Governments, Government Associations, and Quasi-Government groups (non-profit that works directly with government entities, government association, joint powers authority, etc.) are eligible.
2009-2011 California Investor Owned Utility call for abstracts for Local Government Partnerships.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (“PG&E”), Southern California Edison Company (“SCE”), California Gas Company (“SCG”), and San Diego Gas and Electric (“SDG&E”), Investor Owned Utilities (collectively, “the IOUs”) will be issuing a call for abstracts (“Abstract”) from local governments and other eligible groups to partner with these individual IOU’s. The Abstract is scheduled to be released on February 21, 2008 and due to the targeted IOU by March 7, 2008.
The principal purpose of the Abstract is to allow potential partners to demonstrate:
Interested parties should submit their Abstracts, to the targeted IOU, by March 7, 2008. For more information and to download the Call for Abstract on February 21, 2008 (at 5 p.m. Pacific Standard Time) please go to the following website: www.californiaenergyefficiency.com.
| Q&A for 2009-11 LGP Call for Abstracts | |
|---|---|
| General Comments | |
|
|
| General Call for Abstract Questions | Answer |
| Q1. Regarding formatting of the proposal, do we need to keep the same paragraph and table numbering as show in section 3 on the Call for Abstracts? Is there a particular type of format required (i.e., font, etc.). | A1.The IOUs are requesting that responses be consistent with the paragraph and table numbering as shown in section 3 of the Call for Abstracts. However, if you want to present additional program elements and associated budget information for activities not covered in Section 3 (e.g., local or federal leveraged funds), please feel free to add an additional budget table or expand on the existing table). Also, be sure to complete the budget categories that we have requested. The Abstract can be submitted in single or double space in 12 point font. |
| Q2. Why are there only 2 weeks to submit abstracts, one week after questions answered, and approximately 20 calendar days to develop implementation plans? Can we have more time for abstracts and program implementation plans? | A2.Inclusion of partnerships in the May 15, 2008 Portfolio Application for the 2009-11 cycle allows for partnership activities to begin on January 1, 2009. Filing partnerships program later than the CPUC Application deadline of May 15, 2008, could delay roll-out of partnership programs to mid-2009, as had happened for the 2006-8 cycle. In compliance with CPUC orders and to allow for timely 2009-11 program roll-out, the program administrators need to know partnership offerings in early March. This March deadline allows for time to develop implementation plans with the partners, coordinate the plans with the utility Core and 3rd Party Programs, and develop the May 15 application. |
| Q3. Is there any difference between a "Partnership" as stated in the definitions and a "Local Government Partnership"? | A3. No |
| Q4. Are additional points provided for project/programs that have multiple partners or are single agency proposals given the same consideration? | A4. No as the question is stated. However, if this improves cost efficiency, then yes (in this category). |
| Q5. If a pilot project is proposed, do on-going funding mechanisms need to be identified as part of the abstract, or can the project be assessed and on-going funding determined based on the success of the pilot project. | A5. This Call for Abstract is for Energy Efficiency Programs for the 2009-11 program cycle. A prospective partner is free to propose innovative programs that reflect the strategic plan per Section 3.H.2. |
| Q6. Will a master list of questions and answers be available for everyone's review? | A6. Yes |
| Q7. Under “Abstract Key Dates,” there is no date listed for execution of agreement between Partner and Utility. We assume this date will be prior to the 10/1/08 date for “Program Ramp Up.” What is the latest date for completion of execution of contracts/agreements between Partners and Utilities? | A7. At this juncture, it is difficult if not impossible to set a date certain for execution of Partnership Agreement. In part, it depends on when CPUC hands down its final approval to the 2009-11 application after our scheduled filing on 05/15/2008 and how long it takes for partners to work on an agreement. It is the intent that we would have everything ready to commence the implementation of the approved 2009-11 programs on 01/01/2009. |
| Q8. For the overall budget, how should we differentiate between the education program and the new obligations with respect to the resource portion of the programs? | A8. Use table 3-3 to separate out resource and non-resource proposals. |
| Section 1 - Introduction | Answer |
| Q9. Section 1, A: There is a statement that responses are limited to 20 pages on p. 1 and 15 pages on page 10, which is correct? Does the 20 pages include attachments or not? | A9. The intent of limiting the number of pages was to highlight the fact that is an Abstract, or, an outline of your proposed program, not an implementation plan. Having said that, your Abstract should be no longer than 20 pages. The 20 pages includes all attachments. |
| Q10. Section 1, A: Does “long-term” refer to savings beyond the 3-year funding cycle? If so, Table #3-1 only captures savings over 1-3 years. How do we reflect “long-term” saving likely to occur outside of the 3-year program cycle? | A10. We expect all savings will persist beyond the three year funding cycle. In speaking of long term savings, we are referring to savings that first begin to accrue past the three year funding cycle. We want to encourage efforts that garner savings during the three year funding cycle as well as beyond the three year funding cycle. We are only requiring savings estimates for savings that occur within the three year funding cycle. |
| Q11.Section 1, A &B: What are the "threshold requirements" for evaluating Abstracts referenced on pages 1 and 9? | A11.The 'threshold requirement" for 2009-11 Partnerships is identified in Table 4-1 (Criteria) as "Abstract Responsiveness". As described in Section 3, page 4 - you must respond to every item listed or provide an explanation if the section does not apply to your program. In addition, you must meet the Partnership eligibility requirement listed in Section 1.C. |
| Q12.Section 1, C. Eligibility: Does this exclude for profit companies from bidding on the work? | A12.Yes, this is a requirement for new potential partners. However, implementers have a role with government partnerships, we want to ensure that the targeted local government is involved and committed in the program. |
| Section 2 - Program Overview and Intent | Answer |
| Q13. Section 2, Partnership Program Overview and Intent: Regarding the funding for the integrated portion of the program, do we include potential energy and demand reduction and the associated budgets in Tables 3-1 (savings) and 3-2 (budget)? Is marketing of broader green energy market an eligible activity? | A13. Distribution of integrated marketing materials should be included in the Budget table 3-1 but not the savings Table 3-2. If there are integration efforts you wish to propose beyond distribution of integrated marketing materials, you should identify those efforts and associated costs separately. You have the option of adding a column to Table 3-1 provided, or, creating a new table. Please note that the current energy efficiency policy does not provide funding for any integration efforts. Therefore, requests for other activities will need to be considered by program administrators and approved by the CPUC in the appropriate proceeding. |
| Q14. Are recycling, water conservation, and transportation (or other integrated resource) programs that result in energy savings eligible for partnership funding? | A14. Partnerships encourage integrated approaches and will give additional evaluation points for those efforts. However, these efforts can not be funded by the partnerships under current policy. |
| Q15. Section 2, Table 3-1: are there standard formulas suggested for calculating kW, kWh and therms? | A15. No. There is no one standard formula for calculating Energy Savings (kW, kWh and thm). Energy Savings depend on several factors: Energy saved relative to standard Whether the measure is new / retrofit / replace-on-burnout (mainly affects incremental cost) Type of measure - Whether the measure is Res/Nres Whether the measure is weather sensitive or not Operating Hours Interactive Effect Diversity Factor (only to do with kW) Installation Rate You can utilize the CPUC sponsored Database Energy Efficiency Resource (DEER - www.energy.ca.gov/deer/ ) to estimate energy and peak demand savings values, measure costs, and effective useful life for most energy end use measures you may be proposing. |
| Q16. Section 2, Table 3-2 (Budget Breakdown by category): is there a standard ratio expected? | A16. No there is not a ratio, however, high administration costs will impact the overall program cost effectiveness. |
| Q17. Section 2, Table 3-3 (Resource vs. Non-resource): Is there a sponsor/program funding ratio the applicant should follow in the Abstract budget? What percentage of funds is expected from sponsor partner and what from the IOU fund? | A17. There is no sponsor/program funding ratio. Partners who are able to contribute funds should so indicate but there is no percentage participation requirement. However, partner contribution will improve the overall program cost effectiveness. |
| Section 3, Part 2 - Proposal Summary and Budget Aollocation | Answer |
| Q18. Table 3-2: should Evaluation, Measurement, and Verification (EM&V) activities be included in the budget? | A18. Formal EM&V activities and related costs should not be included at this time. |
| Q19. Table 3-2 and 3-3: should the total budget in table 3-2 (Overall Budget Allocation) be equal to the total budget in Table 3-3 (Resource and Non-Resource Activities) | A19. Yes, the totals should be equal. |
| Q20. Should staffing, timeline, and detailed work plan be included here (in Section 3, part 2) or only in Section 3, Part 3, Item F- "Feasibility"? | A20. The staffing, timeline, and work plan should be included in Section 3, Part 3, Item F - "Feasiblity". General staffing information should be included in several areas, including, but not limited to the Budget Table 3-2, Section 3 under "Demonstrated Commitment" and "Feasibility". Please note, that the overall purpose of the Abstract is to describe programs at a high level versus detailed view. |
| Q21.How should Codes and Standards efforts be represented in Budget Table 3-2? | A21.Codes and Standards activities should be reflected in the "Direct Implementation" category in Table 3-2. Some codes and standards activities may qualify under Section 3, Item H.2 ("Innovation and Reflects the Stategic Planning Process"). |
| Q22.Table 3-2: Should Direct Installation program costs be listed under "Direct Implementation" or "Incentive/Rebate Costs"? | A22.A Any Direct Installation program costs should be listed in the "Direct Implementation" budget category of Table 3-2. |
| Section 3, Part 3, Item A: Cost Efficiency | Answer |
| Q23. Table 3-3: Please provide more information regarding the "budget Sponsored by Partner". Is it expected that partners would provide "matching funds"? Are local government funds used to install energy efficiency projects on public facilities considered part of this category? Please provide more guidance on Table 3-3 in regards to leveraged funds. | A23. One way a partner can demonstrate "Cost Efficiency" is to identify ways they are leveraging city, county, state, federal or other funds (other than the IOU funding) to execute proposed program elements. It is not required for a partner to provide "matching funds" (i.e., 50/50). However, this scoring criteria encourages incorporating additional funds in the proposal. And, yes, local government funds used to install energy efficiency projects should be identified in this table. |
| Section 3, Part 3, Item D: Municipal Facilities and Infrastructure | Answer |
| Q24. Some existing partnerships were not allowed to address municipal facilities in their program offerings due to overlapping partner territories. In order to meet this criteria, should we assume that the partners currently exlcuded from working on municipal facitlites should add a municipal facility component even though it may conflict with other Local Government Partnerships? | A24. No, do not add a municipal facility component where you understand there to be a conflict. Please identify this conflict in your Abstract response. This particular criteria isn't just about addressing municipal facilities, city facilities and energy infrastructure (e.g. street lights and swimming pools) as well. If there is a conflict with existing partnerships, please identify conflicts in the Abstract. Selected partnerships may not necessarily fully meet all criteria, but the IOUs expect that all relevant criteria be addressed in your Abstracts. |
| Q25. Some partners do not receive PG&E electric, but gas service only. Are you interested in knowing what energy efficiency efforts are being made even though they are not credited to the Partnership or to PG&E's goals? | A25. Yes, please provide any relevant information on any other energy efficiency programs. |
| Q26. Some partners receive gas from one IOU and electricity from another IOU, does the partner file one proposal or two proposals? | A26. A potential partner could either submit a combined proposal to each of the IOU separating the gas and electric benefits or submit two individual proposal, one to each of the individual IOUs. |
| Section 3, Part 3, Item E. Feasibility | Answer |
| Q27. There was a request to expand the feasiblity definition. | A27. Below is a more expanded definition of Feasibility than what was provided in the Call For Abstracts: Feasibility is the likelihood of program success based on the following- 1) The Abstract demonstrates the individual components of the program design (e.g. staffing plan, marketing plan effectiveness, work plan, timeline, etc.) and how these parts contribute toward the potential success of the implementation of the program; 2) The Abstract demonstrates a clear understanding of what is required to accomplish the program deliverables and goals; 3) The Abstract provides evidence that the program concept, approach, and implementation has been successful in the past; and 4) The Abstract identifies and provides strategies to overcome market barriers and hurdles |
| Section 3, Part 3, Item F. Integrated Approach | Answer |
| Q28. How should different partners address overlap in program elements in the same geographic area? | A28. For the purposes of the Abstract response, please submit all program elements that you would like to implement. If you are selected we would need to coordinate with other utility programs to ensure there is no duplication of efforts. Where possible, partnerships should attempt to address opportunities for filling a gap rather than duplicating efforts. |
| Section 3, Part 3, Item H. Innovation and Reflects the Strategic Planning Process | Answer |
| Q29. Section 3, Part 3, Item H: We are supposed to address longer term opportunities from the strategic plan. However, the strategic plan is a draft that is still open for public comment and the revision will not be completed before the abstracts are due. How are we to address this when the plan is still evolving? | A29. In Section 3, Part 3, Item H references both the strategic plan draft which can be found on the Home Page of the www.californiaenergyefficiency.com web site and the strategic plan process (strawman) which can be found at the top of the "Cross Sectional Appraoches: Local Government" web page at www.californiaenergyefficiency.com. Please review both documents as they will assist in resonding to this question. The strategic plan process, or, strawman, includes workshop discussions that existing local government partners participated in. You cannot be expected to address the final Strategic Plan in your Abstract since it has not been issued yet. |