Table Of ContentLBNL-39058
UC-1322
ERNESTO RLANDO LAWRENCE
B ERKELEY NATIONAL ABORATORY
A Scoping Study on Energy-Efficiency
Market Transformation by California
Utility DSM Programs
J. Eto, R. Prahl, and J. Schlegel
Energy and Environment Division
July 1996
DISCLAIMER
This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by the
United States Government. While this document is believed to contain
correct information, neither the United States Government nor any
agency thereof, nor The Regents of the University of California, nor any
of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes
any legal responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of
any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or
represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights.
Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or
service by its trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does
not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation,
or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or
The Regents of the University of California. The views and opinions of
authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the
United States Government or any agency thereof, or The Regents of the
University of California.
Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
is an equal opportunity employer.
LBNL-39058
UC-1322
A Scoping Study on Energy-Efficiency
Market Transformation by California
Utility DSM Programs
Prepared by
Joseph Eto, Ralph Prahl, and Jeff Schlegell
Energy & Environment Division
Earnest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
University of California
Berkeley, California 94720
Prepared for
f i e California Demand-Side Measurement Advisory Committee
Project 209 1T
July 1996
The work described in this study was supported by the California Demand-Side Measurement Advisory Committee
(CADMAC), and by the Assistant Secretary of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of Utility Technologies,
Ofice of Energy Management Division of the US.D ephnent of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC03-76SF00098.
1 Authors are Iisted in alphabetid order. Ralph Prahl and Jeff SchIegel are independent consultants to the California
Public Utilities Commission, Commission Advisory and Compliance Division.
DISCLAIMER
Portions of this document may be illegible
in electronic image products. Images are
produced from the best available original
document.
Contents
...
Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IU
Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
Acronyms and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .
Chapterl: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Sources of Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2 SummaryofTa sks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Chapter 2: Market Barriers. Market Effects. and Market Transformation . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1 Definitions of Key Terms ...................................... 7
2.2 Market Barriers Relevant to Utility Energy-Efficiency Programs . . . . . . . . 11
2.3 Market Effects Attributable to Utility Energy-Efficiency Programs . . . . . . 17
Chapter 3: Evidence for Market Transformation from Recent California Utility
Energy-Efficiency Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.1 Approach to Utility Energy-Efficiency Program Reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.2 A Graphical Tool for Program-Specific Analysis of Market Effects . . . . . . 23
3.3 Residential. Commercial. and Industrial Customer Incentives Programs . . . 26
3.4 InformationPrograms ........................................ 50
3.5 New Construction Programs ................................... 58
3.6 Direct Assistance Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
3.7 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Chapter 4: Does California’s Current DSM Policy Framework Support the
Objective of Market Transformation? .......................... 75
4.1 California’s DSM Policy Framework Promotes Resource Acquisition . . . . 76
4.2 The DSM Policy Framework Provides Mixed Incentives
for Market Transformation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
i
CONTENTS
4.3 California’s M&E Protocols Do Not Encourage Measurement
ofMarketEffects ......................................... 88
4.4 There Are Modest Compensations for Market Transformation
in the Existing Policy Framework ............................. 96
4.5 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations ............................. 101
5.1 Summary of Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
5.2 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Appendix A: List of Interviews and Interview Guides ........................ 123
ii
Tables
Table 1 - 1. California Utility Energy-Efficiency Programs Reviewed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Table 2-1. List of Market Effects Potentially Attributable to Utility
Energy-Efficiency Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
...
u1
iv
