Download EmPower Maryland Brainstorming Meeting

EmPower Maryland
Brainstorming Meeting- Additional Program Ideas
January 13, 2012
This meeting was held to allow brainstorming between the Utilities, MEA, OPC, and PSC. The
group used a document circulated by BGE, BGE Draft New Program Ideas, to guide the
meeting. Additionally, each stakeholder contributed program ideas beyond those listed on the
document. It is the group’s intent to hold additional meetings to further vet certain ideas raised
during the meeting prior to coordinating a final working group report.
Suggested Ideas
These ideas were suggested by the parties present.
1. Residential Programs
a. School Programs- The main issue with programs that are school related and
involve student impact is that the energy savings is non-measureable. The
stakeholders would like to invite the organization, Maryland Association for
Environmental and Outdoor Education (“MAEOE”), to present their current
school program that is used statewide but not by the utilities.
b. Increase Current Incentives- Increasing incentives would result in a negative
impact for utilities that use the California manual to calculate program TRCs,
which calculates free rider incentives as a cost to the utility, this would negatively
impact the TRC. Utilities that do not follow the California manual would not have
an impact on their TRCs with increased incentives. Itron has yet to address this
variance between the utilities.
c. New Incandescent Technology: Propose to include new lighting technologies that
would serve as a niche application for instances when a CFL or LED bulb would
not be deemed appropriate.
d. Energy Behavior Reports: Have OPOWER present to stakeholders the results of
the BGE OPOWER Pilot and allow for questions from stakeholders.
e. Miscellaneous Measures: Potential to include the following measures: pool
pumps, window shades, tree shades, water coolers, room air cleaners, high
efficiency ceiling fans, whole house fans (not attic fans), dishwashers, and
occupancy sensors. These measures could be packaged into other programs. There
is also potential to include a broad spectrum of products that are considered
ENERGY STAR products. By including these measures, it could result in those
participants participating in other programs under the umbrella of EmPower
Programs.
f. Mobile Home Residential Retrofit: Mobile homes are another stock of buildings
that could be considered under the New Construction and/or the Residential
Retrofit programs.
g. ENERGY STAR New Construction for Multi-family: Would provide incentives
for the new construction of residential multi-family buildings. This would not
include master-metered residences.
h. Multi-family Limited Income: MEA informed stakeholders that the Governor has
allocated additional funds for the new construction of affordable housing. When
funded by the stated, DHCD will be running this program under the state and not
under EmPower Maryland; therefore, based upon the level of funding, the utilities
may not need to contribute additional funds.
i. Habitat for Humanity: It was questioned whether contributions to Habitat for
Humanity would allow for energy savings to be generated under that organization
towards the EmPower Maryland goal.
j. Home Energy Score: DOE is working on creating a home energy score program.
Those who completed a Home Performance with ENERGY STAR audit and
install measures can have their home rated. Then the homeowner can have the
rating be disclosed at the time of a sale of a home to inform the potential buyer of
the energy efficiency in the home.
2. Commercial Programs
a. CHP/Fuel Switching: Each utility should be participating in the program and it
should be focused on the continued commissioning and result in ongoing rebates
for its participants. CHP could also be used as a driver for fuel switching.
b. Cool Roofs- Proposed for Commercial buildings; however, it could also be used
in the residential suite of programs. The main issue with providing this product to
the residential market is that it can have a negative impact on gas savings.
Therefore, it would depend on whether gas programs will be required under
EmPower Maryland.
c. Tinting Windows and Green Roofs
d. RFP C&I Projects: It was suggested that a program similar to the current Custom
Program could be established without as many restrictions for participation,
which would allow participants to submit RFPs for projects that could use a grantlike approach to provide incentives. These projects could include ones with short
payback periods that would not otherwise be funded under the existing programs.
A separate meeting regarding this may be held.
e. Energy Efficiency incentives and assistance for facilities to achieve ISO 50001:
MEA is currently working with a Company and DOE to provide consultation fees
and funds for training to businesses seeking this. It was suggested that MEA could
pilot this program with its current funding and the utilities could continue the
program once if it is deemed cost effective.
3. Demand Response
a. Programmable Thermostats: Currently, only customers participating or once
enrolled in the DR program can have a programmable thermostat in their home.
Since utilities associated with the thermostats, it is a possibility that the utilities
could offer the programmable thermostats to customers that do not wish to
participate in the DR program. These customers would still be able to remotely
access their thermostat and can use the interface without being cycled. This may
generate additional savings from those households that are averse to participating
in the program.
b. DR Program participation: Marketing efforts could be shifted to increase
participation in the DR programs, as well as to up sell cycling levels to customers.
4. Marketing
a. Word of Mouth Marketing: It was suggested that the utilities implement word of
mouth marketing that could be offered with or without incentives. For example, if
customers are referred or if they have participated in a certain program it may be
viewable on their Facebook page.
b. Coordination with Government: With a potential sales tax holiday occurring
February 18th through the 20th, it was recommended that the utilities coordinate
with the state government on these events.
c. Collective Marketing Campaigns: It was suggested that the utilities work on
having collective marketing campaigns for when rebate levels are altered for
events or holidays.
d. Websites: Cross promotion of the products and rebates should continue to be done
through the state websites, such as OPC, MEA, and PSC. The PSC will look into
getting the utility links added to its website. Additionally, those organizations
could issue press releases or use social media to market the programs. At each of
the organizations (OPC, MEA, PSC) there needs to be a point of contact
established for the utilities to reach out to when updates are needed for links and
for press releases.
e. EmPower Brand: There was concern regarding the statewide branding of
EmPower Maryland due to the elimination of general awareness funds. It was
suggested that the utilities determine if statewide branding of EmPower could
occur or whether an argument needs to be made to reinstate the general awareness
funds that were denied through the Commission Order.
f. Figure Head: As stated in previous GAC meetings, there was an argument made
to have a figure head, such as the Governor, to help market EmPower and its
efforts.
g. Generic Promotional Budget: It was suggested that the utilities should market to
trade organizations that would disseminate their program information and
encourage participation from the contractor community. However, the issue with
this is that many of the organization request a contribution or sponsorship to
provide this information. Therefore, it was suggested that a generic promotional
budget be created for this purpose.
5. Other Suggestions
a. “FREE”: The issue with the use of the word “free” should be placed on the list
for review by the Commission again.
b. Non-profits Organizations: It was pointed out that you could not have programs
specific to non-profit organizations, as the PUC law prohibits discriminatory
practices i.e. singling out of a sub group of a rate class.
c. Incentive Level Flexibility: The utilities need a greater flexibility with incentive
levels as permitted to be adjusted through Staff approval. The levels need to be set
on something other than 10 percent of a set rebate amounts. The group proposed
determining the increase of an incentive based upon the impact on its incremental
costs to determine the flexibility.
Action Items
Sub meetings will be held with the group to address several of the ideas that arose from the
meeting. These sub meetings will be on the following topics:





Schools/Education
OPOWER/Behavior Change
Creative Marketing
CHP
DR
Dates for these meetings have not been determined yet. However, these meetings will need to be
held in time for inclusion into the March 1, 2012 report to the Commission.