FYI by Cecil Scheib, PE, CEM, LEED AP, GPRO O&M, BSCE
As I covered in a blog this week leading up to April 1, I’m involved in the NYS PSC’s (and thus, ultimately, the DPS’s) formation of CEAC as part of REV, more specifically the CES. ECMs (and EE in general), from CFLs to LEDs to CHP (and even high COP options for DHW), are front and center, as is any C&LM program that saves a kW or kWh. And that’s OK.
ESCOs and their PPAs will still have a role, and NWAs will still rule the BQDM, but NYSERDA RFPs and PONs referencing TRM protocols about M&V (usually IPVMP) will give way at the IOU level to DSIPs and ETIPs, primarily using EAMs. Of course, the BCA doesn’t get thrown out as part of the CEF and EEPS; in fact, a SCT was incorporated in 2016.
While the RPS (not to mention RGGI) still apply, at the utility level this goes beyond ROE to include avoided ICAP, consideration of LBMP, O&M, and naturally GHGs. But the line through DERs up to NYISO will be clearer under the DSP.
How will EDF, NRDC, RMI, REBNY, RSA, NYSAFAH, ALIGN, NYC MOS and any random REIT react to ACPs (hopefully not just LSEs buying RECs) becoming de rigeur, as happened in CT? But stay tuned – if, for example, the NYS DOS DCEA promotes changes to the NYSECCC (which of course, would affect the ECCNYC), we’ll post about it here—because transparency is key at Urban Green Council.
 I’m in the EEPM working group.
 I.E., no distinction made between sectors, e.g. C&I or MF.
 Paraphrased for clarity. Per internal documents, “the PSC adopted SCT as the primary measure of cost effectiveness under the BCA Framework. The UCT and RIM tests would be conducted, but would serve in a subsidiary role to the SCT test.”
 Heck, even PJM!
 We don’t like using UG or UGC – even on April Fool’s.