Working Toward Market Transformation Through Residential and Non-Residential Standard Performance Contract (SPC) Programs — Lessons Learned on Delivery, Design, Participation, and Needs

Chris Ann Dickerson, Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Lisa A. Skumatz, Skumatz EconomicResearch Associates, Inc.
Robert D. Bordner, EnergyMarket Innovations
Pierre Landry, Southern California Edison

Keywords

Abstract

In 1998, the state’s investor-owned energy utilities in conjunction with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and advised by the California Board for Energy Efficiency (CBEE), offered two Standard Performance Contract (SPC) programs — one for the Non-Residential sector and one for the Residential sector. Although these programs have been discussed within the State of California, information about the programs and the lessons learned can provide guidance for SPC programs being implemented in other areas of the country. This paper summarizes:

design and major features of the two programs;
steps for participants,
deviations from the program plans, and
results of the evaluation of impacts, program satisfaction, and recommendations.

The SPC programs were offered with several objectives in mind, including helping transform the market by enhancing the number and types of firms providing service in each of the sectors. The programs were designed to provide opportunities for energy efficiency service providers (EESPs) to submit a variety of efficiency services (lighting, HVAC, refrigeration, and other services) for residential and non-residential buildings. Reimbursement for participation was based on measured performance, or an alternative — deemed savings — was made available for participants in the residential program.

Because the programs were to be redesigned quickly, real-time evaluation was needed, and for both programs the authors conducted detailed interviews with participants and non-participants from a variety of types and sizes of firms. Responses on program design elements, forms and documentation, eligible measures, incentive levels, measurement and verification approaches, and participation decision drivers were analyzed. The evaluation results, recommendations, and implemented design changes are summarized.