This document summarizes a presentation given by Jon Maxwell of ERS comparing baseline policy development procedures and content in Massachusetts and California. Some key similarities discussed include using code and standard practice as the baseline for commodity measures, applying logic flowcharts and dual baselines. Differences included Massachusetts having a single policy document focused on commercial/industrial measures while California's was regulatory-driven and involved implementers more directly. The presentation aimed to convince the audience of the value of baseline policies and highlight lessons learned between the two states.

1. Headquarters: 120 Water Street, Suite 350, North Andover, MA 01845 With offices in: CA, CT, ME, NY, OR, TX, VT www.ers-inc.com
BASELINE POLICY ENHANCEMENT
IN MASSACHUSETTS & CALIFORNIA
August 8, 2017
1

2.  ERS
 ≈90 energy efficiency & renewable experts
 Offices in MA, ME, CT, NY, TX, CA, OR
 Evaluation, studies, implementation, consulting
 Presenter: Jon Maxwell, PE
 Co-authors: Ralph Prahl, Sue Haselhorst
ABOUT ERS & AUTHORS
8/8/2017 IEPEC 2017 - Baltimore 2

3.  Convince you to create a baseline policy
 Share procedures lessons learned from MA, CA
 Highlight technical similarities & differences
 Get at least 5 people to look at the paper
PRESENTATION GOALS
8/8/2017 3IEPEC 2017 - Baltimore

4. BASELINE POLICY—WHY BOTHER?
(CA)
ntotal = 240
≈10% hit
on RR!
8/8/2017 IEPEC 2017 - Baltimore 4

5. -10%
-8%
-6%
-4%
-2%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
Tracking
Error
Gas Billing
Error
Quantity Baseline
Efficiency
Final
Efficiency
Operational
Baseline
Operational Non
Discernable
Non
Operable
Other
%ofTotalError
Weighted Discrepancy
BASELINE POLICY—WHY BOTHER?
(MA)
≈8%+ hit
on RR!
8/8/2017 IEPEC 2017 - Baltimore 5

6. BASELINE POLICY—WHY BOTHER?
(NY)
Category Description
This category accounts for typo
revisions, incorrect extraction of
This category accounts for a ba
(L050)
This category accounts for thos
clearly violate program tenets. (L
Administrative:
46 measures
Baseline:
33 measures
VFD screening method:
10 measures
Unsubstantiated savings
claims: 7 measures
This category accounts for savin
supported with site based analys
Inoperable Equipment: 1
measures
This category accounts for the e
described in the project docume
Quantity or size:
41 measures
This category accounts for the d
compared with the project docum
Technology:
27 measures
This category accounts for the d
observed by the evaluators versu
Applicant used deemed
value: 16 measures
This category accounts for diffe
operation) and the evaluated val
Interactivity:
38 measures
This category accounts for the i
interactivity is lighting which typ
Operation/Load Profile:
81 measures
This category accounts for the d
factor, part load profile, or temp
Other/Weather:
2 measures This category accounts for the w
Category Description
Negative
Impact
on RR
Positive
Impact
on RR
-8%
2%
-6%
1%
-8%
0%
-2%
0%
-2%
0%
-1%
0%
-1%
0%
-2%
3%
0%
1%
-8%
3%
-1%
0%
This category accounts for typographic errors, failure to update tracking with application
revisions, incorrect extraction of savings from spreadsheets and the like. (L126)
This category accounts for a baseline adjustment from early replacement to normal replacement.
(L050)
This category accounts for those VFD measures that did not meet program eligibility criteria or
clearly violate program tenets. (L077)
Administrative:
46 measures
Baseline:
33 measures
VFD screening method:
10 measures
Unsubstantiated savings
claims: 7 measures
This category accounts for savings estimates based on a claimed savings fraction which was not
supported with site based analysis, measurement, or evidence from an applicable study. (L097)
Inoperable Equipment: 1
measures
This category accounts for the equipment discovered to not be operational or controlled as
described in the project documents. (LR21)
Quantity or size:
41 measures
This category accounts for the differences in the quantity or size of an installed measure when
compared with the project documents. (L062)
Technology:
27 measures
This category accounts for the differences in the actual baseline and installed technologies
observed by the evaluators versus the project documented technologies. (L134)
Applicant used deemed
value: 16 measures
This category accounts for differences in the NYTM specified parameters (usually hours of
operation) and the evaluated value. (L134)
Interactivity:
38 measures
This category accounts for the interactive effects of measures. A good example of measure
interactivity is lighting which typically has interactive cooling and heating effects. (LR02)
Operation/Load Profile:
81 measures
This category accounts for the deviations in the projected equipment load profile (part load
factor, part load profile, or temperature profile) or the operational schedule. (L106)
Other/Weather:
2 measures This category accounts for the weather normalization applied by the evaluators. (L084)
Close to CA’s 13%
frequency, likely
similar hit on RR!
≈5% hit
on RR!
8/8/2017 IEPEC 2017 - Baltimore 6

7. BASELINE POLICY—WHY BOTHER?
Can these be fixed in advance?
Inoperability or facility shutdown issues?
Accidental errors?
Hours?
Predicted load factors?
Baseline?
× No
× Not really, maybe specify QC
× Not really, maybe deem
× Not really maybe deem
 Yes, baseline can be
aligned, in advance,
through policy articulation
8/8/2017 IEPEC 2017 - Baltimore 7

8. BASELINE POLICY—WHY BOTHER?
8/8/2017 IEPEC 2017 - Baltimore 8

9. Headquarters: 120 Water Street, Suite 350, North Andover, MA 01845 With offices in: CA, CT, ME, NY, OR, TX, VT www.ers-inc.com
PROCEDURES & CONTENT
COMPARISON
9

10.  Stakeholder engagement
 Significant development period
 1 to 2 years
 Longer than planned, extra iterations
 Professional facilitation
DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURES – COMMON
IEPEC 2017 - Baltimore8/8/2017 10

11.  Single document (MA)
 C/I focus (MA)
 Implementer engagement (CA)
 Regulatory-driven (CA)
 Final document authorship
 CPUC in CA
 Consultant team in MA
DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURES – DIFFERENCES
IEPEC 2017 - Baltimore8/8/2017 11

12. KEY TECHNICAL SIMILARITIES
IEPEC 2017 - Baltimore8/8/2017 12
 Code and ISP basis
 for commodity measures
 Logic flowcharts (MA more)
 Preponderance of evidence (POE) (CA more)
 Dual baseline (new to MA eval)
 Pre-installation evaluator engagement
 Non-regressive baseline (MA 3 exceptions)
 Tiers of rigor (CA more)
 Industrial capacity expansion
 New construction
 Post-project production rate governs

13. TECHNICAL HIGHLIGHTS
(1 OF 2) – CORE BASELINE DEFINITION
IEPEC 2017 - Baltimore8/8/2017 13
 MA: Baseline is “…condition absent the measure”
 Not “absent the program”
 Think: What if the technology didn’t exist
 CA: Baseline is “Table 1”
Alteration
Type
Delivery
Savings
Determi-
nation
Shell, Bldg
System, Add-
On
Behavioral,
RCx,
Operational
Normal
replacement
Accelerated
replacement
and repair
eligible
Code Code
Code Code
Calculated Existing Existing Code Dual
Deemed Existing Existing Code Dual
Normalized
Metered
Existing Existing
Existing, Program
Design
Existing
RCT/ experi-
mental
Existing Existing Existing Existing
Existing
Standard
Practice
Dual
New
Up- Mid-stream
Non-Bldg, Ag, Process
Existing
Blgs
(incl.
major
altera-
tions)
Down-
stream

14. IEPEC 2017 - Baltimore8/8/2017 14
 Free ridership questions must be relative to the
gross baseline
 Especially vulnerable if ex post evaluator changes
baseline
 MA spin-off working group to avoid overlap penalty
o “Absent the measure” vs. “absent the program” is tricky to
word
o New framework in pilot stage
 CA evidence of free ridership guidance
 CA ex ante binding free ridership assessment
TECHNICAL HIGHLIGHTS
(2 OF 2) – FREE RIDERSHIP

15. APPLICATION COMPARISON
IEPEC 2017 - Baltimore8/8/2017 15
 Policy is binding for evaluators in MA, for
all in CA
 CA ex ante review findings are binding to
implementers immediately
 MA now evaluating lifetime savings RRs
 Informational-only thru 2018

16. SUMMARY
IEPEC 2017 - Baltimore8/8/2017 16
 Low realization rates? Baseline policy can help
 Stakeholder process builds understanding,
buy-in
 Use MA & CA for reference, but each
jurisdiction has different needs. Trade-offs:
 Specificity vs. flexibility
 Ideal theory vs. practicality
 Guidance vs mandates
 A worthwhile investment

17. TECHNICAL HIGHLIGHTS
INDUSTRY STANDARD PRACTICE
IEPEC 2017 - Baltimore8/8/2017 17
 For new/replace on failure, ISP is baseline if no
code or standard
 Not minimum efficiency commonly installed
 What if code/std exists and ISP differs? MA:
 If ISP exceeds code, use ISP. Careful of NTG
wording!
 If ISP is below code:
o If a code compliance program, use code/std
o If no compliance program, use ISP

18. KEY TECHNICAL DIFFERENCES
IEPEC 2017 - Baltimore8/8/2017 18
 Focus on principles (MA) vs. specifics (CA)
 Free ridership in scope for CA ex ante review
process
 MA emphasis on difference between
commodity & unique measures
 CA emphasis on tiers of rigor

19. CONTACTS
Jonathan B. Maxwell, PE
VP, Energy & Evaluation
jmaxwell@ers-inc.com
979-978-2550 x205
8/8/2017 19IEPEC 2017 - Baltimore