. So I there were different ideas of
ways to increase the coordination. So some of them
were program changes, some of them were not. So, so
in your mind, the process of uh improvements are broader
not administrative s pretty broad. So I, a lot,
yeah, a lot was discussed. So I'm trying to catch the
fact that it was a, yeah, that it was, it was agreed
on a coordination piece where, uh, I believe was the
one who uh, alluded to it was, there's got to be more
coordination between the rep and the utilities on the
ideas of what the reps have as a, as a product or
as a program. Not necessarily that there's, uh, that
they had the idea, they just wanted to bridge the gap
right now. There is not a communication, although there
is a process, it's written there and none of those
ideas have gotten to the utilities, but there wasn't
a clear path for her during the communication and that's
what she was looking for. They were looking for a transparent
path for communication to the utilities with their
ideas of DER program. So, and then we, we all agreed
to have that door open. So hopefully that is the process
that we're looking for. Not so much
administrative side. Oh, that's gonna probably get
sucked up into it
and, and I, and I'd like to bring up the, you know
we, we do have reps that participate in our existing
programs, but when you talk about coordination, we're
talking about coordination with over 100 reps, not
just the top two or three in the. So, we've got to
figure out a way to get all reps involved. And I think
that's a bigger issue than just bridging a gap with
the single point or a couple of rounds. Ok.
So again, just highlighting this is an area that needs
to be discussed.
ROS
different opinions on how I need to be addressed. But
yeah. Ok. So, yeah, I don't know we're talking about
and CPS customer account how much higher they are
Yeah. So, um my understanding from the CPS Energy
when their board of directors continued their step
program, which is basically their efficiency. They
said they think it costs about $3.50 a customer. I
don't know what their kilowatt hour average use is
to know, but I think it's around 1000. So I think that
would be equivalent to 350. So they cap it and don't
change it. Um I don't know that they have a true cap
It's just what they, in terms of their budget in Austin
Energy case. And I don't think anyone's here from Austin
Energy. Uh but they have what's essential, that's
part of the customer benefit charge. The customer benefit
charge is, I don't know if that's what it's called
It's larger because it includes the payment assistance
But if you just look at the energy efficiency part
of it, I think this last year it was about $2.30 for
1000 somewhere that, um, but you know, they more or
less meet a 1% goal. Now, do they really need it? You
know, that's a wider question. But yeah,
they include a lot of different types of programs and
I did steal that from program goals because customer
cap as you know, excel as one at it kept coming up
in demand response. I was like, well, we already had
that information provided. So, but I would, I would
definitely, this is rust of numbers probably be best
to get it from CPS.
So I was just,
you know,
um So, all right, so what um so I'm gonna ask everyone
to please be back really? Like we have two more working
groups to get and I'll wrap up. So please be back ready
to go in your seats. I'm gonna say seven minutes till
three. So I have five minutes till three. We're actually
going.
So not for like 2:55.
Sorry,
I,
Okay. Well, we're all back and I know I'm between you
and the road. (item:10:38578, Initial remarks to start off Working Group Progress Updates) So I will put my, uh, statements in line
with our presentation. But I think the important thing
to point out is a lot of the things that we've already
heard in the last two working groups that I'm gonna
be presenting first will be the low income and underserved
segment. Um You're going to hear some very similar
trends, things that, that similar topics, key issues
and, um, between the low income and the planning or
program planning working groups, there were a lot of
similarities of, of discussion items. And so I have
my little cheat sheets because I wanna make sure I
present the right one in the right group. But uh so
we're gonna go through like we did in the last two
sessions with Lark. Uh You can see the key issues that
we've talked about uh during the working group. (item:10.1:38578, Low-Income/Underserved and Program Planning) This
is low income and under served just to make sure I
didn't lose anyone there. And so you can see there's
a lot of them, we had a lot of high priority items
meaning we have, we anticipate there would be rule
changes that would be needed in order for the suggested
perspectives to be implemented and then the medium
and the low priorities. So with that being said, we're
going to move on to the areas of agreement. These aren't
they look very similar. And uh what I'd like to point
out though is these are areas of agreement just like
with Lark. Uh but they also might be the same key issues
may also appear in the uh area is yet to be discussed
for a different reason or maybe a similar reason, just
expand it in a little bit different way. So the first
item that we area of agreement we had on this is around
uh the hard to reach definition. Uh Sometimes a lot
of times people like to tie low income and hard to
reach together. Uh, there really is no, uh, not a defined
definition for low income, but it's typically tied
to similar to the federal weather weatherization requirements
But for hard to reach currently, it reads something
like, uh, households with, uh, an income, household
income of at or below 200% of federal poverty level
And as we were talking about that, there was a lot
of agreement that, that definition probably needs to
be expanded, uh, or broadened and there's many different
ideas of how that might happen or what, what that is
But the goal and the reason why everyone, why there
was such a level of agreement was because there's a
lot of people that are out on the fringes, meaning
if we're using that 200% poverty level of day, there
are people that just barely, uh, um, just are disqualified
because of that. There are others that, uh, for example
uh, it doesn't really define who, what is hard to reach
in. And does that include just, uh, low income. We'd
like to be able to add, uh, opportunities for moderate
income. Uh, could we add rural or there are a lot of
different areas? But the overall agreement was that
we should expand that and broaden it because it would
allow us to serve more customers. And as we've been
talking about all this time is I believe Ken pointed
out, you know, the goal, obviously, we talked about
this is we really want to serve more customers and
do it in a way and make sure that we can cover
the territories that are all the entire state of Texas
no matter what utility it is and be able to do it
for the good of the customer. Because remembering as
Lark said earlier, these are ratepayer rate payers
pay for these programs. So in addition to that, uh
for the definitions of, we also said, uh it's important
all these little aspects that we're gonna talk about
they're all interrelated, interdependent of each other
So if we're gonna make a change to the H um sorry
the HTR, I hope you don't mind if I use
that acronym. Uh But hard to reach uh is that it's
gonna impact the goals today. There's a low income
goal and there's a HTR goal uh that uh each
of the utilities um are required to follow and we want
to make sure that everyone keeps that in mind is when
we look at expanding or broadening, broadening that
definition for HTR is that we think about how that may
impact goals. And it was critical for all the participants
in the working group that, that really, that looking
at that before making the change in the definition
to really investigate how would that impact goals.
And then the flexibility, flexibility was something
in both of these working groups that everyone was like
Okay. And, and as we go through this process, we need
to make sure that everything has flexibility and having
that flexibility in the uh HTR definition is to ensure
that we're not going to single out or require one utility
to do something that another utility is doing that
may not be necessary or may not work in the same way
for the other utilities. So we want to ensure that
wherever we were looking at this landing, as far as
the H T R definition goes is that it allowed for flexibility
so that it was it worked for all utilities and they
were able to adjust it based on their needs for their
service territories.
Any comments, thoughts, anything that for the people
that were on the working group, that that's what we
did really, that that wasn't the area of agreement
that we were really uh trying to get to.
So cost effectiveness testing. So the important part
to understand for this working group is because the
program planning working group was uh going to address
avoided costs when we talked about cost effectiveness
You know, we tried to keep, avoided cost over on the
other side of the table. Um, we, we really looked at
it for trying, we tried to talk only about cost effectiveness
independently, which we all know, you really can't
do that too easily because you can't do it without
avoided costs. But we tried to keep most of that discussion
we had discussion around, avoided costs, but we tried
to keep most of that in another working group. So when
we talked about cost effectiveness, uh the um the working
group and stuff came as well as other working groups
is that changing from a program level cost effectiveness
to a portfolio level, cost effectiveness would really
be beneficial to this, these segments specifically
and would allow for additional um innovation and programs
and it would allow for maybe bundling of, of measures
that won't otherwise necessarily be able to be included
Um But it was definitely an area that transitioning
from a program level to a portfolio level, high high
agreement there. I'm not really sure there's anyone
that did agree with it, but I don't have that. Exactly
But I'm pretty sure that's right. And I think the biggest
part here is because it was that expansion of the measure
mix was another part of it. That was really something
that many of the utilities as well as other stakeholders
discussed as far as that was really an area that through
bringing in a change like this would allow for an expanded
mix of measures. Uh When it, when we talked about avoided
costs, uh obviously for the low income programs, the
savings investment ratios use or SIR. Um and they're
obviously we got a little deep in the weeds here. Uh
But it was something that we thought was important
to include in, in this uh working group as well because
uh today, utilities do a calculation of the avoided
retail energy uh cost. Um And so does EM&B
Um and sometimes those don't necessarily agree and
that then causes problems when your performance of
your human being, uh evaluation results come back and
there's differences. So the we the working group really
thought it was important that we at least establish a
wish a common methodology and a common um time frame
for that to be for uh sorry, avoided cost uh for um
sorry retail energy to be calculated. And that, that
then was used by all parties. So instead of every utility
may be calculating that themselves uh that we would
have a common, common methodology, it would be calculated
Maybe we decide who was going to calculate it uh and
then be shared and be used throughout the entire year
by all parties no matter if that's the utility um stakeholders
or the EM&B. And that would eliminate a lot
of issues. Um Yes, can I ask a point of clarification
You're talking about the using of the usage of the
avoided retail energy cost. If this is specific to
the SIR, not anything to do with the utility cost
Exactly. Exactly. Yes. On the SIR only, yes, nothing
else. On the other side, you si stand for savings and
investment ratio.
this is so
did that clear it up? Sorry. Ok, I just wanted to reiterate
to because we do have a consistent avoided cost of
energy and cost of demand for calculation the portfolio
And this is to SIR only. Yes, yes, definitely
And that's what I was trying to get up front. Uh But
yes, we we'll get to that part too, that will get ok
to avoid a cost on the other side. Um And then sort
of one more little piece that we got into our discussion
here about avoided costs with the two you thought was
important is today there is an option uh as far as
avoided cost goes uh on the UCT
side of it is um whether or not uh sorry, uh
TND uh transmission distribution avoided cost should
be uh included or not. And um so we, we talked about
that a little bit not going to go into a lot of
detail there because we sort of cut that off. But what
we did, we did talk about is that if there are changes
that are going to be made to avoid it costs capacity
and energy that the non ERCOT utilities really wanted
to voice that. It was important that today they have
the option of using their own TND uh voided cost
It's not on the ERCOT side, but on the non ERCOT side
And they really thought that that was important that
it stayed and that we had already did our avoided costs
on uh in the program planning session. And that really
did not come up in that conversation. So that's why
we brought it up in here and their seat even though
it was a non ERCOT utility um that brought that up
there was a level of agreement and that seemed to make
sense with the perspective that was given to us.
Uh Another area of agreement is about, we're talking
about uh serving under underserved communities and
I'm gonna start with that. We, when we got to this
uh before we got here, we were talking about identification
of underserved uh segments. And how is that done with
the utilities? And what's what type of, uh what do
they already have identified as underserved? And, and
there, obviously, the common one that we can talk about
is rule. OK. And that there's a, there are parts of
uh the utilities that also other segments of the utility
shared with us. Uh But think about multifamily, think
about small business. Um, rule was already included
Those are some of the common items that were that common
other segments that were brought up. But as part of
that, we also talked about how difficult it is and
that really not having a, having a definition tied
to underserve um may, may make by not having that,
that, that may why it is more difficult for people
to understand who, who is being served when we talk
about underserved communities Or is it only low income
And you know that sometimes it gets limited and then
the view that is given to the utilities or upon this
placed upon the two utilities is that it's only about
low income and that's not the intention hard to reach
is really intended to be broader than that. So um when
we through that discussion, the, if we put a definition
out, a definition is necessary for underserved communities
then the working group really wanted to make sure that
we streamlined the process if income was going to be
a qualification for that definition. So for example
if we said, must have a uh uh a household income of
300% or less. Okay of federal poverty um then they
wanted to make sure that we took that everyone understood
that the key to this is streamlining income verification
Okay. We had many different thoughts about that. Uh And
that you might see that come up here later, but uh
it is really a key factor there that a lot of times
that the reason areas are being uh are considered underserved
is for the fact that there's this income verification
process that may be a detriment to getting participant
for not just the fact of going through that process
but maybe for customers actually feeling comfortable
or having trust in where that information is going
to be used or how it's going to be used. So streamlining
the income validation process is something that there
is definitely an area was definitely an area of agreement
Next slide, I'm sorry, got my head turned. I remember
OK, so couple more areas of agreement. So collaboration
uh with part uh through partnerships. Uh First I say
there are many instances and examples of several of
opportunities that of uh collaboration and partnerships
going on. That's with uh the some of the agencies.
If that's with uh uh permitting offices for the city
If working with different cities, there's just so many
different ones, but it is, there are, there are opportunities
out there today, but it was an area agreement that
there's, there's opportunity for this to be expanded
And um I actually even looking at at organizations
that are not like the typical organizations that you
would think about uh partnering with. It may be um
uh uh school programs, it may and you can say we do
a lot of school programs. But there were some examples
for example, working with some high schools that had
uh special uh dollars grants that were giving to them
And they, they wanted to be able to be partnered with
us to sort of use the utility program to help uh do
assessments and things like that. Um But the point
that I'm trying to bring here with this is that there's
opportunities to all the working group members felt
that yes, there's opportunities for considered uh increased
coordination or collaboration with uh or partnerships
Uh But they're also to understand that there also are
when you bring, bring these organizations in uh with
the utilities, there can be some barriers that are
that exist and we can't just look past those barriers
but we need to really work through them to ensure that
um the collaboration can be as successful as possible
because uh there's competing priorities, uh there's
timing of projects for. So currently the one year program
cycle might be a barrier for some because of the length
of time it may take for a project actually to get started
and staffing might be an issue. So, so many different
things, but it was an area of agreement that with collaboration
when we think about this or start or want to do this
we also need to really identify barriers that exist
up front to be successful with that collaboration uh
through the through the process,
another area of the utilization of other funding. So
of course, this is a big deal. I mean, we hear about
this topic all the time. With the Inflation Reduction
Act, the Jobs Act. There are so many things with that
but also today, there's a whole lot of other things
I mean, this morning we talked with PACE talking with
us, we know that green buildings, I mean, there's all
kinds of other options of other funding that exist
but it's the utilization of that that is happening
too also today. Uh It's not like it's nonexistent,
but uh there are opportunities to expand that. And
when we talk specifically about the IRA money, uh there
were some concerns out there in one as it was stated
earlier, we know parts of it, but there's a lot of
unknowns of what's gonna, what those programs are gonna
look like. Are they really going to be complimentary
that we're hoping they are that that's how it's all
gonna work. I think that's people's attention, but
we haven't seen it yet. So until we actually see that
but we also want to make sure that if we would like
that opportunity for that collaboration to occur there
too, in the develop of those to ensure that we can
avoid having new barriers created. And as as through
that conversation, it was brought up too, there's already
some questions in regards to like tax credits for low
income, the low income tax credits. And the example
was given that there's a requirement to have a tax
liability, is that gonna work for all low income uh
recipients or are they really gonna have a tax liability
that meets, that's gonna allow them to participate
But we'll see that and work through that. But those
were definitely tax liability mean you owe taxes. Yes
Yes. Sorry. Thanks for the IRAs question
there. Uh So, you know, that, that may be a barrier
that was an unintentional barrier. But those are the
kind of things that when we're looking at utilization
we believe it's really, so there's opportunities there
something to pursue. Uh and to, to complement the program
as complement the utility programs as we move forward
Any questions on uh sorry Clark, uh any
questions on or phone a friend out there, anybody that
was on the working group of any additional discussion
in regards to the areas of agreement, just a quick
question about how we do things now when a utility
uses ratepayer money, but then collaborates with another
source of funding like weatherization dollars to get
more bang for their buck. How do we treat that? Now
do we just, is it just done on a percentage like you
spend a million dollars and then you're, you're combining
it with a million dollars from ideally weatherization
and you get this this much savings, do you just do
the half or does it not work that way it hits by
the measure that are? So
maybe you want to say that a little bit louder. They
we could hear that. Is it just your response to us
I, I just was telling Cyrus that it would be, uh, by
the measures that are actually in. Right. And it's
the energy saving team from there. It's not like it's
not tight money, more per measure. And then
any other utilities
and our targeted low income program, uh, we specifically
address which measures that we'll pay on. And so as
the agencies go out and do various projects, they'll
allocate the measures that we want to our programs
and then allocate the remain.
I just don't want to speak for. My point is if there's
a way if, if there's a way to give credit where you
guys collaborate with existing funding that still leads
to savings for customers, again, what we care about
is the results. So if we want to credit you guys more
for your part of the money that gets the savings more
than the other part of the money, I mean, you know
let's be flexible,
but I don't know if any, if you need any changes to
do that or that you can already do
what kind of credit. Well, so, so if, if, if there's
a total project that costs four million and we can
um front Load the rate payer part of it where you guys
are spending two million so that you get more credit
to meet your goals. Maybe that's a way, you know, see
what I'm saying, maybe that's a way, um, as assigning
the ratepayer part of the money, um, to the, to the
larger energy savings, whether it's peak demand savings
or energy efficiency savings, maybe that's a way to
use federal funds in a way that, um, you know, kind
of protects ratepayers, but also allows you to achieve
those bigger goals.
And I don't have that already. We, we kind of do that
now ru in that, you know, we're only allowed to incentivize
those measures that are in the TRM generally speaking
right? And, and so we'll look at those and see what
on a particular project, what's available in the
TRM and then utilize and allocate those to the that
project. So, and then the remainder, because there's
more flexibility in the DOE programs, the remainder
of those may go order the BOE.
Just a couple of questions and I, I don't know if there's
even a good answer to these, but it seems like the
as far as the low income question, I, I'm wondering
if any utility that is undefined, um if anybody uses
instead of just a percentage of, of poverty or whatever
um I think it's called energy burden households or
whatever, where it's like you measure how much they're
spending on energy uh uh versus their income, which
is actually more accurate to kind of give you an idea
of who would be better targets for energy efficiency
And then, so somebody can answer that question maybe
But the second one would be the question about the
portfolio going to the cost effectiveness of the portfolio
Is that something that needs uh a rule change or a
law change in order to go to that level? Because I
mean, I don't see any policy, you know, best practices
point of view. I don't see any reason not to go to
the portfolio. I'm glad to support that, but I don't
know where that change needs to happen. It's a real
change. And I'm just gonna, she is representing the
low income under serve segments in my program goal
group. We had stakeholders who felt that programs needed
to stand on their own. And their perspective was it
needs to be the program level. So I just wanna
in that working group, there was broad consensus in
my program because there was not so just representing
all the perspectives. So I see people shaking their
heads at me who are like, wait, yeah, and there was
I mean, that's the whole thing. Remember this is from
this working group and your first question when we
get to our next slide, you'll yes that you'll see that
we, we too think maybe on a similar line that there's
additional discussion around that. So any other um
agreements. Okay. So if we flip over to uh areas that
we thought needed further discussion, so we talked
about the HTR definition, we had agreement that we
thought it needs to get expanded or uh or broaden whatever
word you think makes best sense for how you might be
thinking about it. But there was once again, that was
like, Okay, if we make that change and if income, because
currently income is included in the definition. If
income is included in this expanded or broad definition
then there was discussion around multiple metrics being
used and it just had to be like it is today, it's
200% of, of federal property. And is the, is it 200%,
is it 300%? And is it 150 or does it need
to be there at all? Um And or could it have a
series of different metrics that you could use to qualify
someone uh based on income like is done in other places
So coming in, uh that's an area that needs some discussion
And if you remember for those people that were on the
working group or listened in in, in um session three
at the end of the session, we said, hey, here's your
opportunity. We've talked about a lot of these areas
of discussion and now we really would like to get your
ideas. So we ask people to start sharing or submitting
their thoughts on, on what might this new HTR or
this expanded or broad definition look like? So this
is what we're asking for again. Uh what was talking
about? Um And Therese was talking about in her introduction
as now is an opportunity that yes, we would like to
know if we all believe that the definition. And when
I say if there's an area of agreement uh or in these
discussion, uh these areas of discussion now is the
opportunity to bring those to us and to file them and
talk about, tell us what you think the definition should
be. What, how, how do you think an expanded definition
What should it consist of how, what? And those are
the kind of things we'd like to see in addition to
the uh definition. Um There is also questions. Oh,
I see this. Well, um if uh I thought we changed those
Oh yeah, they're in both space. Okay. So those uh the
last two bullets underneath uh we moved over to
goals by themselves, but I'll just jump over there
and we'll come back to the others. So even if the
HTR definition um doesn't change, so don't expand it
for some reason, you know, then the question of we
had a conversation in regards to goals. OK. So the
HTR goal is, I believe it's 5% across the board
uh for all utilities and then on low income, I believe
it's 10% for the ERCOT utilities. Correct? I have that
vice versa. And um, the question is,
is that, are those still appropriate is that different
Uh, you heard Lark talk about, um, the measure baselines
are changing, you know, they're getting, it's tougher
it's costing us more, costing more money to get the
same level of savings or maybe a higher level of savings
So, you know, we had many different perspectives. Some
people said that goal, if the definition doesn't change
goals where they are today are appropriate and we think
we can meet those. I'm not offended. I've just been
called to. Thanks Cyrus s.
Uh So, uh those are, those are, that's, uh that's an
area of discussion. So is I think we all know in all
these different groups, um There's been leave it at
where it is. Uh maybe it needs to be lower, maybe it
needs to be a little bit higher, a whole lot higher
Here's your opportunity to share what you think uh
should do is what, what the HTR and low income
goals should be. Another area for discussion has to
do with underserved segments. So as we talked about
is, you know, there really isn't a definition for underserved
segments and there's a lot of questions sometimes in
regards to how well are we serving underserve and uh
communities and people uh that and what's getting reported
from that may very different, very much are very different
may be very different, sorry between utilities. And
so during the working group, uh there was discussion
around, should we have an underserved definition. There's
pros and cons with that. Does that limit, does that
can you make that broad enough, flexible enough to
meet each different utilities needs? And maybe, uh
you know, encores might be related to multifamily might
be an area that they're dealing with and, uh, smaller
utilities with a lot of rural coverage might be saying
I really got all this rural area and other ones might
say I just have this population that's here. It happens
to be located. Uh, while this morning we've had a northern
uh Mark was talking about uh uh Beaumont. I don't remember
if it's North or South Mark, but one of those areas
where you're talking about that it was an area that
you were uh had targeted specifically to because it
wasn't getting served. So that that's the type of flexibility
that we were talking about. So, you know, does, does
there need to be a definition and would the definition
then help for how we, uh will it allow for improved
tracking on how we're meeting or serving these underserved
segments? Um So that's an area of discussion uh that
requires more discussion, is the definition really
needed or can it stay undefined? But yet, maybe we
do, we, we explain a little bit better in reporting
or uh some other request of way to be able to uh
indicate who who's being served at for what reason
And we're trying to, trying to tie into that underserved
population
cost effectiveness standards. So, um we talked about
the SIR Okay. And the need to have the um process
or methodology and timing corrected. So then we get
to cost effectiveness. And um really there are a lot
of conversation about that. The current UTC calculation
doesn't really uh UCT, sorry, doesn't um I'm like
that just didn't work right in my head. Uh Sorry, uh
um that it really isn't valuing the programs fairly
and for what the benefits are that they're bringing
to low income and underserved segments. So we had a
lot of discussion around should the UCT be modified
And we had people that really like to simplicity of
UCT. Um And didn't think, and they didn't really
think it needed to be changed, but maybe there is a
level of agreement there. So maybe it wasn't really
that we changed to a different test but maybe, could
we modify it? Could it be modified to allow for more
benefits to uh uh to be included in the calculation
Uh And then uh as through that same, those same discussions
but there's questions in regards to health and safety
and a lot of times when people think health and safety
they only think about that. It's low income and then
you're like, Okay, that's on the other side. Nays said
that's on SIR okay. Yeah, we're not disagreeing with
that, but we also were talking about moderate income
and others. So in that, when, when you have HTR
programs, they fall underneath the UCTs
test is used for those. So the question came into play
about, should those, um, should we find a way or look
at a way that we could use health and safety? So those
things that have to be done in order for us to really
do the energy efficiency improvements, those things
need to be done. First, is there a way to include that
into the cost effectiveness testing that shows more
benefits that could be there to make, that make these
programs more cost effective. But once again, there's
a lot of discussion around there, there's pros and
cons, there are differences of opinions in our working
group. And so that's why you see it as an area of
discussion for now.
Anything on those three before, uh we go on to the
last two or the last one. So since we already talked
about both, just a quick question, I don't know if
anybody has identified or added like it seems to me
like vendors or people that rent their home, you know
have regular rental properties. It seems like there's
a big disincentive to, you know, do energy efficiency
and demand response. And so maybe if they, you know
focused on them as an underserved segment was possible
state. And when you say that, are you talking like
like the split split incentive kind of issue or is
it? Okay. Um
Yeah, that there may and we may pull the uh a lot
of the discussion for the working group was around
multifamily, not the individual homes. But I don't
know if we completely were, we, we were talking on
a similar line, but it was more on the depart apartment
dwellings or uh instead of a single family home, but
maybe a similar discussion. But it could be once again
that's one of those segments that maybe for one utility
that may make sense or it may not for others, but the
split incentive overall can be to turn for.
Okay. Uh And then of course, we are back to increased
coordination uh or collaboration. And so this really
got into uh earlier, you saw it in regards to organization
but we really had a lot of conversations here in regards
to rep service providers, other stakeholders. Okay. We
just sort of RUC them all together because it was trying
to keep the keep the group group broad and not be like
it's like only one group, all of those groups are important
Uh And the working group, uh obviously I said they
said there was a level of, of, of opportunity that
was there. But then it's um trying to look at like
what would be the process improvement is the word we're
using is what would that look like if we, if we know
we can if we know we need to um expand, I'm gonna
say that collaboration for the good of the programs
and for the good of our custom, the customers. What
would, what, what should that look like um in the meetings
that we were in? Just to give you some ideas, there
were suggestions about maybe there should be a uh advisory
group. Okay. And that occurred some frequency. Okay? Uh
Because we have the EEIP meeting today, everyone's
everyone's here, everyone has that opportunity. But
if we really want to increase the, the level of participation
by all the different uh groups of people from program
design to development to performance, uh Then how do
we do that? And like Gary said, it's not just two if
we talk reps specifically because that's who was in
our work group with us. It's not, we're not just talking
about one or two groups, we're talking about 100
I'm gonna use groups and it might be an individual
or a group of one, but there's a large population there
and that can be difficult. So, um the, the, the discussion
areas around, well, how do we put that into place?
What would be the best mechanism? And that's really
where the area of discussion came for the low income
working group is like, how could we do that? See it
There's not a rule that would, there's not, we don't
believe there's a rule change that needed to occur
It was really just getting something into place so
that people felt like there would be real change or
and I, I take that as well, really there would be expansion
because we're know there are, there's collaboration
occurring in certain aspects really easy. And then
there's areas where some groups, one over the other
work, one group or another has pointed out, but there's
areas to grow and to make that a better, a better for
all purposes of the customer overall.
Um And once again, all of these things for the low
income, these were things that we asked for in the
third session, for people to start giving ideas for
these topics and or any other topic as well. We didn't
we didn't limit it but said these are definitely, definitely
areas that we need to, we would like to see examples
or get people's thoughts on what, what would be beneficial
or a potential action to address some of this additional
discussion of open areas of, of possible changes that
would be um uh very good for the programs or that may
be good for the programs going forward.
That's it.
Have a look at the clock. Sorry. Um So program planning
and this is what I'm gonna say, like I said, we have
some very many of the same key issues. You can move
to the key issues. Sorry. Many of the same key issues
you're gonna see the planning cycle avoided costs.
This is the group that we actually really talked in
more detail on the avoided costs. You know, all the
things that you can see up there. And then the big
expanded part here was performance bonuses and also
additional collaboration with the other third parties
and funding. So areas agreement. So we talk about the
planning cycle now we can, you know, it wasn't a resolution
uh or a consensus of agreement on how long that program
cycle was, should be, that be the word. But rather
that the goal should be is if we're going to make any
changes to the program cycle, as it says here is, it
should be that, that change, the change that would
be being made is optimizing the energy efficiency program
value. And what we're trying to get to there is making
sure that it was maybe making them more efficient things
that we heard here, it was making them more effective
accessible. Those really were the type of things. So
don't just make a a program cycle change, make sure
it's really doing something that's, that's for the
good of the programs and the customers and the rate
the rate payers themselves
and then uh the planning cycle, you know, it, there's
not one little piece of planning cycle. You can't just
say, well, we're gonna go from one year to three years
I'm just using that as an example. Okay? Uh But there's
a lot of other pieces that go with that. You can say
planning is that and we're gonna do this, but there's
also all these other pieces. You got the and you
have the, uh, so the planning, the reports themselves
the plans themselves, uh the efficient uh uh cost recovery
You got the TRM, you got EM&B. All
of those things have to be taken to avoid the cost
You have to take all of those into consideration and
think about each of those when you're gonna make this
trying to figure out what the, what the change may
be for the pro the planning cycle, how do all these
other things get impacted and look at those from a
holistic view instead of looking at, well, we're just
gonna go from one year to three years as my example
Okay? And the rest of that stuff will figure out after
the fact. So take a look at it holistically to ensure
that that change makes sense.
And I say, I think of that, that makes sense that it's
for the good of the programs.
No, no, no, I have to offend anyone there. Okay? Uh And
so um that was a big part here is, you know, make
it uh it's a good, good for the customer um the other
area of agreement stakeholder engagement in the planning
cycle. I mean, this is we, there's a lot of conversation
around here that EEIP is the current way to
do this. Um And people, we had some awareness in regards
to the process but not always having a feeling like
there was a place at the table. So there is a lot
of uh a level, high level of agreement here in regards
to that, there's opportunity need to expand this similar
to what we just talked about on the low income side
Uh Similar thoughts in regards to advisory group is
their um try to wait and look for what they say is
there are like quarterly meetings or their websites
or portals that are created that make it easier for
people for other third parties to be able to find the
information and know what's going on and like when
where and how, where do I need to be if I want
to be involved in uh the planning cycle or the planning
of uh program planning and program development, how
do we make everyone aware of how to do that and what
what that involves? Um And that's really the, the the
area that was interesting from the different perspectives
in the room of that working group. And I'm sorry when
I say room, sorry, our little heads on the, on the
screen felt like we were in a room sometimes. Ok. Uh
But if there was a lot of different perspectives around
that, but one thing that was there is that no one is
being excluded from the table. Everyone has the, has
a seat at the table. That was the intent by everybody
that was on that working group. It's just making sure
that people knew how to do that and understanding when
people wanted to be aware of that. So what's that process
need to look like? Um similar to what I just said earlier
in regards to low income? So that was one of the carryover
and then nays area of grooming is a program options
today. Uh uh In the role, there's a list of program
types. Uh SOPs, I'm head of all this on
that. I don't have it on here right now, but uh all
of the current options that are available. Uh There
is a, a high level of agreement there that the proof
program today allow for flexibility. And so that if
there are changes of looking at program options, we
need to make sure that that flexibility stays in there
And uh the high level of agreement was that those program
options that are available today,
all different, all the different pilots and things
that have been offered were able to be fit into one
of those options that exist today. So there wasn't
the, there wasn't uh um
sorry, I just lost my train of thought there, there
It so the options are working today, even though we
have a lot of innovation that we're trying to bring
into the programs, they're fit, being able to be fit
into the programs today. Um But there was a lot of
the conversation evolved around pilot programs and
that today the the requirement of having the pilot
out there running it for a year and then having, having
it be show it's cost effective and then moving it into
a program itself can be a deterrent. And that there
was overwhelming agreement that pilot programs should
be one of those areas that they are able to last for
longer than one year. And so sometimes it's like you're
trying to get it stood up and get it functioning and
running and then showing that it's cost effective before
the end of the year. Um That was that this is where
we really were trying, where the team was really trying
to demonstrate that that needs to be expanded and it
would be an area that if we're looking at program option
adjustments, that that's the option that should be
or that's an area that needs to be looked at and be
considered to be changed.
Go ahead my second. Um avoid it cost uh whole list
of things up there, but
here it in general, okay. Both avoided costs of capacity
avoided cost of energy. Um The team, the working group
uh really agreed that it was time for us to take another
look at those. It's been, if you talk about capacity
um for the last decade, voided cost capacity has been
$80, right? I mean, um and that uh the voided cost
uh probably needed to uh also when we were looking
at the methodology or the calculation, we also needed
to uh look at uh the timing of it today. Uh avoided
costs are uh published in November. Uh People are filing
plans and uh or doing a uh April one and they're using
one costs, one uh what it costs uh at that time. And
then November 1st comes along, it's a different uh
uh well, could be different. Has the option to be different
has it been? But then at least on the capacity side
and then the, the uh they, it start running the program
the next January, but there's a diff already a difference
right there that can really cause some issues. And
so uh the team was really interest, the working group
was really interested in looking at both calculations
and looking at the timing of that and really for on
the energy side, you know, would help level the fluc
fluctuation between years. And I think the other side
of it is both of these, there's a question around just
being undervalued. So uh really to to chase after that
And then once again, you see the voided cost for retail
energy coming up here, the same thing as what we talked
for low income, it did come up in this uh in this
discussion as well and there was agreement to put that
consistent method out there. Um
Anything on avoided costs because there was a lot of
discussion around this. But this is the area of agreement
where we landed.
Anyone feel like there's something left off there.
Mark. Could you talk about increasing the length of
the water cost of energy from two years to?
Yeah, I think that's the timeline and the uh as well
I gave the other example, Mark, but I should have stated
that as well. Yes, it's that calculation and there's
also attributes in each of those calculations that
might be slightly different compared to. Um And what's
the one that we talked about as far as uh the escalator
and the discount rate, the discount rates on the um
cost cap, right? And I have it backwards to calculate
the cost cap year to year. You use the uh consumer
price index as the way you increase it. Uh escalation
rate is 72% every single year. Um There's something
that was 8% that we're valuing. Oh, that's the eu L
uh had to do with the calculation discount.
Yes. Yes, that's where we got into the conversation
but there's different. So you have an escalator over
here of 2% and discount rate of 8% that we thought
that those needed to be looked at to see that. Yeah
I think it was still we suggested potentially increasing
the cost caps uh based on a different metric than C
Yeah. Yeah. So that conversation came around as well
Um So and you'll see if we'll have that opportunity
in the, in the, because they're obviously going to
come up on the further discussion needed as well. Is
there any discussion about including in avoiding cost
socialized cost, you know, pollution? There's yes,
that, yes, yes, yes. That's where we're gonna want
to go into cost effectiveness here. But so, uh as I
said, in our conversation, the working group overall
thought that um the programs were undervalued, that
we weren't capturing all the benefits. Okay? And so,
and so by reviewing the calculations, we might identify
some uh some areas. And then when you're actually in
the cost effectiveness calculation, so are this group
Okay. This uh program planning when uh Commissioner Jackson
said this morning, Texas is really unique. We're not
like the rest of the state. Okay? We have unique things
happening here that other people do not have. And so
when we talked about the UCT, not necessarily capturing
um UCT, not capturing all the benefits or the simplicity
of that calculation. And in order to get more nonen
energy benefits in whatever they may be. Okay? Um How
maybe that should uh we should modify the UCT. And
so then that takes away the simplicity of that. So
then it was well, maybe we use a different test. Okay
And then this brain child came up. Okay? And said, maybe
really what we need to do is create our own Texas centric
cost effectiveness. It, it's elsewhere, other states
do this. It's not like we're coming up with something
that's never happened before. Now, we could Texas is
different but we, it's, this has been done elsewhere
Other states, New Jersey has, you know, other things
that happen, but maybe that's how we look at it so
we can make sure that whatever additional benefits
we think need to be included of that or any other parts
of that calculation that we have the ability to include
what is necessary for Texas that really shows the value
of the programs of the Texas programs. Okay? And then
once again, portfolio portfolio level cost effectiveness
talked about that as well as this group too. Uh really
thought it was important that we transition to um to
uh portfolio level instead of program level. The other
area that we talked about was performance bonuses.
Am I? Well, I got eight minutes, right? Yeah, I just
the scream we told him till four. So maybe just if
we can get to the areas of disagreement. Okay? Okay. The
performance bonuses, OK. We'll just real quickly say
we had we agreed they were necessary and that we any
changes we pointed out to avoid it costs um and or
any changes that were made to avoid it cost cost effectiveness
all of those things would need to be taken into consideration
because performance bonus calculate it would be the
performance bonus calculation would be impacted by
those. So once again, you have to take that holistic
approach before you make a decision on what that change
would be for performance bonuses because of all the
other changes that might be occurring. Okay. Differences
OK. I said uh what's the appropriate planning cycle
link that helps to reduce the, you know, the goal is
we want to make a change, but it's good, there's reasons
So if the uh if it make a program change where it's
gonna uh reduce administration administrative burden
it encourages forward thinking and aligns with the
avoided cost calculations. You know, those are the
things, but there's a lot of discussion about that
because as I said, in our working group, you had people
say leave it alone, move it to this, um all kinds of
different numbers there that will come up. So it's
an area that needs to be discussed, avoided costs,
uh you know, should avoid it costs. Uh The one of the
areas that came up, uh it was, and we didn't have a
whole lot of time to explore this, but we started,
it was, you know, should avoid it costs uh be used
be calculated and then be used through the from that
time frame for all measures installed over the that
are estimated us, sorry, estimated useful life. Ok
And instead of having a changing of avoided costs.
So if we had a measure we installed it today, the voided
cost would be used from now till the end of time of
the end of that, uh whatever the EUL is. So if
it's 10 years, it would be used for that 10 years.
That, that was an area that's going to require a lot
of different discussion and analysis around there.
And then the one that we've all talked about over and
over is TND should avoided TND costs be
included um associated with the energy efficiency programs
and incorporated the calculations, shareholder engagement
You know, what would be the best, best mechanism to
allow that enhanced collaboration? What would that
look like? Opportunity to talk, share, what you think
with that? Um Are there opportunities for more common
programs across the state? That's the question of that's
come up in several of the working groups as far as
you know, can, can there be statewide programs? I use
that I utility? Okay. I'm just using that as a to, to
explain the concept here. Okay. Uh But you know, we know
there's reasons why that's not possible or that makes
it difficult? But is there some way, do we need to
explore that further and then performance uh bonuses
you know what level of review uh is, is appropriate
for performance bonuses to ensure they're just and
reasonable? I mean, that's the rule, the, the rules
requirement uh that they're just and reasonable. So
what level of that is the level that we're doing today
Is that appropriate, should something else being done
And then um is there a maximum performance bonus metrics
uh tied to the total net benefits? Is it appropriate
in Texas today? Or should there be a different calculation
And um there was a lot of discussion that we should
be looking at best practice or go out and look at other
uh mechanisms that are being used in the country and
see what those may look like. Uh So those are the areas
of discussion that came up. But uh I will say when
we made our request after the third session, I think
we only got a few comments. But there are, this is
your opportunity as being asked by trees to please
put that out there and bring those to the table and
file them in the, in the project. And then I done because
I, I gave them three minutes ago. Yeah, I drink.
(item:11:38578, Wrap up and Next Steps) So I would just like to thank you all for coming. Thank
you for your input. Um I'm looking forward to your
comments and your suggestions and I'll be checking
my inbox and April 20 to see what we have and Clark
give anything. Oh, no, thank you. It's been so great
So I'm giving you 2 minutes.
Therese said the email came late for the request for
comments yesterday or I haven't seen it but you said
we're supposed to email them back to you or file. I
I meant file them, 38578, just to make sure. But any
questions comments, you know, like I mean, but we wanna
make sure and I'll send out an EEIP to serve
with all the information and step by step what I need
which is very simple, April 20th
and the slide will come out within the next day or
so as well if you can send that out just to one
group because I know I've signed up on that list, sir.
And I don't know that I'm getting those emails even
though I got a confirmation. So I, I
Amy, Frontier getting them. So you guys, I can them
to you, right? And if you have any problems with our
website, just let me know.
Thank you.