Berkeley Lab examines criteria for a comparative assessment of multiple financing programs for energy efficiency, developed through a statewide public process in California. The state legislature directed the California Alternative Energy and Advanced Transportation Financing Authority (CAEATFA) to develop these criteria. CAEATFA's report to the legislature, an invaluable reference for other jurisdictions considering these topics, discusses the proposed criteria and the rationales behind them in detail. Berkeley Lab's brief focuses on several salient issues that emerged during the criteria development and discussion process. Many of these issues are likely to arise in other states that plan to evaluate the impacts of energy efficiency financing programs, whether for a single program or multiple programs. Issues discussed in the brief include: -The stakeholder process to develop the proposed assessment criteria -Attribution of outcomes - such as energy savings - to financing programs vs. other drivers -Choosing the outcome metric of primary interest: program take-up levels vs. savings -The use of net benefits vs. benefit-cost ratios for cost-effectiveness evaluation -Non-energy factors -Consumer protection factors -Market transformation impacts -Accommodating varying program goals in a multi-program evaluation -Accounting for costs and risks borne by various parties, including taxpayers and utility customers, in cost-effectiveness analysis -How to account for potential synergies among programs in a multi-program evaluation

A new study by Berkeley Lab found that residential Property Assessed Clean Energy (R-PACE) programs increased deployment of residential solar photovoltaic (PV) systems in California, raising it by about 7-12% in cities that adopt these programs. R-PACE is a financing mechanism that uses a voluntary property tax assessment, paid off over time, to facilitate energy improvements and, in some jurisdictions, water and resilience measures. While previous studies demonstrated that early, regional R-PACE programs increased solar PV deployment, this new analysis is the first to demonstrate these impacts from the large, statewide R-PACE programs dominating the California market today, which use private capital to fund the upfront costs of the improvements. Berkeley Lab estimated the impacts using econometric techniques on two samples: -Large cities only, allowing annual demographic and economic data as control variables -All California cities, without these annual data Analysis of both samples controls for several factors other than R-PACE that would be expected to drive solar PV deployment. We infer that on average, cities with R-PACE programs were associated with greater solar PV deployment in our study period (2010-2015). In the large cities sample, solar PV deployment in jurisdictions with R-PACE programs was higher by 1.1 watts per owner-occupied household per month, or 12%. Across all cities, solar PV deployment in jurisdictions with R-PACE programs was higher by 0.6 watts per owner-occupied household per month, or 7%. The large cities results are statistically significant at conventional levels; the all-cities results are not. The estimates imply that the majority of solar PV deployment financed by R-PACE programs would likely not have occurred in their absence. Results suggest that R-PACE programs have increased PV deployment in California even in relatively recent years, as R-PACE programs have grown in market share and as alternate approaches for financing solar PV have developed. The U.S. Department of Energy’s Building Technologies Office supported this research.

This brief, "Designing and Executing Measurement and Verification Standards for C-PACE Programs: Lessons Learned from Leading C-PACE Programs", examines and explains practices to demonstrate energy savings in existing Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy programs. The brief is designed to inform C-PACE program administrators on the design and execution of measurement and verification (M&V) standards through the experience of C-PACE programs in Michigan, Texas, and Wisconsin. In addition, the brief includes case studies of C-PACE programs: Texas PACE, Lean & Green Michigan, and PACE Wisconsin. Each case study details that program’s technical standards related to measurement and verification (M&V), examines the program’s motivation for implementing those technical standards, and reports on the program administrator’s experience with those standards. Key findings include: -Look to other states and jurisdictions for lessons learned on designing and executing M&V standards for C-PACE programs. The case studies presented illustrate some of these lessons. -Consider what each standard will require in terms of compliance for the property owner and enforcement for the program administrators. Successful standards strike a balance between ensuring project performance and avoiding burden on participants. -Put a mechanism in place to enforce each standard, or at least to effectively encourage property owners to comply. -Enforcement of ongoing reporting requirements is especially difficult once the C-PACE loan has been fully funded. -Consider methods to simplify annual performance reporting processes. For example, after the property owners approve releasing their consumption data, program administrators can work with utilities and/or property owners to automate the process of transferring that data from utility feeds or building management systems for ongoing reporting. -Standardize M&V practices across programs to the extent possible to encourage participation by building owners, contractors, capital providers, and third-party program administrators. -Communicate the value proposition of M&V to property owners by framing M&V as a mechanism that ensures projects deliver the intended outcomes and benefits, rather than as a technical obligation.

This brief discusses energy-efficient street lighting technologies and conversions from the utility’s perspective and identifies various business cases for undertaking street lighting upgrades. Section 1 of the brief reviews the costs and benefits of utility investment in energy efficiency technologies and smart infrastructure for utility-owned streetlights. Section 2 presents lessons learned and best practices for light-emitting diode (LED) conversions for utility-owned street lights. Section 3 discusses street light buyback options from the utility’s perspective. Section 4 reviews success factors for LED conversions. The resources listed at the end of the brief provide more information.

Electric utilities today must contain costs at a time when many need to modernize aging systems and all face major changes in technologies, customer preferences and competitive pressures.Most U.S. electric utility facilities are investor-owned, subject to rate and service regulation by state public utility commissions. Regulatory systems under which these utilities operate affect their performance and ability to meet these challenges. In this business environment, multiyear rate plans have some advantages over traditional rate regulation.The report focuses on key design issues and provides case studies of the multiyear rate plan approach, applicable to both vertically integrated and restructured states. Mark Newton Lowry and Matt Makos of Pacific Energy Group Research and Jeff Deason of Berkeley Lab authored the report; Lisa Schwartz, Berkeley Lab, was project manager and technical editor.The report is aimed primarily at state utility regulators and stakeholders in the state regulatory process. The multiyear rate approach also provides ideas on how to streamline oversight of public power utilities and rural electric cooperatives for their governing boards.Two key provisions of multiyear rate plans strengthen cost containment incentives and streamline regulation: 1. Reducing frequency of rate cases, typically to every four or five years 2. Using an attrition relief mechanism to escalate rates or revenue between rate cases to address cost pressures such as inflation and growth in number of customers, independently of the utility’s own cost Better utility performance can be achieved under well-designed multiyear rate plans while achieving lower regulatory costs. Benefits can be shared between utilities and their customers. But plans can be complex and involve significant changes in the regulatory system. Designing plans that stimulate utility performance without undue risk and share benefits fairly can be challenging.This report discusses the rationale for multiyear rate plans and their usefulness under modern business conditions. It then explains critical plan design issues and challenges and presents results from numerical research that considers the extra incentive power achieved under different plan provisions. Next, the report presents several case studies of utilities that have operated under formal multiyear rate plans or, for various reasons, have stayed out of rate cases for more than a decade. These studies consider the effect of multiyear rate plans and rate case frequency on utility cost, reliability and other performance dimensions.

Municipalities considering energy-efficient light-emitting diode street lights for their jurisdiction face a variety of regulatory issues. This brief describes how cities can successfully address these challenges to achieve multiple advantages. The brief first reviews the structure of street lighting tariffs and the costs and cost assumptions that underlie them. It then lays out pathways that municipalities can take to consider street lighting retrofits if faced by these regulatory barriers. The brief references cases of municipalities’ successes and challenges in pursuing these pathways. For more information, see the resources listed at the end of the brief.

Nonresidential buildings are responsible for over a quarter of primary energy consumption in the United States. Efficiency improvements in these buildings could result in significant energy and utility bill savings. To unlock those potential savings, a number of market barriers to energy efficiency must be addressed. Commercial Property Assessed Clean Energy (C-PACE) financing programs can help overcome several of these barriers with minimal investment from state and local governments. With programs established or under development in 22 states, and at least $521 million in investments so far, other state and local governments are interested in bringing the benefits of C-PACE to their jurisdictions. Lessons in Commercial PACE Leadership: The Path from Legislation to Launch, aims to fast track the set-up of C-PACE programs for state and local governments by capturing the lessons learned from leaders. The report examines the list of potential program design options and important decision points in setting up a C-PACE program, tradeoffs for available options, and experiences of stakeholders that have gone through (or are going through) the process. C-PACE uses a voluntary special property assessment to facilitate energy and other improvements in commercial buildings. For example: ~Long financing terms under C-PACE can produce cash flow-positive --projects to help overcome a focus on short paybacks. ~Payment obligations can transfer to subsequent owners, mitigating concern about investing in improvements for a building that may be sold before the return on the investment is fully realized. ~100% of both hard and soft costs can be financed. To capture the benefits of C-PACE financing, state and local governments must navigate numerous decision points and engage with stakeholders to set-up or join a program. Researchers interviewed experts (including state and local sponsors, program administrators, capital providers and industry experts) on their lessons learned and arrived at the following key takeaways for state and local leaders: Enabling legislation: Carefully developed enabling legislation (which includes certain key provisions) and early stakeholder input can greatly improve the chances of program success. Options for program administrative structure: At least four program administrative structures are in use; certain administrative structures inherently result in more standardized product offerings and, potentially, economies of scale. Approaches to program and project capitalization: Two approaches to capitalization have been used. Bonding (project capital is raised through a bond sale) and direct funding (capital providers fund projects directly); programs can rely on one capital provider (a closed market) or allow multiple capital providers to participate (an open market). What and who qualifies for the program: Some programs require a minimum project savings-to-investment ratio; other programs encourage it or are indifferent. Estimating and documenting project energy cost saving: Estimating and documenting energy and cost savings can add costs to projects but also demonstrate C-PACE program value. Stakeholder engagement: Key stakeholder groups to engage include community leaders, local governments, building owners, contractors, utilities, capital providers and mortgage holders; stakeholder engagement should be tailored to each particular group. Start-up and ongoing costs: Understanding set-up and ongoing costs can help program sponsors plan for funding C-PACE programs and projects. The U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Weatherization and Intergovernmental Programs funded the report.