Utility Best Practices Guidance for
Providing Business Customers with
Energy Use and Cost Data
A RESOURCE OF THE NATIONAL ACTION PLAN
FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY
NOVEMBER 2008
-------
About This Document
This document, Utility Best Practices Guidance for Providing Business
Customers with Energy Use and Cost Data, presents the major find-
ings of an important year three activity of the National Action Plan for
Energy Efficiency. The Action Plan Sector Collaborative identified the
need for this guidance during a June 2007 workshop that included
representatives from commercial real estate, grocery, hospitality, retail,
and municipal sectors. An Action Plan Work Group helped define the
vision for this report and guided its development.
This document outlines the need to align utility practices for providing
customers with energy use and cost data with both increasing cus-
tomer needs and state and local government policy initiatives. In doing
so, utilities can meet customers' requirements on a consistent basis
nationwide. Gas and electric utilities and utility regulators can use this
guidance to understand the benefits and challenges of increasing cus-
tomer access to their energy consumption and cost data in a standard-
ized format. This guidance summarizes current data practices, outlines
the business and policy cases for action, and presents both basic and
advanced approaches for providing consistent, standardized electronic
energy consumption and cost data to business customers, as well as
the key considerations when implementing these approaches.
The primary intended audiences for this report are gas and electric utili-
ties and utility regulators.
-------
Utility Best Practices Guidance for
Providing Business Customers
with Energy Use and Cost Data
A RESOURCE OF THE NATIONAL ACTION PLAN FOR
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
NOVEMBER 2008
-------
The Leadership Group of the National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency is committed to taking
action to increase investment in cost-effective energy efficiency. Utility Best Practices Guidance
for Providing Business Customers with Energy Use and Cost Data was developed under the
guidance of and with input from the Leadership Group. The document does not necessarily
represent a consensus view and does not represent an endorsement by the organizations of
Leadership Group members.
Utility Best Practices Guidance for Providing Business Customers with Energy Use and Cost
Data is a product of the National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency and does not reflect the
views, policies, or otherwise of the federal government. The role of the U.S. Department of
Energy and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is limited to facilitation of the Action Plan.
If this document is referenced, it should be cited as:
National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency (2008). Utility Best Practices Guidance for Providing
Business Customers with Energy Use and Cost Data. ICF International.
For More Information
Regarding Utility Best Practices Guidance for Providing Business Customers with Energy Use and Cost Data,
please contact:
Tracy Narel
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Radiation
Climate Protection Partnerships Division
Tel: (202) 343-9145
E-mail: narel.tracv@epa.gov
Regarding the National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency, please contact:
Stacy Angel Larry Mansueti
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Air and Radiation Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability
Climate Protection Partnerships Division Tel: (202) 586-2588
Tel: (202) 343-9606 E-mail: lawrence.mansueti@.hq.doe.qov
E-mail: angel.stacv@epa.gov
or visit www.epa.gov/eeactionplan
-------
Table of Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms
Acknowledgements iv
Executive Summary ES-1
1: Introduction 1-1
1.1 About this Document 1-1
1.2 Structure of this Document 1-3
1.3 Development of this Document 1-4
1.4 Notes 1-4
2: Overview of Current Utility Data Practices 2-1
2.1 Current Utility Practices 2-1
2.2 North America Energy Standards Board Efforts as Foundation for Data Practices ....2-4
2.3 Notes 2-5
3: The Case for Increasing Customer Access to Energy Use and Cost Data... 3-1
3.1 Enabling Energy Management in Commercial Buildings 3-1
3.2 The Business Case for Utilities 3-3
3.3 The Policy Case for Regulators 3-5
3.4 State and Local Policy Initiatives 3-6
3.5 Notes 3-7
4: Best Practices Guidance 4-1
4.1 Tier 1 Best Practices 4-1
4.2 Tier 2 Best Practices 4-2
4.3 Utility Implementation Considerations 4-4
4.4 Putting Best Practices into Action 4-9
Appendix A: National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency Leadership Group A-1
Appendix B: Glossary B-1
Appendix C: Related NAESB Model Business Practices C-1
Appendix D: References D-1
National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency
-------
List of Figures
Figure 1-1. Ten Implementation Goals of the National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency
Vision for 2025: A Framework for Change 1-3
Figure 4-1. Historical and Projected AMI Installations 4-8
List of Tables
Table ES-1. The Business and Policy Case for Enhanced Data Access ES-2
Table ES-2. Best Practices Guidance Summary ES-4
Table 1-1. Best Practices Guidance Summary 1-2
Table 2-1. Current Utility Data Availability Practices Summary 2-4
Table 3-1. The Business and Policy Case for Enhanced Data Access 3-6
ii
Providing Business Customers with Energy Use and Cost Data
-------
List of Abbreviations and Acronyms
AMI
advanced metering infrastructure
ANSI
American National Standards Institute
CIS
customer information system
ComEd
Commonwealth Edison
DOE
U.S. Department of Energy
EDI
Electronic Data Interchange
EM&V
evaluation, measurement, and verification
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FERC
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
HVAC
heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
IOU
investor-owned utility
NAESB
North American Energy Standards Board
PG&E
Pacific Gas and Electric
SDG&E
San Diego Gas and Electric
National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency
iii
-------
Acknowledgements
This guidance document is a resource of the National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency. In
addition to review and comment by industry participants and experts, this report was prepared
with the valuable input of an Action Plan Work Group. Work Group members include:
• Janet Benish and Shay Reed, Costco
• Kevin Bricknell, Commonwealth Edison
• Keith Forsman, Peter Turnbull, and Roland Risser, Pacific Gas and Electric
• Ruth Kiselewich, Baltimore Gas and Electric
• Kathy Loftus, Whole Foods Market
• Pat Maher, Marriott International
• John Morrill, Arlington County, Virginia
• Scott Morrissey, Greenprint Denver
• Patrick Oshie, Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission
• Anne-Marie Peracchio, New Jersey Natural Gas
• Steve Kiesner and Seda Atam, Edison Electric Institute
• Ed Schlect, Advantage IQ
• Richard Steeves, Office of Consumer Council, State of Connecticut
• Dave Van Holde, Department of Natural Resources and Parks, King County,
Washington
• Fred Yebra, City of Austin
Bill Prindle and Peter Flippen of ICF International served as the primary authors of the report,
under contract to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Jennifer Peyser and Dana
Goodson of RESOLVE provided facilitation for the Work Group. Alison Silverstein of Alison
Silverstein Consulting provided her expertise during review and editing of the report.
EPA and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) facilitate the National Action Plan for Energy
Efficiency. Key staff include Larry Mansueti (DOE Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy
Reliability), Dan Beckley (DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy), and
Kathleen Hogan, Cindy Jacobs, Tracy Narel, and Stacy Angel (EPA Climate Protection
Partnerships Division).
Eastern Research Group, Inc., provided technical review, copyediting, graphics, and production
services for this report.
iv
Providing Business Customers with Energy Use and Cost Data
-------
Executive Summary
This paper, Utility Best Practices Guidance for Providing Business Customers with
Energy Use and Cost Data, informs utility efforts to improve availability of consistent,
standardized energy consumption and cost data to remove a key barrier to new gains in
energy efficiency in commercial and institutional buildings. This barrier was identified by
the Sector Collaborative on Energy Efficiency participants, including representatives
from the commercial real estate, hospitality, grocery, retail, and municipal sectors. The
document is provided to assist organizations in meeting the 10 implementation goals of
the National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency's Vision to achieve all cost-effective
energy efficiency by 2025
Improving energy efficiency in our homes, businesses, schools, governments, and industries—
which consume more than 70 percent of the natural gas and electricity used in the country—is
one of the most constructive, cost-effective ways to address the challenges of high energy
prices, energy security and independence, air pollution, and global climate change. Despite
these benefits and the success of energy efficiency programs in some regions of the country,
energy efficiency remains critically underutilized in the nation's energy portfolio. It is time to take
advantage of more than two decades of experience with successful energy efficiency programs,
broaden and expand these efforts, and capture the savings that energy efficiency offers.
Providing customers with consistent energy use and cost information is key to establishing the
policy and program framework to capture these benefits.
This paper has been developed to help parties pursue the key policy recommendations and
implementation goals of the National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency. The Action Plan was
released in July 2006 as a call to action to bring diverse stakeholders together at the national,
regional, state, or utility level, as appropriate, and foster the discussions, decision-making, and
commitments necessary to take investment in energy efficiency to a new level. This paper
directly supports the National Action Plan's Vision for 2025 implementation goal eight, which
encourages utilities to establish state of the art billing systems. This goal highlights the need for
utilities to work with customers to develop methods of supplying consistent energy use and cost
information across states, service territories, and the nation.
Both utility customers and government bodies have identified enhanced, consistent access to
energy data as a critical component of improved energy management. Commercial and
institutional organizations incorporating these data into their energy management strategies are
reducing their energy use cost-effectively by as much as 30 percent or more. Improved data
practices can drive a new wave of commercial building energy benchmarking and subsequent
investments in energy efficiency and demand reduction. Commercial building owners need
access to energy data to set sound energy management goals, identify cost-effective energy
efficiency measures, target investments, and generally improve overall operations. While these
utility customers have expressed interest in better data access for some time, today's
converging trends of rising energy prices, the rollout of "smart grid" technologies, and the
proliferation of benchmarking and related energy management initiatives make this guidance
particularly timely.
This best practices guidance document summarizes the context, current state of utility practices,
and the business and policy cases for action, listed in Table ES-1. Drawing upon utility
experiences, interviews, and literature research, this document presents a specific set of best
National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency
ES-1
-------
practice recommendations and implementation considerations, as well as a review of
recommended practices and standards for electronic billing transactions from the North
American Energy Standards Board (NAESB).
Table ES-1. The Business and Policy Case for Enhanced Data Access
The Business Case for Customers
¦ Empowers the customer to benchmark and analyze data, set improvement goals for
energy efficiency and demand reduction, and reduce energy use.
¦ Reduced staff hours dedicated to data collection.
¦ Reduced fees for obtaining required data.
¦ Increased information transparency.
The Business Case for Utilities
¦ Improved customer relations and satisfaction.
¦ Demand reductions from better customer energy management.
¦ Lower costs for customer efficiency programs.
¦ Better basis for measurement and verification for efficiency programs.
¦ Better baseline data sources for demand response.
The Policy Case for Regulators
¦ Improved basis for measuring progress toward efficiency goals.
¦ Reduced utility program costs and rate impacts.
¦ Expanded public benefits of advanced metering and smart grid investments.
The review of current practices uncovered limitations that business customers experience in
seeking access to energy data. Utilities and regulators must address these limitations in order to
facilitate greater investment in cost-effective energy efficiency:
• Utility fees for data provision.
• Cumbersome utility data release processes.
• Lack of consolidated account access across a utility's service territory.
• Varied standards for electronic billing and payment across states and utility service
areas.
• Varied access to historical and downloadable data.
This document presents two tiers of best practices guidance to address these issues. These
tiers emerged from an assessment of the range of practices and capabilities in place today and
available in the near future. Tier 1 seeks to establish a minimum threshold that most utilities can
implement today; Tier 2 comprises a more advanced set of practices that most utilities could
implement in the near future. More specifically:
• Tier 1 describes practices that the large majority of utilities could reasonably implement.
Access to twelve months of historical and ongoing monthly electronic data without
explicit fees is the main focus of Tier 1.
ES-2
Providing Business Customers with Energy Use and Cost Data
-------
• Tier 2 describes practices for those utilities in a position to make additional investments
in the necessary information technology and support systems to provide additional data
and services. Tier 2 stipulates adoption of the NAESB standard for electronic billing
transactions and covers access to interval data.
Table ES-2 outlines the recommended data elements for each tier. The table also lists options
for making data available to business customers and examples of utilities that implement these
practices today.
Utilities and regulators will need to address a number of issues as they proceed to implement
the best practices presented in this guidance. These issues include customer information
system functionality, customer privacy and security issues, cost recovery policies, smart meter
deployment, and standardization of electronic transmissions. This guidance also summarizes
and provides recommendations for addressing these implementation issues.
Utilities, commissions, customers, and other stakeholders are encouraged to implement or
otherwise advance these best practice tiers to expand energy efficiency opportunities.
Specifically:
• Utilities can invest in the development of best practice data access, including the
software and other resources needed to enable these practices in the most cost-
effective manner possible.
• Regulators can use the policy and business cases that accompany the guidance to
review and approve utilities' cost-effective investments in best practices.
• Customers can commit to using enhanced data for energy management, and support
the approval of cost-effective utility programs containing these features.
• Standards development organizations can develop protocols for data uploads to
benchmarking and other energy management software tools.
Widespread implementation of the best practices summarized in Table ES-2 would allow
business customers to better target their investments and tap into more of the cost-effective,
commercial sector energy efficiency resources. Reinforcing the need for such practices, several
state and local governments have recently enacted or are considering requirements for building
owner disclosure of energy information that will increase demand for greater data access. In
some cases, the mandates have required advancements in how utilities provide data to
customers.
National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency
ES-3
-------
Table ES-2. Best Practices Guidance Summary
Data Elements/Availability
Practices
Utility Examples
Tier 1
Data
elements
¦ Most recent 12 months of cost,
consumption, and demand data
with ongoing monthly access
Ameren, National Grid,
NSTAR, Pacific Gas and
Electric (PG&E), San Diego
Gas and Electric (SDG&E)
Data
availability
practices
¦ Providing electronic access to Tier
1 data as comma-separated
values or spreadsheet files
NSTAR
¦ Providing access to data without
explicit customer fees
SDG&E
¦ Addressing data security concerns
50 percent of utilities provide
secure access to bills online
¦ Offering data electronically, even
if customers do not pay bills
electronically
Ameren, ComEd, National
Grid, PG&E
Tier 2
Data
elements
¦ Tier 1 data, interval meter data,
and electronic billing in
accordance with the North
American Energy Standards
Board's (NAESB's) R05016 final
action
Xcel Energy, PacifiCorp
Data
availability
practices
¦ Automatic distribution of or access
to monthly data
All California investor-owned
utilities (lOUs)
¦ Developing consolidated
electronic billing and account
access for multi-site customers
Santee Cooper, Southern
Company
¦ Providing automated electronic
access to data by the customer's
billing or benchmarking system
One-third of large utilities
provide Electronic Data
Interchange services
¦ Developing streamlined security
processes
All California lOUs
¦ Provision of energy management
software with interval data and
load profiles
Commonwealth Edison,
SDG&E, Southern Company
¦ Encouraging customer use of data
for benchmarking and tracking
MidAmerican, National Grid,
NSTAR, We Energies, Xcel
Energy
¦ Supporting standards
development processes for
electronic billing and payment
NAESB members
ES-4
Providing Business Customers with Energy Use and Cost Data
-------
1: Introduction
Improving the energy efficiency of homes, businesses, schools, governments, and industries—
which consume more than 70 percent of the natural gas and electricity used in the United
States—is one of the most constructive, cost-effective ways to address the challenges of high
energy prices, energy security and independence, air pollution, and global climate change.
Mining this efficiency could help us meet on the order of 50 percent or more of the expected
growth in U.S. consumption of electricity and natural gas in the coming decades, yielding many
billions of dollars in saved energy bills and avoiding significant emissions of greenhouse gases
and other air pollutants.1
Recognizing this large opportunity, more than 60 leading organizations representing diverse
stakeholders from across the country joined together to develop the National Action Plan for
Energy Efficiency. The Action Plan identifies many of the key barriers contributing to
underinvestment in energy efficiency; outlines five policy recommendations for achieving all
cost-effective energy efficiency; and offers a wealth of resources and tools for parties to
advance these recommendations, including a Vision for 2025. As of November 2008, over 120
organizations have endorsed the Action Plan recommendations and made public commitments
to implement them in their areas. Supplying energy use and cost information to customers is
key to making the Action Plan a reality.
1.1 About this Document
This guidance provides an overview of current utility data practices, makes the case for
increasing customer access to energy and cost data, and offers guidance for providing these
data. The guidance is defined in two tiers to best serve the needs of the utility industry because
utility operations vary depending upon their size, regulatory environment, and customer needs.
• Tier 1 is aimed at providing access to 12 months of historical energy data, with ongoing
monthly updates, in a standard electronic format.
• Tier 2 expands these practices to include a more complete set of data used in billing,
interval data, additional electronic transfer methods, and other customer-friendly
practices.
In providing access to 12 months of customer data, Tier 1 practices will benefit all customers
from the smallest to the largest through the standardization of formats and data practices. Tier 2
practices will provide additional benefits to customers with more demanding data needs, as well
as larger customers that operate multiple facilities across utility service territories. Table 1-1
provides a summary of these two tiers of guidance, along with examples of utilities that are
already implementing some of the best practices.
National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency
1-1
-------
Table 1-1. Best Practices Guidance Summary
Data Elements/Availability
Practices
Utility Examples
Tier 1
Data
elements
¦ Most recent 12 months of cost,
consumption, and demand data
with ongoing monthly access
Ameren, National Grid, NSTAR,
Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E),
San Diego Gas and Electric
(SDG&E)
Data
availability
practices
¦ Providing electronic access to Tier
1 data as comma-separated
values or spreadsheet files
NSTAR
¦ Providing access to data without
explicit customer fees
SDG&E
¦ Addressing data security concerns
50 percent of utilities provide
secure access to bills online
¦ Offering data electronically, even if
customers do not pay bills
electronically
Ameren, ComEd, National Grid,
PG&E
Tier 2
Data
elements
¦ Tier 1 data, interval meter data,
and electronic billing in
accordance with the North
American Energy Standards
Board's (NAESB's) R05016 final
action
Xcel Energy, PacifiCorp
Data
availability
practices
¦ Automatic distribution of or access
to monthly data
All California investor-owned
utilities (lOUs)
¦ Developing consolidated electronic
billing and account access for
multi-site customers
Santee Cooper, Southern
Company
¦ Providing automated electronic
access to data by the customer's
billing or benchmarking system
One-third of large utilities provide
Electronic Data Interchange
services
¦ Developing streamlined security
processes
All California lOUs
¦ Provision of energy management
software with interval data and
load profiles
Commonwealth Edison, SDG&E,
Southern Company
¦ Encouraging customer use of data
for benchmarking and tracking
MidAmerican, National Grid,
NSTAR, We Energies, Xcel
Energy
¦ Supporting standards
development processes for
electronic billing and payment
NAESB members
1-2
Providing Business Customers with Energy Use and Cost Data
-------
At the Action Plan Sector Collaborative Workshop in June 2007, energy management experts
from commercial real estate, hospitality, grocery, retail, and municipalities identified current
limits to data access as a key barrier to increasing building energy efficiency. Participants
agreed that greater access to more consistent historical and ongoing data will better enable
business customers to set and track energy management goals, benchmark building energy
performance, and choose effective investments for lower-performing buildings.
Based upon this input, the Action Plan Leadership Group (see Appendix A) approved a project
to develop best practices guidance for customer access to energy data across utility service
territories on a consistent, standardized basis. This effort supports the National Action Plan for
Energy Efficiency Vision for 2025: A Framework for Change. This Vision establishes a long-term
aspirational goal to achieve all cost-effective energy efficiency by 2025 and outlines 10 goals for
implementing the Leadership Group's recommendations (see Figure 1-1). This document
directly supports the Vision's eighth implementation goal which encourages states and key
stakeholders to establish state of the art billing systems. This goal encourages utilities to work
with customers to develop methods of supplying consistent energy use and cost information
across states, service territories, and the nation.
Figure 1-1. Ten Implementation Goals of the National Action Plan for Energy
Efficiency Vision for 2025: A Framework for Change
Goal
One:
Establishing Cost-Effective Energy Efficiency as a High-Priority
Goal
Two:
Developing Processes to Align Utility and Other Program Administrator
Incentives Such That Efficiency and Supply Resources Are on a Level Playing
Field
Goal
Three:
Establishing Cost-Effectiveness Tests
Goal
Four:
Establishing Evaluation, Measurement, and Verification Mechanisms
Goal
Five:
Establishing Effective Energy Efficiency Delivery Mechanisms
Goal
Six:
Developing State Policies to Ensure Robust Energy Efficiency Practices
Goal
Seven:
Aligning Customer Pricing and Incentives to Encourage Investment in Energy
Efficiency
Goal
Eight:
Establishing State of the Art Billing Systems
Goal
Nine:
Implementing State of the Art Efficiency Information Sharing and Delivery
Systems
Goal
Ten:
Implementing Advanced Technologies
1.2 Structure of this Document
This guidance document is organized in three main sections:
• Chapter 2: Overview of Current Utility Data Practices. This section provides
background on existing data practices and efforts to define standards for electronic utility
billing transactions.
National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency
1-3
-------
• Chapter 3: The Case for Increasing Customer Access to Energy Use and Cost
Data. This section summarizes the value of data as a driver for energy efficiency
improvements in commercial buildings and the "bottom line" business and policy cases
for moving forward in this area.
• Chapter 4: Best Practices Guidance. This section lays out guidance for best practices
for providing customers with enhanced access to their energy use and cost data. It
proposes and details two tiers of data availability to help utilities clarify the data formats
and other issues involved in meeting basic and advanced customer needs. The section
closes with a review of key considerations when implementing the best practices.
1.3 Development of this Document
This document is a product of the Year Three Work Plan of the National Action Plan for Energy
Efficiency. In addition to direction and comment by the Action Plan Leadership Group (see
Appendix A for a list of group members), the document was developed under the guidance of a
Work Group composed of several organizations, representing various stakeholder perspectives.
The group discussed the initial outline and approach, offered content in their areas of expertise,
and provided feedback on drafts of the report. Bill Prindle and Peter Flippen of ICF International
served as the primary authors of the report, under contract to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
The Work Group members are:
• Janet Benish and Shay Reed, Costco
• Kevin Bricknell, Commonwealth Edison
• Keith Forsman, Peter Turnbull, and Roland Risser, Pacific Gas and Electric
• Ruth Kiselewich, Baltimore Gas and Electric
• Kathy Loftus, Whole Foods Market
• Pat Maher, Marriott International
• John Morrill, Arlington County, Virginia
• Scott Morrissey, Greenprint Denver
• Patrick Oshie, Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission
• Anne-Marie Peracchio, New Jersey Natural Gas
• Steve Kiesner and Seda Atam, Edison Electric Institute
• Ed Schlect, Advantage IQ
• Richard Steeves, Office of Consumer Council, State of Connecticut
• Dave Van Holde, Department of Natural Resources and Parks, King County,
Washington
• Fred Yebra, City of Austin
1.4 Notes
1 See the National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency Vision for 2025: A Framework for Change (National
Action Plan for Energy Efficiency, 2008a).
1-4
Providing Business Customers with Energy Use and Cost Data
-------
2: Overview of Current Utility Data Practices
This section provides background on utility practices used in the marketplace today and
current North American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) efforts to create standards for
electronic billing transactions. This section draws on interviews with utilities, end-users,
software providers, meter manufacturers, regulators, and energy service companies,
supplemented with document and Internet reviews.
2.1 Current Utility Practices
Many utilities offer improved access to energy data. This is happening in a number of ways. In
some cases it is through a move to electronic billing practices. In other cases, it is through a
move to offer services that enhance energy management and benchmark the efficiency of
commercial buildings. Each of these cases is discussed below.
2.1.1 Billing Practices
Utility billing departments' main purpose is to process data to calculate monthly charges. One
fast-growing practice is to allow customers access to billing data through online customer
accounts. After setting up an account with the utility, the customer can view and pay bills online.
Data provided from online accounts focus on the current month, with some provisions made for
historical data; best practice is to provide the previous 12 months of consumption and cost data.
If historical data are provided, they are sometimes provided as viewable on a Web page or
downloadable as a spreadsheet.
While these billing practices are gaining currency among utilities, there continue to be important
limitations on customers' access to their data:
• Only 50 percent of utilities provide customers with online bill presentment and payment.
Larger utilities are more likely to offer the service: 81 percent of utilities with over
100,000 customers offer online bill payment (Perdue, 2008).
• Even if data are viewable online, manual transfer may be necessary to convert the data
to an electronic format for customer use.
• A customer with multiple facilities in a single utility service area may have to set up
separate account logins to access data for each individual facility.
• A customer may still find it difficult to access data from an earlier payment period and
easily create an historical picture of their energy use.
Best practice billing options include consolidated online accounts, summary billing, and access
to data, including at least 12 prior months, in downloadable formats:
• Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), Ameren, Santee Cooper, NSTAR, and National
Grid provide good examples of consolidated online account access. Business
customers with online access to their billing can view two or more accounts together
under one username and password for free (Ameren, 2008; National Grid, 2008;
NSTAR, 2007; PG&E, 2008; Santee Cooper, 2008).
National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency
2-1
-------
• Southern Company provides a summary billing program, allowing any business
customer with 10 or more accounts to receive an electronic summary bill for all their
accounts across all of Southern Company's five operating companies: Alabama Power,
Georgia Power, Gulf Power, Mississippi Power, and Savannah Electric. The
program is free and provides historical data that can be downloaded and viewed in
Excel.
Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) is an automated electronic billing option that is viewed as a
best practice for utilities. About a third of the larger utilities use this process to enable automated
electronic bills for customers and electronic payments from customers (Schlect, 2007). EDI can
be used as another form of summary billing, since customers are able to receive bills for
multiple accounts in this format. Because utility use of EDI has focused on bill presentment and
payment transactions, typically only 1 month of data is provided. Over time a customer using
EDI will accumulate 12 months of data, but generally EDI is not used to provide historical data.
It is also widely recognized that EDI is best suited for situations involving a large number of
recurring transactions. The costs of implementing EDI for data transfer limit its use for business
customers with limited data transaction needs. Unfortunately, even for those customers with
sufficient data requirements, a lack of standardization hinders its use. EDI formats are not
uniform, forcing end-users who operate across multiple utility territories to adjust their EDI
systems to interface with different utilities. This creates a costly and complex electronic bill
processing software and management effort for large companies, which represents the main
barrier to wider adoption of EDI. It is expected that more widespread adoption of NAESB's
Retail Final Action R05016—Customer Billing and Payment Notification via Uniform Electronic
Transactions Model Business Practices (reviewed in Section 2.2) will result in further
standardization. Xcel Energy and PacifiCorp are examples of utilities that have implemented
the NAESB business practices.
2.1.2 Energy Efficiency Practices
Some utilities provide customers with electronic data in software programs used to promote the
use of energy data for energy management. These software packages typically allow customers
to download historical data, analyze interval data, create load profiles, and produce reports. The
two main limitations for access to data through utility software programs are that (1) utilities
have tended to make them available only to larger customers and (2) utilities providing this
service have often provided it at an added cost to the customer.
As a best practice example, San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) offers its online Energy
Waves software to all customers with an optional time of use meter for free. All customers can
view up to 17 months of historical consumption, graph their usage, and download data for
further analysis. Additionally, customers with a time of use meter can view historical 15-minute
interval data. Customers can also consolidate access to multiple accounts with one username
and password. While many software programs offer these features, SDG&E offers Energy
Waves at no explicit cost to all customers. SDG&E goes one step further for customers with
smart meters that enable more immediate availability of data for analysis. SDG&E offers these
customers its kWckview software. kWckview is available for free, has all the same features as
Energy Waves, and also allows customers to download 15-minute interval data the next
morning (SDG&E, 2008).
Southern Company and Commonwealth Edison (ComEd) also exemplify best practices for
energy management software. Southern Company offers the EnergyDirect.com energy
management package to business customers. This Internet-based software has several levels
2-2
Providing Business Customers with Energy Use and Cost Data
-------
of subscription. The first level—which is free—offers customers basic and detailed billing
information, usage graphs, real-time pricing information with pricing alerts, and the ability to
download information. As a part of its recent demand-side management filing, ComEd moved
from charging customers for its Energy Insights Online software to offering it to all customers
with an interval meter for free. The software provides access to interval data at half-hour
increments, advanced graphing features including load profiling, and the ability to download
daily and monthly usage reports.
2.1.3 Benchmarking Practices
A newer practice for utilities is providing data with the express purpose of enabling customer
benchmarking. A key barrier to widespread use of energy benchmarking programs is manual
data entry. Building owners often enter utility data manually into their own accounting or energy
management databases and may be reluctant to re-enter this data in another system. Utilities
are reducing this barrier by providing the energy data required by their customers for
benchmarking. EPA's Portfolio Manager is the most widely used tool; a number of utilities have
programs to provide 12 months of data to help customers use this tool. Those utilities include
ComEd, MidAmerican, National Grid, NSTAR, PG&E, SDG&E, Sacramento Municipal
Utility District, Southern California Edison, We Energies, and Xcel Energy.
One best practice example of reducing the data entry burden on customers is ComEd's Energy
Usage Data Tool, which allows a customer to query ComEd's customer information system
based on a building address and data ranges in order to receive electronic historical energy
data for an entire building. ComEd developed this tool in response to demand from customer
facility managers wanting to use EPA's Portfolio Manager.1 The tool is designed to give facility
managers access to data for benchmarking buildings that have multiple tenants with their own
individual ComEd accounts.
An advanced best practice solution to the manual data entry barrier is the automated transfer of
data directly into the benchmarking system. Many California utilities are taking this approach in
response to executive and legislative mandates to facilitate customer benchmarking through
EPA's Portfolio Manager tool. To meet these mandates efficiently, many utilities are choosing to
enable the direct electronic transfer of 12 months of historical consumption data into EPA's
Portfolio Manager benchmarking tool. PG&E, Southern California Edison, Southern
California Gas, SDG&E, and Sacramento Municipal Utility District have already
successfully transmitted data to Portfolio Manager. With an eye toward adapting the California
approach, ComEd's near-term goal is to upgrade its data retrieval tool to automatically import
data for benchmarking directly into EPA's Portfolio Manager.
Table 2-1 summarizes the practices, barriers, and best practice examples outlined in this
section.
National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency
2-3
-------
Table 2-1. Current Utility Data Availability Practices Summary
Category
Current
Practices
Best Practices
Best Practice Examples
Billing
Online bill
payment
¦ Online account
access
¦ Data download
functionality
¦ Consolidated
account log-ins
¦ PG&E, Ameren, Santee
Cooper, NSTAR, and
National Grid online
account access
¦ Southern Company
summary billing
Electronic Data
Interchange
(EDI)
¦ EDI capabilities
¦ NAESB's R05016
Model Business
Practices
Energy
efficiency
Energy software
¦ Available to all
customers
¦ Provided for free or
at subsidized cost
¦ SDG&E's Energy
Waves and kWckview
Software
¦ Southern Company's
EnergyDirect.com
¦ ComEd's Energy
Insights Online
Benchmarking
Data provided for
benchmarking
¦ Electronic data
provision for
benchmarking
¦ Com Ed data retrieval
¦ California lOUs
automated
benchmarking
2.2 North America Energy Standards Board Efforts as Foundation
for Data Practices
NAESB has begun to address the issues of data consistency and format, and has developed
recommended model business practices for utilities with respect to electronic billing
transactions. The specific NAESB Retail Final Action addressing this issue is R05016—
Customer Billing and Payment Notification via Uniform Electronic Transactions Model Business
Practices. Although NAESB traditionally produces standards for market participants in
competitive markets, the board developed this standard for customer data transactions as the
result of a specific request from Wal-Mart. In June of 2005, Wal-Mart requested the
development of what would become R05016 to provide greater standardization of EDI billing
transactions.
The model practices in R05016 provide needed improvements to standardization for electronic
billing transactions. The Action Plan best practices guidance builds upon this standard, with
specific recommendations that facilitate energy benchmarking and other energy management
practices by:
• Stipulating access to at least 12 months of historical consumption, demand, and cost
(R05016 focuses on single-month data transfer).
2-4
Providing Business Customers with Energy Use and Cost Data
-------
• Emphasizing national industry standard format for electronic access to data for the large
number of customers who do not pay bills electronically.
• Laying out the elements of the business/policy case for both utilities and regulators.
2.3 Notes
1 EPA's Portfolio Manager benchmarking tool provides energy performance ratings for various types of
commercial buildings. See for more information.
National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency
2-5
-------
-------
3: The Case for Increasing Customer Access to
Energy Use and Cost Data
This section provides background on the need for this guidance, the benefits for
commercial building customers, the business and policy case for utilities and regulators,
and a review of state and local initiatives related to increasing data access.
3.1 Enabling Energy Management in Commercial Buildings
The need for this guidance evolved primarily out of customer requests; their case for improved
data access is driven by growing interest in the cost savings and environmental benefits of
energy efficiency in commercial buildings. Case studies from Action Plan's Sector Collaborative
on Energy Efficiency participants underscore the need for best practice guidance.1
3.1.1 Data as a Driver for Energy Efficiency
Providing greater access to consistent energy consumption and cost data will enable key
energy management actions identified by Sector Collaborative participants as critical to guiding
cost-effective improvements in commercial and institutional buildings. By adopting energy
management best practices, businesses can reduce their energy use significantly, by up to 30
percent or more. These practices include assessing energy performance, setting energy
savings goals, and regularly evaluating progress, all of which require ongoing access to
consistent data. Use of continuous energy benchmarking is growing among commercial and
industrial building owners and managers, and the results experienced by companies such as
USAA Real Estate are compelling:
"The experiences of USAA Real Estate Co., an organization with buildings
across the country, illustrate how benchmarking can inform the whole energy
management process: Until USAA Real Estate benchmarked its holdings, the
company's management believed its portfolio of buildings to be highly energy-
efficient. However, initial results indicated that there was room for improvement.
The company went on to benchmark 100 percent of its space. That effort, in turn,
led to changes in energy management practices and building upgrades that
resulted in more than $10 million in energy savings over a five-year period
through 2007. USAA Real Estate was named an EPA ENERGY STAR® Partner
of the Year every year from 2003 through 2007." (EPA, 2007a)
Dozens of additional organizations have earned EPA recognition as ENERGY STAR Leaders
by benchmarking all of their buildings and demonstrating efficiency gains of 10, 20, and 30
percent across their portfolios. Examples include Gresham-Barlow School District in Oregon,
which improved the efficiency of its 19 K-12 schools by 30 percent, and New York Presbyterian
Hospital, which achieved a 10 percent portfolio-wide improvement across its four hospital
campuses, including the university hospitals of Columbia and Cornell.2 Easier access to
consistent energy data for business customers builds an important foundation for successes like
this to become widespread.
The opportunity to reduce energy costs, demand, and air pollutant and greenhouse gas
emissions through cost-effective energy efficiency measures in the commercial sectors is
National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency
3-1
-------
significant across the country. Commercial and industrial building owners spend $200 billion on
facility energy consumption each year (EIA, 2008), and this total continues to rise in today's
constrained energy markets. The energy used in these facilities currently contributes nearly 45
percent of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions (EPA, 2007b), and commercial buildings are currently
the end-use sector with the fastest-growing emissions of greenhouse gases—increasing at a
rate of 1.8 percent annually. Further, energy efficiency potential studies estimate that some 30
percent of energy consumed in commercial buildings is wasted and could be reduced at low
costs (IPCC, 2007). Recent work by McKinsey (2007) also highlights the tremendous potential
for capturing this wasted energy, with low-cost efficiency improvements in the commercial
sector representing the greatest opportunity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
3.1.2 Data Availability Case Studies
Energy managers at Costco, Whole Foods, and King County, Washington, have experienced
obstacles when collecting energy data. Their experiences demonstrate the gap between the
data that are needed and the data that are available.
• In 2003, Costco initiated a project to establish a utility consumption and cost database
with two years of historical data for energy management purposes. Two significant
issues made this a difficult process: lack of access to electronic data and poor data
quality. In cases where Costco could not download electronic data from a Web site, they
requested data directly from utilities. In a number of cases, utilities responded by
sending paper copies of the bills. Data quality was also insufficient in that many historical
data sets were incomplete or inaccurate. Prior period usage corrections would be
reported under the current bill date rather than with the actual usage dates. The
company also found that cost data could be inaccurate or incomplete, at times missing
costs for taxes or special adjustments.
• In 2006, Whole Foods Market, Inc., joined EPA's ENERGY STAR and Climate Leaders
programs with the intent of establishing baseline energy usage, a greenhouse gas
emissions inventory, and benchmarking to set goals for reductions. The company
needed two years of historical data to establish a baseline. In addition to many of the
same challenges Costco experienced, Whole Foods was sometimes unable to obtain its
historical data by contacting utilities directly. The company operates stores across the
country but does not always have more than five or 10 stores in a particular utility's
service territory; in such a case, a utility might not provide a dedicated account manager
to help with specific needs such as data requests. Whole Foods is often required to use
utilities' business services departments and has found that these departments typically
cannot provide historical information in a consistent format. After 2 years of effort, Whole
Foods has only partial data and no easy way to capture and track ongoing usage. The
company has to incur significant costs to have a third party provide utility metering and
tracking for interval data, and this approach still does not provide the monthly utility bill
data. As a result, Whole Foods does not have the information necessary to help identify
energy efficiency upgrades and cost saving opportunities.
• King County, Washington, is the 14th largest county in the U.S. by population,
surrounding the Seattle area. As a part of an aggressive renewable energy and
conservation plan the county implemented in 2006, the county Executive set the
expectation that regular tracking and reporting on energy use in government would be
provided enterprise-wide. Wth over 1,000 utility accounts from three utilities, the county
faced a significant data collection, entry, and management challenge. Manual bill entry
3-2
Providing Business Customers with Energy Use and Cost Data
-------
was not a viable option at this scale, and even single-account electronic downloads
would have required substantial county resources. In search of a practical way to collect
and analyze the data, King County approached its local utilities to discuss options for
obtaining automated billing data downloads. The county was eventually able to negotiate
data download approaches with two of its three local utilities, Puget Sound Energy and
Seattle City Light. Since the download processes were new and no standards existed at
the time, implementing them effectively has taken additional time and effort, and the
processes are still being improved.
These examples highlight the need for improvement in data access for the range of national and
local business customers.
3.2 The Business Case for Utilities
Utilities adopting this Action Plan guidance can expect to see a number of positive impacts on
their business. Increased access to data benefits customers of all sizes, leading to improved
customer relations; it also helps utilities accomplish goals for demand reduction and energy
efficiency.
3.2.1 Improved Customer Relations and Satisfaction
Utilities' business (including government and institutional) customers have a growing number of
choices in the electronic transfer of key data across their supply chains. It is increasingly
commonplace for U.S. businesses to handle shipping, inventory, and other functions, as well as
many financial transactions, through electronic databases, and on software platforms that
seamlessly integrate in-house and Web-based applications. Yet energy consumption and cost
data, which allow customers to track what is often their largest operating expense, typically are
not manageable at the same level of IT sophistication. This is especially frustrating for
customers that operate across multiple utility service areas, facing inconsistent and
incompatible utility billing data. Customers in such a position face costs and management
difficulties, particularly if they have hundreds or thousands of facilities. Utility practices that place
the management of energy and cost data on the same footing as other key cost factors create
substantial customer value and increase customer satisfaction.
3.2.2 Energy Savings from Better Customer Energy Management
"You can't manage what you don't measure" is an old business aphorism that is particularly apt
in connection to energy and cost data and improved energy management. Many business
customers do not know how they are doing in their energy management efforts, either in
comparing their own facilities to each other or in comparing their overall energy performance
with their peers' performance. Absent the metrics and benchmarking methods that improved
customer access to energy data would support, some business customers have difficulty
justifying and measuring aggressive, company-wide efficiency efforts. This situation could
improve if utility data were more readily available electronically.
Chain-store customers make increasing use of remote data acquisition and control services,
measuring everything from customer wait times to cash register receipts and equipment
operating conditions, on a real-time basis. These data enable them to know what is going on in
their facilities; if energy performance and cost data were made available on even a partially
National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency
3-3
-------
comparable basis, customers would begin to manage energy use more aggressively, and
uncover cost-effective investments in energy efficiency.
A utility demand management program that demonstrates the effectiveness of this approach is
NSTAR's ENERGY STAR Benchmarking Initiative. NSTAR uses benchmarking to educate
customers on their whole-building energy performance. NSTAR couples this with an energy
efficiency opportunity assessment to inform customers of cost-effective energy efficiency
measures. Approximately 100 customers, representing over 18 million square feet of floor area,
have participated in the program. The results are impressive:
• 60 percent of customers took actions to investigate efficiency upgrades.
• 45 percent of customers benchmarked completed the implementation of one energy
efficiency upgrade.
• 17 percent of customers implemented comprehensive improvements.
• 21 percent of customers received NSTAR incentives.
3.2.3 Lower Costs for Customer Efficiency Programs
Customer efficiency investments are driven primarily by individual transactions, based on utility
incentives for specific technologies. Customers are offered x dollars for lighting improvements, y
dollars for HVAC improvements, etc. This measure-by-measure approach could shift if
increased data availability were to enable energy performance benchmarking and tracking of
improvement; this would allow a utility to develop a fuller business case for a suite of efficiency
investments and operating/maintenance practices. And, to the extent that the benchmarking
results would reach senior management within the organization, it could drive increased
customer investment in efficiency, with or without utility incentive dollars for a given technology.
Over time, this approach could lead to a utility program portfolio in which customer investments
are driven more from the top, using benchmarking and other energy management methods,
rather than from the bottom, by incentives for individual technologies and transactions. Such a
program design approach could reduce reliance on incentives, reducing overall program costs
and overall rate impacts from efficiency programs.
3.2.4 Improved Basis for Measurement and Verification of Efficiency Programs
Evaluation for utility efficiency programs can be costly. Documenting the specific impact of a set
of measures in a single customer facility can entail extensive work assembling, digitizing, and
analyzing utility billing data. Often, third party service providers perform this work for utilities or
program administrators, relying on a customer's data as the basis for their analyses. To the
extent that energy use data can be made available electronically, in a consistent format, doing
so creates a simplified, lower-cost basis for evaluation, measurement, and verification (EM&V)
analyses. If energy data can be made available for hourly intervals, this adds precision to EM&V
analysis by helping to determine on-peak energy and capacity impacts with greater precision.
These improvements could reduce the cost and improve the accuracy of EM&V for utility
efficiency programs.
3.2.5 Better Baseline Data Sources for Demand Response
In demand response programs, customers invest considerable effort in establishing demand
baselines, against which demand decrements are calculated. For the larger (1-megawatt-plus)
customers that typically participate in wholesale market demand response programs, advanced
metering is typically in place and/or the customer has or hires its own data analysis experts. But
3-4
Providing Business Customers with Energy Use and Cost Data
-------
as demand response programs proliferate with smaller customers, and as distribution utilities
expand their load management and other demand response programs, the availability of hourly
(or more frequent) usage and demand data—as outlined in Tier 2—will help them plan,
implement, and monitor these efforts.
3.2.6 Enhanced Ability to Target Programs and Services
Developing better defined, more consistent formats for customer information, and entering a
two-way communications relationship with customers, can create opportunities for utilities to
develop new products and services. To the extent that data access protocols, software, and
other practices become more widely used and more universal, utilities can better understand
customer usage patterns, for both individual customers and market segments. This opportunity
could be especially large with medium and smaller customers that have not in the past had
access to technologies, such as advanced meters, or done much in the way of practices, such
as benchmarking or energy management.
3.3 The Policy Case for Regulators
Regulators should also consider the importance of this guidance as the benefits extend to
measuring efficiency goals, program cost reductions, and justifying investments in metering
technology.
3.3.1 Improved Basis for Measuring Progress Toward Efficiency Goals
Because of the cost of collecting, digitizing, and analyzing billing data for individual customers,
most commissions rely on "deemed savings" methods for estimating the impact of many
efficiency measures. These approaches use sampling methods or indirect participant and trade
ally reports to evaluate the net impacts of programs. While current evaluation practices may be
adequate as a check on pre-program impact estimates, data issues continue to limit the
evaluation profession in its efforts to improve precision and reduce costs. Evaluators concede
that better quality, more consistent data, available at lower cost, would enable them to provide
evaluation results with higher confidence, at lower cost, and on a timelier basis. Establishing the
best practices recommended in this report can thus improve the quality and reduce the cost of
program evaluation.
3.3.2 Reduced Utility Program Costs
As previously described, utility efficiency programs for business customers have in the past
relied on a transactional approach to program design, seeking to influence specific decisions on
individual technologies through various market interventions. But utilities have an opportunity to
further engage customers by providing them with increased access to energy data, along with
metrics and benchmarking services. This would help customers see the business case for
energy efficiency investment, and utility programs could drive greater program results per
program dollar. Thus, it could increase cost-effectiveness for the overall program portfolio,
which can help sustain support for program budgets over time.
National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency
3-5
-------
3.3.3 Expanding the Public Benefits of Advanced Metering and Smart Grid
Investments
Commissions across the country are grappling with the cost implications of advanced
metering/smart grid technologies. While few disagree that these technologies are beneficial,
their costs remain substantial. To review and approve such investments and the attendant rate
impacts, commissions need to understand the tangible benefits of these technologies. Being
able to better document the connections between advanced metering, data availability, facility
benchmarking, and reduced energy costs could help support utility commission actions on
advanced metering and related technology investments. Developing utility best practice
approaches is one key link in this chain.
Table 3-1 provides a summary of the business case and policy case for enhanced energy data
access.
Table 3-1. The Business and Policy Case for Enhanced Data Access
The Business Case for Customers
¦ Empowers the customer to benchmark and analyze data, set improvement goals for
energy efficiency and demand reduction, and reduce energy use.
¦ Reduced staff hours dedicated to data collection.
¦ Reduced fees for obtaining needed data.
¦ Increased information transparency.
The Business Case for Utilities
¦ Improved customer relations and satisfaction.
¦ Demand reductions from better customer energy management.
¦ Lower costs for customer efficiency programs.
¦ Better basis for measurement and verification for efficiency programs.
¦ Better baseline data sources for demand response.
The Policy Case for Regulators
¦ Improved basis for measuring progress toward efficiency goals.
¦ Reduced utility program costs and rate impacts.
¦ Expanded public benefits of advanced metering and smart grid investments.
3.4 State and Local Policy Initiatives
This guidance is especially timely in that one state, California, has recently passed legislation
requiring that utilities provide customers with historical consumption data to support their energy
management efforts.3 The legislation further requires that a commercial building's energy
performance be benchmarked and that the results of the benchmarking be disclosed at the time
of sale, lease, or financing transactions. This mandate specifies that buildings must use EPA's
Portfolio Manager for benchmarking, which requires 12 months of historical energy consumption
data. The core data elements proposed in Tier 1 are consistent with the requirements of the
California legislation.
3-6
Providing Business Customers with Energy Use and Cost Data
-------
The California legislation is the broadest mandate at the state level, but similar action has been
taken across the country at the state and local levels:
• The District of Columbia passed legislation in 2008 stipulating annual benchmarking
using EPA's Portfolio Manager and public disclosure of the results, starting with
government buildings and then moving to large commercial buildings (District of
Columbia, 2007).
• The Borough of West Chester, Pennsylvania, requires new commercial construction to
benchmark energy performance annually in EPA's Portfolio Manager (Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Protection, 2008).
• The City of Denver, Colorado, mandates that existing and future city-owned and
operated buildings benchmark their energy performance (City of Denver, 2007).
• State of Ohio Executive Order 2007-02 establishes that all state-owned buildings
benchmark using EPA's Portfolio Manager; additional benchmarking requirements for
utilities have been proposed by the public utilities commission (Ohio Public Service
Commission, 2007).
• The City of New York is considering legislation to require building energy benchmarking.
State and local governments see benchmarking legislation as a way to stimulate investment in
energy efficiency and engage business owners and managers in reducing emissions that
contribute to global warming and diminish local air quality. As more governments consider these
options, this guidance can help provide needed direction on the data utilities will be expected to
provide.
3.5 Notes
1 See Sector Collaborative on Energy Efficiency Accomplishments and Next Steps (National Action Plan
for Energy Efficiency, 2008b) for more information.
2 For more information on ENERGY STAR Leaders, see .
3 State of California Assembly Bill No. 1103, approved by the Governor October 12, 2007.
National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency
3-7
-------
-------
4: Best Practices Guidance
To provide guidance that the wide range of utilities can use, this document offers two
tiers of guidance. Tier 1 describes practices that the large majority of utilities could
reasonably implement which would provide the most important benefits outlined
previously. Tier 2 describes practices for those utilities in a position to make additional
investments in the information technology and support systems necessary to provide
additional data through a variety of means. Each tier describes the recommended data
elements and options for making energy use and cost data accessible to customers.
4.1 Tier 1 Best Practices
Tier 1 forms the foundation of this guidance. Electronic access to 12 months of energy
consumption and cost data benefits all customers, from the smallest to the largest. All utilities
can strive to offer this level of data to all customers.
4.1.1 Tier 1 Data Elements
These elements provide the minimum information required to determine an energy consumption
baseline, support basic energy management activities, and allow energy performance
benchmarking. They are accompanied by practices needed to support data accessibility. Many
utilities are already achieving these practices; others should be able to accomplish them with
minimal required investment.
• Monthly meter readings covering at least the previous 12 months, with multiple years
preferred to enable at least one year-to-year monthly comparison. Customers with new
accounts with less 12 months of service would receive monthly meter readings covering
their complete history.
• Unique meter identifiers.
• Meter reading start and end dates.
• Fuel type (electric, gas, etc.).
• Unit of measure (kilowatt-hours, thousand cubic feet, etc.).
• Total monthly use.
• Peak demand (kilowatts or megawatts).
• Cost: total monthly charges.
• Customer/facility identifier.
• Utility identifier.
4.1.2 Tier 1 Practices for Data Accessibility
Tier 1 guidance on practices for making data accessible to utility customers revolves around
four key elements:
• Providing electronic access to Tier 1 data as comma-separated values (.csv files) or
spreadsheet files. Files must contain labeled columns and rows including accurate labels
for breakdowns of consumption, demand, or cost data.
• Providing access to data without added explicit costs to the customer.
National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency
4-1
-------
• Permitting customers to receive the data electronically, even if they do not pay bills
electronically.
• Offering access to data while addressing data security and proprietary concerns.
The definition of Tier 1 recommended practices can be further clarified by identifying two
approaches that would not be considered Tier 1 best practices:
• Online bill presentation or payment that presents historical data only as a viewable table
or graph.
• EDI services alone, as EDI is a method that many customers cannot use due to their
limited transaction needs and integration costs.
4.1.3 Recommendations for Achieving Tier 1 Best Practices
To give utilities more flexibility, this best practices guidance does not come with a single
recommended process. The following recommendations are provided only as examples of
practices that would achieve Tier 1:
• Provide online account access with data download capabilities.
• Provide online request forms, through which customers can receive files by e-mail or
mail or view directions for downloading the data they request.
• Provide energy management software with data download functionality.
• Provide data in a format compatible with uploading into EPA's Portfolio Manager tool (a
proven approach to meeting elements of Tier 1 guidance).
4.2 Tier 2 Best Practices
The second tier is for utilities able to extend beyond Tier 1 practices, in terms of both the scope
of data provided and the means for making data accessible to customers. One important
extension is providing customers with access to more extensive billing information, as well as
interval demand data and load profiles to time of use metered customers. Tier 2 practices build
upon Tier 1 practices for those utilities in a position to make additional investments in the
necessary information technology and support systems.
4.2.1 Tier 2 Data Elements
Apart from billing transactions, under Tier 2 utilities could provide data ranging from a set of
elements similar to those outlined in Tier 1 to far more detailed interval energy data. For
purposes of automated electronic billing transactions, under Tier 2 a wider scope of energy and
business information would be provided in accordance with the NAESB Model Business
Practices addressing such electronic transactions. The data stipulated in the NAESB model
practices fall into five broad categories:
• Detailed invoicing information.
• Energy consumption.
• Details of charges.
• Billing and non-billing party contact information.
• Customer contact information.
4-2
Providing Business Customers with Energy Use and Cost Data
-------
A listing of specific data in each of these categories is included in Appendix C.
4.2.2 Tier 2 Practices for Data Accessibility
The additional best practices to extend accessibility under Tier 2 include:
• Automatically distributing or providing access to monthly consumption and cost data
upon customer request, without the need for ongoing customer intervention or request.
• Developing electronic billing processes that enable consolidated account billing,
resulting in single data transmissions across customer-selectable multiple accounts and
facilities.
• Enabling consolidated account access, resulting in single data downloads across
customer-selectable multiple accounts and facilities even if those accounts fall into
different rate classes.
• Providing automated electronic access to consumption and cost data by the customer's
(or a designated third party's) billing, benchmarking, or data collection system.
• Developing security processes that allow customers' corporate-level staff (as
distinguished from facility-level personnel) to authorize consolidation of accounts where
regulations allow it. Alternatively, where regulatory policies prevent corporate-level
authorization, utilities could develop paperless online authorization to be completed by
facility-level personnel.
• Developing processes that, while taking advantage of technological developments, lend
themselves to integration with a wide variety of legacy systems and potential migration
to future technology platforms.
• Providing energy management software with real-time or next-day hourly, half-hourly, or
15-minute-interval data and load profiles for time-of-use metered customers, at a cost
that recognizes the efficiencies associated with timely access to data and the possibility
for induced energy efficiency actions.
• Actively encouraging customers to use the data and software for benchmarking and
tracking.
• Supporting adoption of improved electronic billing and payment process, such as an EDI
standard or a compatible Web services and XML approach, through participation in
standards development processes.
4.2.3 Recommendations for Achieving Tier 2 Best Practices
As with Tier 1, this guidance seeks to allow flexibility by not recommending a specific process.
The following recommendations are provided as examples of practices that achieve Tier 2:
• Implement account consolidation and security procedures to streamline customer
access to consolidated billing and historical data.
National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency
4-3
-------
• Implement electronic data release authorization and automated XML transfer of
benchmarking data into EPA's Portfolio Manager—a proven approach to meeting
elements of Tier 2 guidance.
• Evaluate EDI and other automated electronic billing options to automate billing and
payment, and adopt NAESB standards to ensure greater consistency across utilities.
• Determine if barriers to customer data are caused by customer information systems
(CIS). If CIS is preventing adherence to Tier 2 best practices, emphasize data availability
as a key issue for consideration when assessing CIS investments, citing inability of the
utility to achieve Action Plan customer data availability best practice status.
• Adopt advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) providing for improved electronic transfer
of customer usage data from utility systems to customer-based applications.
4.3 Utility Implementation Considerations
While more and more utilities are moving forward in the data access areas outlined in the two
tiers of guidance, many have not yet taken the steps necessary to resolve the implementation
issues that have inhibited these efforts in the past. Drawing from stakeholder interviews and a
literature search, this section identifies these considerations, and their potential solutions, to
help define paths by which best practices can move forward in the current industry environment.
4.3.1 Customer Information System Capabilities
Among the first things a utility needs to evaluate as it considers options for improving customer
data availability are the capabilities and limitations of its customer information system (CIS). The
review of current practices indicates that while utilities will need to evaluate their systems
individually, most will likely be able to provide Tier 1 data electronically from their current CIS
with little additional investment in the CIS itself. In particular, a utility that has already built the
functionality to provide data to a Web interface for bill payment or customer viewing has already
addressed the largest hurdle to providing 12 months of data in a spreadsheet or .csv format.
Many utilities currently make current and historical data available in bills or viewable online, but
they often fall short of Tier 1 best practices by not making the data accessible electronically. The
changes needed to provide electronic data typically involve improvements to existing processes,
without changing the core CIS functionality.
While utilities could face more substantial costs to achieve advanced or Tier 2 best practices,
advanced best practices implementation may not go beyond the scope of many common CIS
projects. Most utilities will be able to add advanced practices with incremental investments in
CIS functionality. Consolidated account access, or billing and automated data transfers, may
require enhancements to CIS functionality, but this kind of modification is not new to most
utilities. Utilities commonly enhance CIS functions by building on existing software and
hardware systems. In an article for EnergyBiz, Warren Causey points out that a typical utility
has 25 to over 100 other systems linked to its CIS (Causey, 2005b). He interviewed Dominion
Virginia Power's C.I.O., Margaret McDermid, who articulated a common approach to utility CIS:
"We don't plan on replacing them [gas and electric CIS] anytime soon. However, we are building
things around them to optimize the situation, such as Web front ends, call centers, certainly the
whole business intelligence initiative, and getting customer information out of those systems and
into places where people can use it" (Causey, 2005a). For example, PG&E has created a data
warehousing system outside its enterprise CIS to support a number of energy efficiency needs
4-4
Providing Business Customers with Energy Use and Cost Data
-------
(see text box). It is expected these types of incremental efforts, building upon existing systems,
can achieve most if not all of the Action Plan's best practices.
Several years ago, PG&E created a localized data warehouse outside its enterprise CIS to
support the numerous and evolving needs of its energy efficiency programs. This warehouse
helps PG&E quickly add products and services to its program portfolio without having to wait for
resources and development windows in the scheduled release cycles of their enterprise CIS.
This dedicated data management environment does incur separate ongoing operation and
maintenance costs, but those costs are minimal compared to the costs of continually altering
the enterprise-level system to meet new program requirements. Creation of such a data
warehouse outside the enterprise CIS can be viewed as a best practice in itself in terms of
overall customer data management.
Finally, a cost-effective alternative to customized software development for those utilities that
license commercial software products could be the addition of incremental functionality to
existing services to achieve best practice.
4.3.2 Customer Privacy/Release Policies
Most states maintain rigorous privacy policies for utility customers' consumption and cost data.
For business customers, the data can raise competitive concerns, such that if they were made
public, competitors and other parties could gain new insights into their operating costs and
performance. Because of these concerns, customer-signed releases are typically required
before utilities are allowed to release customer data to any third party providing building owners
with bill-paying services, benchmarking, or energy management services. For customers and
utilities operating across multiple service areas and state jurisdictions, variations in the release
processes can impede the availability of data. This is particularly true for customers wishing to
consolidate data for multiple facilities into one bill or account. Utilities, commissions, and
customers will have to address this set of issues consistently to make energy data sharing as
cost-effective and practicable on a national basis.
Allowing customers to authorize data release electronically is part of the solution. For example,
to help California utilities meet their legislative mandate to provide data for EPA's Portfolio
Manager benchmarking, EPA improved existing software and developed an electronic data
release process that can be customized. Once a customer completes the form in their Portfolio
Manager account, the utility's information system is notified so that it can begin to establish
automated transfer of data. This approach could easily be adopted more widely by utilities and
regulatory commissions in other states.
A specific privacy concern arises in multi-tenant buildings in which individual tenants receive
utility bills directly. This complicates a building owner's efforts to measure and track the energy
consumption of the entire building. Utilities provide a customer data release process to address
such situations, but these processes typically are cumbersome for the building owner. One way
to address this situation is to provide a building owner with a single, total energy consumption
figure for the entire building. This approach protects the privacy of a tenant's specific bill
information. ComEd designed their Energy Usage Data Tool to implement this approach. In
some jurisdictions, regulatory or legislative action may be needed to facilitate transfer of tenant
data to the building owner.
National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency
4-5
-------
4.3.3 Electronic Data Interchange Standards
Another potential challenge to utility implementation of best practices is the lack of an industry
standard for EDI transactions. EDI is the main format and process for automated electronic
payment in the industry, but only about one-third of medium and large utilities currently use EDI.
Furthermore, even when EDI is available, the lack of a standard can make it costly for large
customers to adopt EDI across multiple utilities with varying requirements, as well as for utilities
implementing EDI. At the Action Plan Sector Collaborative Workshop in June 2007, end-users
expressed an interest in seeing utilities adopt electronic transfer methods that are less costly
and burdensome than those used for bill payment and other commercial financial transactions
using EDI. Despite these limitations, EDI continues to be the primary automated option for
electronic billing and payment.
The long-term solution to the EDI issue is the adoption of automated electronic utility bill and
data provision standards—whether by EDI or Web services with XML. NAESB's previous efforts
to define elements for electronic transactions were an important step. For utilities that already
provide EDI services, providing the data elements outlined in NAESB's standard can be done at
low relative incremental costs. Utilities with no current EDI services will incur significant upfront
costs for EDI infrastructure. The effectiveness of the NAESB effort in bringing down the cost of
EDI for bill payment for customers is still unclear, since adoption of the standards has been
limited. More widespread adoption of NAESB standards may result in the desired cost savings.
Also, while EDI is currently the preferred option for electronic commerce, the electronic transfer
of data for purposes other than billing can be achieved through flexible and lower-cost
alternatives. For example, the initial experience of EPA's ENERGY STAR automated
benchmarking initiative shows promise for the less costly alternative of Web services with XML.
This approach to automated benchmarking has processed over 250,000 monthly energy
performance ratings and is used by California utilities to meet state benchmarking mandates.
4.3.4 Cost Recovery
The business and policy cases presented earlier in this guidance outline the demand and cost
reduction benefits available through increased data availability. While the potential benefits from
such enhanced services are clearly substantial, there will be costs for many utilities to upgrade
their practices in this area. This raises the question of how best to recover such costs so that
the services can be provided to all customers or the large majority of customers on a permanent
basis. In the context of the total energy efficiency investment states and utilities are
contemplating, the costs for enhanced data services can be expected to be very limited relative
to overall demand-side budgets, and less than the potential benefits they could provide. (The
costs for a specific utility will depend on its size, software and hardware issues, previous
investments in this area, and other factors.)
Because this guidance considers increased data availability in an energy efficiency context, one
might assume that any costs should be recovered as part of efficiency program costs. However,
there are multiple ways to recover the IT, administration, and other costs associated with these
services, and the choice of method can affect outcomes over the long term. It is therefore
important to identify the most appropriate cost recovery methods, so that the chosen approach
does not result in barriers to the implementation and use of enhanced data practices. The cost
of data practices presented in this paper could be recovered either through utility energy
efficiency program costs, customer service budgets, or in limited cases through direct fees for
services.
4-6
Providing Business Customers with Energy Use and Cost Data
-------
Recovery through program costs. This can be structured in at least two primary ways.
• Data services and benchmarking costs could be part of cross-program delivery costs
that support implementation of a utility's portfolio of programs, in the same way that
marketing costs would be represented. Given the expected magnitude of such costs,
they are likely to have minimal impact on the cost-effectiveness of individual programs or
the utility's program portfolio.
• Another approach would be to represent enhanced data services as a stand-alone
energy efficiency program offering. However, since data transfer and related
benchmarking activities are sometimes viewed as not directly saving energy, it may be
difficult and/or viewed as inappropriate in some jurisdictions to represent such activities
as stand-alone offerings within the scope of energy efficiency programs.
For both of these energy efficiency program approaches, utilities need to consider ultimately
that program budgets have had a cyclical history, raising the possibility that funding for data
best practices might not be steady and continuous—which could hamper the fundamental intent
of improved data access.
Recovery through base rates/customer charges. The other principal cost recovery option is
to classify enhanced data services as part of the basic service offerings for certain customer
classes. If added costs are incurred to provide this level of service, utility commissions would
need to approve them based on the policy case for these enhanced practices. Building
enhanced data practices into basic tariff services would provide sustained funding for data
services.
Recovery through customer fees. A third option for utilities is to charge customers explicit
fees for enhanced access to billing data. Certain fees may be appropriate for customized or
more complex services that serve the specific needs of a limited class of customers. Where
providing basic data access is concerned, though, fees can be a barrier to achieving the widest
use of enhanced data services by customers. This is particularly true for the provision of a
basic, Tier 1 level of data and accessibility as defined in this guidance.
Considering the issues outlined in this section, utilities and regulatory commissions will need to
select the appropriate cost recovery option for their market that supports the central themes of
this guidance, such as ongoing access to data and the expansion of data services to all
business customers. Traditionally, utilities use efficiency program costs as the principal cost
recovery option for services designed to directly contribute to energy management. However,
the potentially universal benefits of increased customer access to energy use and cost data can
make it appropriate to recover costs through a utility's rate base. This approach logically funds
data services for all business customers in a given rate class from all business customers in that
class. Furthermore, the more permanent nature of a rate base approach supports the goal of
providing customers with ongoing access to data for continuous benchmarking and other energy
management activities. Utilities seeking to justify a rate base approach can build upon the
business and policy cases presented in this guidance.
4.3.5 Metering
The deployment of AMI is underway, along with the deployment of related "smart grid"
technologies. This wave of new technology creates both opportunities and challenges for
utilities in electronic data acquisition, management, and distribution to customers. On balance,
National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency
4-7
-------
the spread of AMI and related smart grid technology should support the objective of making
energy data more accessible to customers. However, because the data standards built around
these technologies will strongly affect their ability to support data transfer practices, utilities,
regulators, and other stakeholders will need to bring the consideration of customer needs into
the discussion as they monitor and participate in ANSI and other standards activities.
A 2007 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) staff report on demand response and
advanced metering (FERC, 2007) documents substantial growth in AMI activity: Figure 4-1,
taken from the FERC report, shows that some 20 million advanced meters have been installed
or contracted as of 2007, and that almost 35 million are "in the pipeline." With over 100 million
electric customer accounts in the U.S., these data suggest that the majority of U.S. electric
meters could be using AMI technology by sometime in the next decade, although factors such
as regulatory approval and meter availability could delay the installation rate.
Figure 4-1. Historical and Projected AMI Installations
25
1996 1997 1999 2001 2002 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Year
Source: Data from Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (2007).
Advanced metering typically includes digital electronic and fixed-network communications
technologies. These technologies enable AMI to drive utility operational efficiencies, support
demand response and energy efficiency programs, and enable a range of customer-side smart
technologies. AMI'S key enabling functions with respect to this guidance include recording
customer usage at hourly (or shorter) intervals, then processing the metering data through a
CIS and forwarding some elements of that information for use by customers and customer-
based systems, and grid operators.
The metering industry has been working to establish ANSI standards for consistency and
interoperability of data sets and software. Major states like Texas are already citing the
substance of ANSI standards in their metering procurement regulations. The hope and
4-8
Providing Business Customers with Energy Use and Cost Data
-------
expectation is that AMI-generated customer usage data will be easily transferred from utility
systems to customer-based applications on an electronic basis.
4.4 Putting Best Practices into Action
This guidance supports progress toward the Action Plan Vision Implementation Goal Eight to
establish state of the art billing systems. Utilities, commissions, customers, and other
stakeholders are encouraged to implement and otherwise advance the best practice tiers and
thereby facilitate improved energy management practices such as benchmarking, setting goals
for improvement, and recognizing excellence. Specifically:
• Regulators can encourage benchmarking and related information-based practices that
increase customer and utility interest in improved data access. This includes developing
ways to give program impact credit to benchmarking-driven energy efficiency programs,
as well as approving utility costs for such initiatives.
• Customers can commit to using enhanced data access services for benchmarking and
other energy management purposes, and should support the approval of utility programs
containing these features at the state commission level.
• Utilities can support the development of best practice data access, including the
software and other costs needed to enable these practices. They can also promote
benchmarking and related energy efficiency practices as a core program element in
future energy efficiency plans.
• Metering, CIS software, and other stakeholders in this discussion can actively participate
in the development and deployment of data best practices, so that their technologies are
as supportive and interoperable as possible with respect to utility data transfer for
customer energy management purposes.
• Standards development organizations, such as NAESB, ANSI, and others, can develop
one or more protocols for data uploads to benchmarking software tools, including
Portfolio Manager and other platforms.
Widespread implementation of the best practices outlined in this guidance would allow business
customers to better target their energy efficiency investments and tap into more of the cost-
effective, commercial sector energy efficiency resource. Even with greater implementation,
however, significant barriers may remain for some customers, particularly those with buildings
that span multiple utility service territories. Obtaining their consumption and cost data
electronically will certainly help these customers make progress toward meeting their energy
efficiency goals. However, unless the data are provided in the same format in each jurisdiction
in which they operate, these customers will still face substantial challenges in using the data to
manage energy in a comprehensive way. To help overcome this barrier and further reduce the
costs associated with providing greater access to data, the National Action Plan Leadership
Group could explore the options for a national standards-setting organization to establish
additional, standardized data formats and transmission protocols.
National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency
4-9
-------
-------
Appendix A: National Action Plan for Energy
Efficiency Leadership Group
Co-Chairs
Marsha Smith
Commissioner, Idaho Public
Utilities Commission
President, National Association
of Regulatory Utility
Commissioners
James E. Rogers
Chairman, President, and
C.E.O.
Duke Energy
Leadership Group
Barry Abramson
Senior Vice President
Servidyne Systems, LLC
Tracy Babbidge
Director, Air Planning
Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection
Angela Beehler
Senior Director, Energy
Regulation/Legislation
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Sheila Boeckman
Manager of Business
Operations and Development
Waverly Light and Power
Bruce Braine
Vice President, Strategic Policy
Analysis
American Electric Power
Jeff Burks
Director of Environmental
Sustainability
PNM Resources
Kateri Callahan
President
Alliance to Save Energy
Jorge Carrasco
Superintendent
Seattle City Light
Lonnie Carter
President and C.E.O.
Santee Cooper
Sheryl Carter
Co-Director, Energy Program
Natural Resources Defense
Council
Gary Connett
Director of Environmental
Stewardship and Member
Services
Great River Energy
Larry Downes
Chairman and C.E.O.
New Jersey Natural Gas (New
Jersey Resources Corporation)
Roger Duncan
Deputy General Manager,
Distributed Energy Services
Austin Energy
Angelo Esposito
Senior Vice President, Energy
Services and Technology
New York Power Authority
Jeanne Fox
President
New Jersey Board of Public
Utilities
Philip Giudice
Commissioner
Massachusetts Division of
Energy Resources
Dian Grueneich
Commissioner
California Public Utilities
Commission
Blair Hamilton
Policy Director
Vermont Energy Investment
Corporation
Maureen Harris
Commissioner
New York State Public Service
Commission
Mary Healey
Consumer Counsel for the State
of Connecticut
Connecticut Consumer Counsel
Joe Hoagland
Vice President, Energy
Efficiency and Demand
Response
Tennessee Valley Authority
Sandy Hochstetter
Vice President, Strategic Affairs
Arkansas Electric Cooperative
Corporation
Helen Howes
Vice President, Environment,
Health and Safety
Exelon
Mary Kenkel
Consultant, Alliance One
Duke Energy
Ruth Kiselewich
Director, Conservation
Programs
Baltimore Gas and Electric
Company
National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency
A-1
-------
Martin Kushler
Director, Utilities Program
American Council for an
Energy-Efficient Economy
Rick Leuthauser
Manager of Energy Efficiency
MidAmerican Energy Company
Harris McDowell
Senator
Delaware General Assembly
Ed Melendreras
Vice President, Sales and
Marketing
Entergy Corporation
Janine Migden-Ostrander
Consumers' Counsel
Office of the Ohio Consumers'
Counsel
Michael Moehn
Vice President, Corporate
Planning
Ameren Services
Fred Moore
Director, Manufacturing and
Technology, Energy
The Dow Chemical Company
Richard Morgan
Commissioner
District of Columbia Public
Service Commission
Clay Nesler
Vice President, Global Energy
and Sustainability
Johnson Controls, Inc.
Brock Nicholson
Deputy Director, Division of Air
Quality
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural
Resources
Jed Nosal
Chief, Office of Ratepayer
Advocacy
Massachusetts Office of
Attorney General Martha
Coakley
Pat Oshie
Commissioner
Washington Utilities and
Transportation Commission
John Perkins
Consumer Advocate
Iowa Office of Consumer
Advocate
Douglas Petitt
Vice President, Government
Affairs
Vectren Corporation
Phyllis Reha
Commissioner
Minnesota Public Utilities
Commission
Roland Risser
Director, Customer Energy
Efficiency
Pacific Gas and Electric
Gene Rodrigues
Director, Energy Efficiency
Southern California Edison
Wayne Rosa
Energy and Maintenance
Manager
Food Lion, LLC
Art Rosenfeld
Commissioner
California Energy Commission
Jan Schori
General Manager
Sacramento Municipal Utility
District
Ted Schultz
Vice President, Energy
Efficiency
Duke Energy
Larry Shirley
Division Director
North Carolina Energy Office
Paul Sotkiewicz
Senior Economist, Market
Services Division
PJM Interconnection
Jim Spiers
Senior Manager, Planning,
Rates, and Member Services
Tristate Generation and
Transmission Association, Inc.
Susan Story
President and C.E.O.
Gulf Power Company (Southern
Company)
Tim Stout
Vice President, Energy
Efficiency
National Grid
Deb Sundin
Director, Business Product
Marketing
Xcel Energy
Paul Suskie
Chairman
Arkansas Public Service
Commission
Dub Taylor
Director
Texas State Energy
Conservation Office
David Van Holde
Energy Manager, Department of
Natural Resources and Parks
King County, Washington
Brenna Walraven
Managing Director, National
Property Management
USAA Realty Company
J. Mack Wathen
Vice President, Regulatory
Affairs
Pepco Holdings, Inc.
A-2
Providing Business Customers with Energy Use and Cost Data
-------
Mike Weedall
Vice President, Energy
Efficiency
Bonneville Power Administration
Michael Wehling
Strategic Planning and
Research
Puget Sound Energy
Henry Yoshimura
Manager, Demand Response
ISO New England, Inc.
Dan Zaweski
Assistant Vice President of
Energy Efficiency and
Distributed Generation
Long Island Power Authority
Observers
Rex Boynton
President
North American Technician
Excellence
James W. (Jay) Brew
Counsel
Steel Manufacturers Association
Roger Cooper
Executive Vice President, Policy
and Planning
American Gas Association
Mark Crisson
President and C.E.O.
American Public Power
Association
Dan Delurey
Executive Director
Demand Response
Coordinating Committee
Reid Detchon
Executive Director
Energy Future Coalition
Ron Edelstein
Director, Regulatory and
Government Relations
Gas Technology Institute
Sue Gander
Director, Environment, Energy,
and Natural Resources Division
National Governors
Association—Center for Best
Practices
Jeff Genzer
General Counsel
National Association of State
Energy Officials
Donald Gilligan
President
National Association of Energy
Service Companies
Chuck Gray
Executive Director
National Association of
Regulatory Utility
Commissioners
Steve Hauser
President
GridWise Alliance
William Hederman
Member, IEEE-USA Energy
Policy Committee
Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers
Marc Hoffman
Executive Director
Consortium for Energy
Efficiency
John Holt
Senior Manager of Generation
and Fuel
National Rural Electric
Cooperative Association
Eric Hsieh
Manager of Government
Relations
National Electrical
Manufacturers Association
Lisa Jacobson
Executive Director
Business Council for
Sustainable Energy
Kate Marks
Energy Program Manager
National Conference of State
Legislatures
Meg Matt
President and C.E.O.
Association of Energy Services
Professionals
Joseph Mattingly
Vice President, Secretary and
General Counsel
Gas Appliance Manufacturers
Association
Kenneth Mentzer
President and C.E.O.
North American Insulation
Manufacturers Association
Ellen Petrill
Director, Public/Private
Partnerships
Electric Power Research
Institute
Steven Schiller
Board Director
Efficiency Valuation
Organization
Jerry Schwartz
Senior Director
American Forest and Paper
Association
Andrew Spahn
Executive Director
National Council on Electricity
Policy
Rick Tempchin
Director, Retail Distribution
Policy
Edison Electric Institute
Mark Wolfe
Executive Director
Energy Programs Consortium
Lisa Wood
Executive Director
Institute for Electric Efficiency
National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency
A-3
-------
Facilitators
U.S. Department of Energy
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
A-4
Providing Business Customers with Energy Use and Cost Data
-------
Appendix B: Glossary
Advanced metering infrastructure (AMI): Metering systems incorporating two-way
communication capabilities which measure and record usage data at a minimum in hourly
intervals and provide usage data at least once daily. Data can be used for billing and other
purposes, including outage management, demand response, time-differentiated pricing, and
energy efficiency programs.
Baseline: Conditions, including energy consumption and related emissions, that would have
occurred without implementation of the subject project or program. Baseline conditions are
sometimes referred to as "business-as-usual" conditions. Baselines are defined as either
project-specific baselines or performance standard baselines.
Baseline period: The period of time selected as representative of facility operations before the
energy efficiency activity takes place.
Cost-effectiveness: A measure of the relevant economic effects resulting from the
implementation of an energy efficiency measure. If the benefits outweigh the cost, the measure
is said to be cost-effective.
Cost recovery: Recovery of the direct costs associated with utility program administration
(including evaluation), implementation, and incentives to program participants.
Data warehouse: A system for storing, retrieving, and managing large amounts of any type of
data that enables fast searches and complex queries.
Demand: The time rate of energy flow. Demand usually refers to electric power measured in
kW (equals kWh/h) but can also refer to natural gas, usually as Btu/hr, kBtu/hr, therms/day, etc.
Electronic Data Interchange (EDI): A set of standards for structuring standardized document
forms for exchange between computer systems for business use. Utilities typically use EDI for
electronic billing transactions.
Energy efficiency: The use of less energy to provide the same or an improved level of service
to the energy consumer in an economically efficient way.
EPA's ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager: An interactive energy management tool that allows
building owners and managers to track and assess energy and water consumption across an
entire portfolio of buildings in a secure online environment.
Evaluation: The performance of studies and activities aimed at determining the effects of a
program; any of a wide range of assessment activities associated with understanding or
documenting program performance, assessing program or program-related markets and market
operations; any of a wide range of evaluative efforts including assessing program-induced
changes in energy efficiency markets, levels of demand or energy savings, and program cost-
National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency
B-1
-------
effectiveness. Measurement and verification is a subset of evaluation that includes activities
undertaken in the calculation of energy and demand savings from individual sites or projects.
The acronym EM&V is commonly used to refer to evaluation, measurement, and verification.
Interval utility data: Energy consumption measurements at regular time increments such as
15-minute, 30-minute, or 1-hour. These consumption data are captured to thoroughly analyze
energy demand and are often used to create load profiles.
Load profiles: Representations such as graphs, tables, and databases that describe energy
consumption rates as a function of another variable such as time or outdoor air temperature.
Peak demand: The maximum level of metered demand during a specified period, such as a
billing month or a peak demand period.
Potential study: A quantitative analysis of the amount of energy savings that either exists, is
cost-effective, or could potentially be realized through the implementation of energy-efficient
programs and policies.
Program: A group of projects with similar characteristics and installed in similar applications.
Program potential: The efficiency savings that can be realistically realized from the achievable
potential, given the budget, staffing, and time constraints for the efficiency program. Program
potential establishes the total, or gross, savings expected from a program.
Retrofit: Refers to an efficiency measure or efficiency program that seeks to encourage the
replacement of functional equipment before the end of its operating life with higher efficiency
units (also called "early-retirement") or the installation of additional controls, equipment, or
materials in existing facilities for purposes of reducing energy consumption (e.g., increased
insulation, lighting occupancy controls, economizer ventilation systems).
XML (extensible Markup Language): A computer language that can be used to create a
tagging scheme that allows elements of a document to be marked according to their content
rather than their format, allowing for the easy interchange of documents on the World Wide
Web.
Web Services: A software system designed to support machine-to-machine communication
over a network that commonly uses standardized XML to transmit messages.
B-2
Providing Business Customers with Energy Use and Cost Data
-------
Appendix C: Related NAESB Model Business
Practices
In its work to advance the availability of consistent invoice data to utility customers, the North
American Energy Standards Board (NAESB) has developed Model Business Practices
(NAESB, 2007). Among other things, these Model Business Practices contain a list of
recommended information for customer bills issued via uniform electronic transaction data.
These recommended data are listed below. The Model Business Practices are protected by
copyright; any party wishing to use them must contact the NAESB office at (713) 356-0060 or
naesb@naesb.org.
Detailed Invoicing Information:
• Invoice number (unique number associated with this individual invoice)
• Date of invoice
• Invoice due date
• Type of invoice (original, cancel, or final)
• Type of meter reading (actual or estimated)
• Billing type indicator (e.g., distribution company standard offer billing, dual billing,
consolidated billing)
• Billing party account number
• Service delivery point identifier, if applicable
• Non-billing party account number where available
Energy Consumption:
• Product code (electric or gas)
• Meter reading start date
• Meter reading end date
• Quantity used
• Unit of measure (kilowatt-hours, hundred cubic feet, thousand cubic feet, etc.)
Details of Charges:
• Rate code
• Total amount of previous bill
• Total payments received since last bill
• Outstanding balance prior to current period charges
• Current period charges and adjustments, at the appropriate level of detail
• Taxes on current period charges where required
• Tax type code (e.g., state, local, gross receipts)
• Total amount due
Billing and Non-Billing Party Information:
• Billing party name (sender)
• Billing party contact name
National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency
C-1
-------
• Billing party contact phone number
• Non-billing party name
• Non-billing party contact name
• Non-billing party contact phone number
• Non-billing party type (e.g., distribution company, supplier)
Customer Information:
• Customer name (receiver)
• Customer service address
• Customer contact name
• Customer contact phone number
C-2
Providing Business Customers with Energy Use and Cost Data
-------
Appendix D: References
Ameren (2008). Frequently Asked Questions.
Causey, W. (2005a). CIS Roundtable. EnergyBiz. p. 48.
Causey, W. (2005b). The State of Customer Information Systems. EnergyBiz. p. 40.
.
City of Denver (2007). Executive Order No. 123: Greenprint Denver Office and Sustainability
Policy, p. 8.
District of Columbia (2007). Winter 2007 Official Code. p. 4.
Duke, R., and D. Lashof (2007). The New Energy Economy: Putting America on the Path to
Solving Global Warming. Natural Resources Defense Council.
U.S. Energy Information Administration [EIA], 2008. What Are Greenhouse Gases and How
Much Are Emitted by the United States? Energy in Brief.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] (2007a). 2.1: Overview. In ENERGY STAR
Building Upgrade Manual.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] (2007b). Table 2-16: U.S. Greenhouse Gas
Emissions by Economic Sector and Gas with Electricity-Related Emissions. In Inventory of U.S.
Greenhouse Gas and Sinks: 1990-2005.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (2007). Assessment of Demand Response and
Advanced Metering. Staff report pursuant to Energy Policy Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-58, §
1252(e)(3), 119 Stat. 594 (2005) (EPAct 2005 section 1252(e)(3)).
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] (2007). Summary for Policy Makers;
Technical Summary. In Working Group III Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
McKinsey Global Institute (2007). Curbing Global Energy Demand Growth: The Energy
Productivity Opportunity.
National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency
D-1
-------
Nadel, S., A. Shipley, and R.N. Elliott (2004). The Technical, Economic, and Achievable
Potential for Energy Efficiency in the U.S.—A Meta Analysis of Recent Studies. In ACEEE
Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings.
North American Energy Standards Board [NAESB] (2007). Recommendation forR05016
Customer Billing and Payment Notification via Uniform Electronic Transactions. Joint Retail
Electric and Retail Gas Quadrants Business Practices Subcommittees.
National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency (2008a). National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency
Vision for 2025: A Framework for Change,
National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency (2008b). Sector Collaborative on Energy Efficiency
Accomplishments and Next Steps,
National Grid (2008). About Pay Online.
NSTAR (2007). E-bill.
Ohio Public Service Commission (2008). Energy Efficiency and Demand Reduction
Benchmarks. In Proposed Rules to Implement S.B. 221. Chapter 4901:1-39-04: Benchmark
Report Requirements, section C2.
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (2008). Daily Update: West Chester
Passes ENERGY STAR Ordinance for Private Commercial Construction.
Perdue, C. (2008). Issue Alert: Has the Growth of Electronic Bill Presentment & Payment
Reached a Plateau in the Utility Industry? UtiliPoint International.
Pacific Gas and Electric [PG&E] (2008). Business Tools.
Santee Cooper (2008). e-Billing: FAQ.
Schlect, E. (2007). Founder and Vice President, Corporate Development, Advantage IQ.
Interview on May 28, 2007.
San Diego Gas and Electric [SDG&E] (2008). Services and Tools.
D-2
Providing Business Customers with Energy Use and Cost Data
-------
Southern Company (n.d.). Summary Billing.
National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency
D-3
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
Funding and printing for this report was provided by the U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency in their capacity as co-sponsors for the National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency.
------- |