2009/07/17-Exhibit 32, Direct Testimony of Richard F ... · DIRECT TESTIMONY OF RICHARD F. SPELLMAN and CAROLINE GUIDRY - 1 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

DOCKET NO. 080407-EG - Commission review of numeric conservation goals (Florida Power & Light Company) DOCKET NO. 080408-EG - Commission review of numeric conservation goals (Progress Energy Florida) DOCKET NO. 080409-EG - Commission review of numeric conservation goals (Tampa Electric Company) DOCKET NO. 080410-EG - Commission review of numeric conservation goals (Gulf Power Company) DOCKET NO. 080411-EG - Commission review of numeric conservation goals (Florida Public Utilities Company) DOCKET NO. 080412-EG - Commission review of numeric conservation goals (Orlando Utilities Commission) DOCKET NO. 080413-EG - Commission review of numeric conservation goals (JEA)

WITNESS: Direct Testimony Of Richard F. Spellman, President of GDS Associates, Inc. and Caroline Guidry, Engineer – Energy Efficiency & Demand-Side Management for GDS Associates, Inc., Appearing on Behalf of the Staff of the Florida Public Service Commission

DATE FILED: July 17, 2009

EXHIBIT 32

Index

1.0 QUALIFICATIONS .............................................................................................. 1

2.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 5

3.0 PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE FEECA STATUTE ..................................... 9

4.0 CURRENT AND HISTORICAL FLORIDA ENERGY EFFICIENCY & LOAD

MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS................................................................................... 11

5.0 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL STUDIES..................................................... 17

6.0 DETERMINATION OF COSTS & BENEFITS OF CONSERVATION........... 34

7.0 NATIONAL ACTION PLAN FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY ........................... 35

8.0 MAJOR COST EFFECTIVENESS TESTS........................................................ 37

9.0 BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATION OF COST EFFECTIVENESS TESTS.... 45

10.0 LONG TERM RATE IMPACTS OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS &

RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING RATE IMPACTS..................................... 53

11.0 THE DETERMINATION OF NUMERIC kW & kWh GOALS...................... 60

12.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ON COST-RECOVERY & INCENTIVES ............. 69

13.0 EFFICIENCY INVESTMENTS ACROSS GENERATION TRANSMISSION

& DISTRIBUTION ...................................................................................................... 71

14.0 ENERGY AUDITS & GOALS ......................................................................... 71

15.0 DEMAND-SIDE RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES

RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................................. 72

16.0 SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY......................................................................... 77

EXHIBIT 32

DIRECT TESTIMONY OF RICHARD F. SPELLMAN and CAROLINE GUIDRY

- 1 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1.0 QUALIFICATIONS Q: Mr. Spellman, please state your name, position and business addresses.

A: My name is Richard F. Spellman and I am the President of GDS Associates, Inc. (GDS),

an engineering and management consulting firm. My business address is Suite 800, 1850

Parkway Place, Marietta, Georgia 30067.

Q: Please describe GDS Associates, Inc.

A: GDS is an engineering and management consulting firm with over 170 employees in the

United States (U.S.). GDS specializes in energy supply and energy efficiency planning

and analysis issues with clients in the U.S. and Canada. Our services include:

(1) energy efficiency, renewable energy and demand response program design,

implementation and evaluation;

(2) integrated resource planning;

(3) electric generation, transmission and distribution system planning;

(4) wholesale and retail rate studies; and

(5) other planning and implementation projects for electric and natural gas utilities

and government agencies.

In addition to providing energy efficiency program planning and evaluation services,

GDS is implementing energy efficiency and demand response programs for clients in

several states.

EXHIBIT 32


- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q: Are these government or utility clients?

A: Both. GDS provides engineering and energy consulting services to electric and natural

gas utilities, government agencies, non-profit organizations, commercial organizations,

other consulting firms, and homeowners.

Q: Please state your educational background and work experience.

A: My educational background and work experience are provided in my resume, which is

attached as Exhibit RFS-1.

Q: Please summarize your work experience in the area of energy efficiency.

A: During my sixteen years at GDS, I have managed several large-scale consulting projects

for GDS clients relating to the design, implementation and evaluation of energy

efficiency and demand response programs. I have completed over thirty-six energy

efficiency potential studies across the U.S., and I have completed numerous program

evaluation and market assessment studies (including end-use metering studies, mail and

phone surveys, internet-based surveys, in-depth interviews, focus groups, etc.). I have

completed impact and process evaluations of energy efficiency, demand response and

load management programs. I have testified on energy efficiency potential studies and

other related planning issues before state regulatory commissions in Connecticut,

Georgia, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Texas, Utah, and

Vermont. My clients include electric and natural gas utilities, government agencies, non-

profit organizations, and other commercial businesses.

EXHIBIT 32


- 3 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Before joining GDS in 1993, I was the Manager of Marketing and Product Development

at Central Maine Power Company (CMP) where I managed the design and

implementation of CMP’s energy efficiency and demand response programs (with a

budget of over $26 million annually). I served as the chairman of the New England

Power Pool DSM Planning Committee in 1991 and 1992, and I serve on the Board of

Directors of the Association of Energy Services Professionals (AESP). My education

includes a BA degree with distinction in Math/Economics from Dartmouth College

(graduated cum laude and with distinction) and an MBA from the Thomas College

Graduate School of Business. I am a graduate of the University of Michigan Graduate

School of Business Administration Management II Program, the Electric Council of New

England Skills of Utility Management Program, and I am a member of the Association of

Energy Services Professionals.

Q. Mr. Spellman, please explain the portion of your panel’s testimony for which you have

responsibility.

A. I have the responsibility for all issues relating to the selection of cost effectiveness tests

for Florida and for all issues relating to recommendations for energy efficiency goals for

the seven FEECA utilities and other policy recommendations. In addition, Caroline

Guidry and I are jointly responsible for the portion of the testimony relating to the review

and analysis by GDS of the energy efficiency technical, economic, and achievable

potential estimates developed by the seven FEECA utilities.1

1 Utilities subject to FEECA include Florida Power & Light Company, Progress Energy Florida, Inc., Tampa Electric Company, Gulf Power Company, Florida Public Utilities Company, JEA, and OUC.

EXHIBIT 32


- 11 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

including utility incentives and participant contributions;

• Consider the need for incentives to promote both customer-owned and utility-

owned energy efficiency and demand-side renewable energy systems;

• Consider costs imposed by state and federal regulations on the emission of

GHGs; and

• Evaluate the technical potential of all demand-side and supply-side energy

conservation measures, including demand-side renewable energy systems.

In addition, the Commission is permitted by Section 366.82 F.S., to:

• Allow efficiency investments across generation, transmission, and distribution

as well as efficiencies within the user base; and

• Authorize financial rewards or penalties for those utilities over which it has

rate-setting authority for exceeding or failing to meet the goals, respectively.

Q. What impact do these changes have on the conservation goal-setting process which is the

subject of this proceeding?

A. By amending Section 366.82, F.S., in 2008, the Florida Legislature has directed the

Commission to place increased emphasis on the level of energy efficiency goals in order

to reduce and control the growth rates of electric consumption. The changes give the

Commission broader authority to maximize the achievement of energy efficiency in

Florida.

4.0 CURRENT AND HISTORICAL FLORIDA ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND LOAD

MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS

EXHIBIT 32


- 12 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q. Have the FEECA utilities’ energy efficiency and load management programs been

successful in the past?

A. Yes, however, in the past, more focus has been placed on kilowatt (kW) savings than on

kilowatt-hour (kWh) savings.

Q. How have the FEECA utilities historically ranked in the nation in terms of absolute kW

savings from load management programs in the past?

A. In 2007, based on incremental annual kW savings from load management programs

reported by each utility in the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) Form 861

Database, out of the 192 utilities reporting absolute savings of over zero kW, the FEECA

utilities received the following ranks:

• Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (formerly Florida Power Corp.): 2

• Florida Power & Light Company: 5

• Gulf Power Company: 39

• Tampa Electric Company: 70

• Florida Public Utilities Company: Not Reported

• JEA: Not Reported

• OUC: Not Reported

A graphical representation of all of the reporting utilities and the rank of the FEECA

utilities according to absolute kW savings reported for years 2005, 2006, and 2007 can be

found in Exhibit RFS-3. This exhibit also contains a listing of the top 20 utilities for

these three years.

EXHIBIT 32


- 13 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q. In the past, how have the FEECA utilities historically ranked in the nation in terms of

relative load management kW savings as a percentage of summer peak loads?

A. In 2007, based on cumulative annual kW savings from load management programs as a

percentage of summer peak loads reported by each utility in the U.S. EIA Form 861

Database, out of the 192 utilities reporting annual effects of over zero kW, the FEECA

utilities received the following ranks:

• Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (Florida Power Corp.): 38




• Florida Public Utilities Company: Not Reported

• JEA: Not Reported



utilities according to relative cumulative kW savings as a percentage of summer peak

load reported for years 2005, 2006, and 2007 can be found in Exhibit RFS-4. This exhibit

also contains a listing of the top 20 utilities for these three years. In ranking utilities on

their energy efficiency and load management achievements, it is important to consider

the magnitude of the kWh and kW savings in proportion to each utility’s annual kWh

sales and peak load, and not just on the level of kW savings alone.

Q. How have the FEECA utilities historically ranked in the nation in terms of energy

efficiency program savings in the past?

A. In 2007, based on incremental annual kWh savings from energy efficiency programs

EXHIBIT 32


- 14 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

reported by each utility in the U.S. EIA Form 861 Database, out of the 279 utilities

reporting incremental savings of over zero kWh, none of the FEECA utilities scored in

the top 100 electric utilities. The FEECA utilities received the following ranks for 2007:


• Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (Florida Power Corp.): 133


• JEA: 154


• Florida Public Utilities Company: 177



utilities according to annual incremental kWh savings reported as a percentage of total

sales for years 2005, 2006, and 2007 can be found in Exhibit RFS-5. This exhibit also

contains a listing of the top 20 utilities for these three years.

Q. Have other electric utilities in Florida implemented energy efficiency programs?

A. Yes. According to the U.S. EIA Form 861 Database, seven other Florida electric utilities,

in addition to the FEECA utilities, have reported kWh savings from energy efficiency

programs. Exhibit RFS-6 shows the reported incremental kWh savings as a percentage of

total retail sales for years 2005, 2006, and 2007 for all of the Florida utilities that reported

energy efficiency savings for those years.

Q. How do the energy efficiency program savings of the non-FEECA utilities in Florida

compare to the Florida FEECA utility energy efficiency program savings?

EXHIBIT 32


- 15 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

A. The top three “non-FEECA” electric utilities in Florida reporting savings in 2007 –

Reedy Creek Improvement District (Reedy Creek), Gainesville Regional Utilities (GRU),

and City of Tallahassee (Tallahassee) – achieved annual kWh savings of 0.98 percent,

0.76 percent, and 0.34 percent, respectively, of total 2007 kWh sales. FPL, which is the

highest ranking FEECA utility, achieved incremental annual kWh savings as a percent of

retail kWh sales in 2007 of only 0.20 percent, which is significantly less that the savings

achieved by Reedy Creek, GRU, and Tallahassee. As shown on Exhibit RFS-6, out of

the total 13 utilities reporting energy efficiency programs savings in Florida for 2007, the

FEECA utilities are ranked as follows:


• Progress Energy Florida, Inc.(Florida Power Corp.): 6


• JEA: 8


• Florida Public Utilities Company: 11


This comparison of kWh savings data for Florida electric utilities raises the question of

why the seven FEECA utilities do not achieve annual kWh savings as high as that

achieved by Reedy Creek, GRU, or Tallahassee. Furthermore, the 0.76 percent of annual

kWh sales saved in just one year (2007) by GRU is as high as what some of the FEECA

utilities propose to save over a 10-year period.

Q. Why is it important for Florida’s electric utilities to increase the level of energy

efficiency and conservation?

EXHIBIT 32


- 16 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

A. The following factors make aggressive implementation of electric energy efficiency

programs imperative for the State of Florida:

• According to the Florida Reliability Coordinating Council, Inc.’s (FRCC)

2009 Regional Load and Resource Plan,2 consumption of electricity in Florida

(as measured by growth in net energy for load) is expected to experience an

average annual compound growth rate of 1.8 percent over the period from

2009 to 2018. Energy efficiency programs can help reduce the demand for

electricity at a levelized cost per lifetime kWh saved that is much less

expensive than building and operating a new nuclear power plant or power

plant fueled with clean coal. A main objective of FEECA is to decrease the

rate of growth in electricity consumption. Implementation of aggressive

energy efficiency programs can help meet this objective.

• Having more energy efficiency resources in the utilities’ energy resource

plans provides a more diversified, less costly and less risky mix of energy

resources.

• Investing more in cost-effective energy efficiency can help reduce Florida’s

consumption of fossil fuels. This is a key objective of the FEECA statute.

• Investing more in cost-effective energy efficiency can help Florida increase its

energy independence and make the state less reliant on outside sources of

energy supply.

• Investing more in cost-effective energy efficiency can help reduce emissions

2 Florida Reliability Coordination Counsel, Inc.’s (FRCC) 2009 Regional Load and Resource Plan (July 2009), page 1. Available at: https://www.frcc.com/Planning/Shared%20Documents/Load%20and%20Resource%20Plans/2009%20LRP_Web.pdf

EXHIBIT 32


- 17 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

of SO2, NOX, CO2, and particulates in Florida. Unlike coal and gas-fired

plants, energy efficiency investments do not produce carbon dioxide, a major

greenhouse gas.

• Investing more in cost-effective energy efficiency can help increase “green”

jobs in the State of Florida.

5.0 EVALUATION OF POTENTIAL STUDIES

Q. Has GDS reviewed the potential studies completed by the seven FEECA utilities?

A. Yes. GDS has reviewed the technical potential studies for all seven FEECA utilities as

well as the statewide technical potential report. GDS has also reviewed the methodology

and results of the economic and achievable potential studies, which are described in the

testimonies filed by witnesses for each utility.

Q. What methodological requirements should be utilized in the potential studies used as a

basis to set goals for the FEECA utilities?

A. The potential studies should reflect the primary objectives of FEECA which are to: (1)

reduce the growth rates of Florida’s weather-sensitive peak demand, (2) reduce and

control the overall growth in electricity consumption, and (3) reduce consumption of

scarce fossil fuels. Additionally, pursuant to Section 366.82, F.S., the Commission, in

developing the goals, should also evaluate the technical potential of all demand-side and

supply-side energy conservation measures, including demand-side renewable energy

systems. Because of the nature of the objectives and the audience, the potential studies

should be thorough, reflect the environment and market of the service territory, be

accurate in their approximations of technical potential savings and market potential, and

be transparent so that technically oriented and non-technically oriented stakeholders may

EXHIBIT 32

Doc

ket N

os. 0

8041

3-EG

, 080

412-

EG, 0

8041

1-EG

, 080

410-

EG,

0804

09-E

G, 0

8040

8-EG

, 080

407-

EG

Res

ume

of R

icha

rd F

. Spe

llman

Ex

hibi

t RFS

-1

Page

1 o

f 14

EX

HIB

IT 3

2

~ :!:

" ' t - 1il ~.. - -i' I' I 'I • ' I '1!-< , • -< • '1 < ' :3 '!! t ·~ ~~

I ,,~i_ I

, Ii 'I I c! ii L ,I F I'll ! ' f ,! , "e~U §~~~

j!ll ill! p" "loll " " !.,. " ~,; !Q

~ .r- ~ i ... ., ~ , t:l '" :Ii :li"~ "

~ ~ ~ <! < • " ~ ~

'!Il! Illllll!l 1111 1111 1111lllil !

lillI, ','l'!l:!!!l ml ill I' l~!lil!l; ! II'

'J! '! ! tilO:!' · 'I W~'ii!"'l~!' hl"j·s 11 !!!.!! IIH iJ'! il I!!! !'j" iI,'!' 1" "',I ': I,lj "',' 'I d fl' . mH'I! lil,liHd',1 ! dH fin! i isi!Hil it!! E~fi· i l~t ~ l~ ~ ~ I~fi l l'!!'!!~ ~~~llfi~1 .. ~ I!i!l"l" 111!1!111 ,Ilil ;llll ~Illiil'i' III ~! '01 ",!,,, .• ' ' .. '1- ' - " ••• !l!oo :1 II' 1 JIll F,o'i!!l,i " J! I'Il!l ~o!~· ~lli i I li-I'I illl:!:'11 li'!1 I ll": ~1!!I ! I !1 :! , '!!~~~~ - ~ i l ~ .~! = s ~ '!!., !f~ l~~

l- ~!Ill 1'!!I!ll:'jl! III! Illol lll,jl,llil Ii i !,",I. l~"" '1 'r i H 'I! rtll ,, ;

!l,jHl !jhli ;~h l!:t II IIHt" il~ oj '!"l !"l: ; iii "I < 'I "",,oll"ll 'j' 'Il" 'II. "'· 0 ~ ~ !f8· ~ :f l!1'l = -Ii u'; ~ _:l.a, ~8 LlJ l! ~_

HI!il !l H I'll 111 i !iii' I !iul'l i ... ::d! u:2 :i1 H duo ~ oil £ wL -" u -liu~ M1!Hi~~ "-

Docket Nos. 080413-EG, 080412-EG, 080411-EG, 080410-EG, 080409-EG, 080408-EG, 080407-EG

Resume of Richard F. Spellman Exhibit RFS-1

Page 2 of 14

EXHIBIT 32

Rlclrard F. Spdlman - GDS ..... OCia.6.InC. p ... , ....

eommittees 00 "'"'IllY isweo. Hoe w •• Mo the ehoiI»enoo oJ !he New E"IIiond Power Pool OSM f'Ianning CommitI ... lor __ yeOB, _ wort.ed 00'..me ~ 0I~ OSM _ ~

"""'lIY proje<1O In New Efl\IIanod <Iu<ing IIio .. """" yeon ., CMP.

His ~ indudes • BA ~ wifo dis_ In Mall\lEeooomi<' from Oa"lmoUlh Cole<,/< {~"ed cum _, .nd • Ma ...... In !!uWless from Thoma, C~ Gradua", School oJ !!Ysiness. fie ... ~ oJ !he l.Inriersit'! of Mi<higan Gntdu. ", School oJ --. AdminioI_ M~ II Prtqam ('9871, ond the EIe<1ri< Coooeil 01 New En90nd Sth oJ lJbIiI)' r.lanaQemen1 ProQram (19851. In ,97. Mr. Spellman w,," __ • "' ... """ \Ifon1 by the Riellard Kin<J Melon F~ to OIU<!\' how ~ ond uniIIerWeo In the Northea .. were responding 10 the 1971-'97. U.S. """IllY crisos

Sp!dIIc Experience 1ocIude"

lZl3£rtj.oot GDS "ssocl ....... ,nc. "" GOS ... ~ • • Mr. ~ has directed lind eompleted '""""""'" man......,....,. 000",,",",", IR? renewable enof'n, OSM pIaoni">g and impIemenl3lioo. m""''' researeh, bad research lind mart .. pI~ uSI\Irrn"" .. lor the fVm'. diento. whiell include e\e<1r1c ond _9O' _', ~ -. eIe<tri< eoope<a1i>es, _""""'" ~<ies, ond ~ eommerciaI and __ ~.

Ustoed .,....,., are eumple. 01 ~ projects completed I»' Mr. Spelman _ ..... ., """"w elllciency I.cIIni<aI. e~ and .<hie,abIe p:>1eOOa1 .. ~.:

'- C<>f1.o~do"'d E<h<>f1 01 Noe ... Yorl< _ C...-ted E<iooo C~oINew '100; "'_ GOS 1<l prepare on .. ..,.......,., 01 the .. ~ ga . ",",IlIY erllaency poten1iaI ln its _. ""'" lind to develop • por1IaIio oI ...... aI go. enenn eIII.ie,,,:'! pro<,jfOmO. GOS de~ !his Gao EftI<ieoey Plan f<>< Coo Ed, ond!he Pl.., W30 lied wifo the New Y"'" P<bIie s.,.,..;"", CommiuOon in March 2009 . The prooJrom pia". included delMed be",,!V.ealwiatioo. "'"'Ii 1he TOIaI R"""""" COOl te"'- The pI"".1so included a detailed pi.., lor e-<oIuation oJ •• <11 __ ~, in<Iudir><) -. 00 the.cope and me!hod oJ me.~ and verification .<tivUoopunuar< to!heC~'. ruIeo ond ~Iiono

2 O"I1i<' olColumbia E""rgy on"", _In ~ 2007. GOS I<uocio\e, and Ed Me,!,," Coo""~ completed 0 detailed • ...,..."..,m 01 e""IlIY"'" in the OisI1i<101C<>i<>mbjo. lind developed fin<Ii">\l' ond <e<ommeodaliono lor "" .. e1!."""" eie<1l'ic lind n ..... aI9O. enefgy . !IIciency progroms f<>< the [);01l'ic1. The 1"e\IOf1 included de10iled inIorm.1tion on "''''''''' ... """'lIY ""'MOre' ~ Iof eoo •• defll'ion in the _oming C~e Enerw PIon IV f<>< DC (CEP-N I " __ ... '''''IlIY .nleienC,!IIfOII"""" and ...... """'. lor DC Gaol""""",,, laeiOties. The fe$>OI1!o<nd 1M! 1he e!!OC1iveneosol!he OioIri<r. pro;jI"amO <an tit> InCfNsed YI'OIbl<J with ... M.tropoItan Waol>inopon c:ounc.. oIGoYe"......., .. (MWCOGI to 10 __ resou<U. ""'" __ ncleo lind coordinate poOcies and pro<,jf8mO

~!he region to pmduce mtJlUoIy _ed "'~ Such regioo.ol «><>pefl1_ 0100 ,-eW"". -.ralive <OSlo poe< pro<J<am'" _..-ed . • • ooots 1If' omo<!ized over more el;ents >ef'o'1>d . One"..rtieuIot1y ~ oppor1U<lity may _ regional _emment purd>ollin<) 01 ene<ll'! .!!\eiency produ<to. wtlere each g<>Yefl"rnO<ItaluniI """*I 9ai"l """ ~ quanlily diocoun1,. The 1"e\IOf1 de'ermi"led the .... "" ....... ene<lJY OOOsef'lation progrom. can ri"'d oboot 6 .000 oew jobo In the 0i0>i<1 01 C<>Iunaa over 0 ~fteen year period . DC'. job c",OIion _ in ~ _q can be boosted Iof DC _"1I"ro<.q!I f irst Sauro< ~ ... ~ _ lS06E requi"emelft, ..tie<> buo<nesse. feCf:ive l.1n\lible _ .. from!he DC _"""""'" (lof e.ampIo, 1ow~_Ioan. ",down"...,......,. sui •• a,,,:,,'.

GO ..... ............. ' """P ............. ...... """ ".noo.,GA """"" 710--<",-""" • F .. no--<2O-<I3O' • _.~ __ ........ . <><>m

...... ,c.· _ " · ... ~ AL· _ _ ... _ ....... ... _ .. ................... , _



Page 3 of 14

EXHIBIT 32



Page 4 of 14

EXHIBIT 32

Rlclrard F. Spdlman - GDS ... . . ociaI6.InC. p ........

mea""". a"ld renewable eneill)' reooou<ee .. <~. GDS «*<ted _ a"Ia/yzed ex""' ....... i"lformoti<Jn on ~ 100 MeflJY .11I<ie<>ey. eonservalion _ demaoo_r .. po .... e me •• ' ..... _ renewable enefll"l "'<I"<loIo\iies. _eloped oupp'"; <......,. to .row tho .cIMev.bIe potefI1i.1I _ io in tho process '" de~ 0 draft_

10 _ COfICOfd Mnn"'ip.' ligh' De-,,,,,,n,. C<>fICOfd. M ... ochu .. '10 _ GOS «MnpIoted 0 _ study for"'" _tioIIlor """"'lIye-"::y _ rene_ """"h" te<~ies lor ""'C~ M~lJ<,j!O:~t (CMlD) . GDS'.~ __ . for _ projedin<:kJde <lentilieolion _ ........ 01 dem.1nd-side . !emaliveo, ~ <I_ted geneflt1ion . nd 0Iher demand ... """" ... te<1>noIogieo (i .e ., direct _ eootrot l_

" lIont. C ... otin. Electr", M.ml>orohip COflKlratioo (IICEMCI _ GDS w., reIOined b'j tho NCEMC to eon<kJct • ~ • ...,osmen, 01 the <Oot .!lee_ o<hiev_ poIerliat lor __ .!1Icieoey a"ld «>I>SeNotioo ",......-.:eo n _ ."'. 01 "'" N""" Car_. EIe<Iri< MemI>e<sIlip Corpor3!ion (NCEMCf- GOS eoIected and ooa/yzed .J<IeIlSiYO nlormOOion 00 over 200 enef\I"I .1Ii<iency and conoet'Iation meaou<es. developed w pPy curves '" show tho ochio_ potenlial and eompIeted a Iin.1I repotI in 2001_

1:1 Cenu.1 Eleen", Power (<>opera'ive Inc. (CEPCI) _ GDS was retained b'j tho CEPCI to eonduCI. ~ ooseumen,ottho <Oot elleeti>'e __ potem;allorelectnc "'""lIY .11I<ieney, <00......,._ and dema"ld "'opon>o ,.,.,..., .. in tho..,rvi<e •• 0 01 CEPCL GOS '-eted a"ld onaIyzed o.<t ....... e jnfonnotioo on ""Of 200 enef\I"I oIl;''"''ey _ eometV.1ion ""'.>Ufe&, developed ouw/I' e""",o '0 ohow tho o<hiev_ potIOflliot _ eompieted 0 _ report in "'"'luot 2001_

13_ Moin. _ GDS recently eompleted 0 t.ehnieai """,n,;aI study lor ,.;gh elf",,,,,,<,\, residenti .. I9ItinII equipment lor tho Ell<ieney M.>ioe R.-.tioIl9hting Program . GOS OOOiIucted _ otuc!y lor !he Moine Public u-. ~_

14 lIont. Co<oli .. Public Util~",o Commioo "", _GOS ...... ret.oined b'j the North C_ PUC to OOOiIuct on ....... osmentottho co"' .!teet"" _.bIe potential lor . lectric enef\I"I .lfi<ieney and oooservolion reoour<e. n !he State c( _ CaroIina_ GOS collected _ analyzed M ensive nformotion on 0V0f 100 energy .lIiaoncy _ <onse<VlI1ion me"sures, develo!>ed supply <<.O\Ift '" .row tho o ehievable potenti .. and completed a !;n" repot! in o..cembe< 21lO6

15_ V."""", Dep"""""n' 01 Pub~c 5<>", i"" _ GOS ..... retained b'j the Vem1<Jn1 Dep.a-lrnent 01 Pubk Service to coodue' 0 Ihornu<}h .............. , 01 the «>01 .""Cliv. ochievobio potentiot lor eie<1l'ic .n«Qy .Ift<ien,y and eonsetV.1ion r.source. n !he S",,,, ot V""""'" GOS <OIIeeted a"ld .... oIyzed ." ....... e ~ on 0 .. , .. 100 enef\I"I ._ey _ conseo'.1ion ""'.>Ufe&, developed ouw/I' <"""" '0 ohow tho .<hievable po<enliot _ eompIeIed ....... repotI in J ........... 2007 . GOS .. oo eonducted ........ ,resea<eh wiIh """'lI)' """;eos prnvide<s in Vermool to ~ct .. Iormolioo on _ te.e4s 01 """'lIY_ey in the State_

16_ 6 ig Ri"" ... E lectric COfpor.tion _ 1005 Energy Ellic",ncy T.chnic" P<>tonti. 1 Stooy _ Ken' '''~y Durir1g 2005. GDS «MnpIoted a otuc!y 01 the to<hrieol _ m.uimum .<hiev.bIe <001 • __ ~ potenliot 01 er>eflrl .m<ien<,\, me".......,. a"ld pro<,j<lIfflS

lor !he ...,.,..;e., ore. 01 th. BiQ Ri ..... Berne CoIpo<ation • • IorQe Genoration _ T""""";ujon eie<tt1e ~ n 000_ Th' 1<e/",'eai and economie potenIioI ,tudy wos eompIeted .. p3<t 01 the ~. aooIysi. 01 ouw/I'-_ and ___ options

lor tho latest BREC Intewoled R.SOIR. PIon fttinII with the Kentud,,; Pubk Service Commisoion

17 Public Service 01 N.w M.xico _ GOS «>n"4'ioted this n ...... goo OSlo! te<hnieaI _ .clMevobie poIe/11ia1 otoov in May 2005_ This otudy presents _"'0 c( "'" maxrnum .cIMev.bIe 000' __ potentaI lor MIUnII go, o..ma"ld_Side M"""9"men' (OS"")

GO ..... ...... , ... ... ' """P ................... """ ".noo., GA """"" " ..... ""'"., • F .. no--<2O-<I3O' • _.~ __ """'._<><>m ...... , ... -" .... ~ "-. -_ ... _ .......... _ ..................... ,-



Page 5 of 14

EXHIBIT 32

Rlclrard F. Spdlman - GDS ..... OCia'6.InC.

p. '"''

__ in It>< -me MNoIPubk s.M",,(J(New MeOeo. The mainOO1j>Uloithio 0100\' .. 0 cooeiso. t.dIy documen1e<l report on It>< <>i>P<lfI..-o Ior~, coot .lIern. na~ g.a . ....... 11'1 olfl<ien<'l' progrM"OO i"I New Mexico

18. Utah Enorg~ orn"" ond Questar G •• Compon~ _ GOS «>mpIe!od Ihio natu<al \10' OSM tectrOcal and ochievabio potenlialOlOOy i"I June 201M . Tho study pre"""to _teo 0111>0 maximum __ cooI-e!!._ pot.ntial lo r n.tu<al 90. Demal"d-Side ~nI (OSM I ~ i"I 11>0 Sto, . 01 Utoh_ The main 00"",, (J( _ SlOOy io 0 cmc;oe. ~ ~ r""""on!he opponooibo.kIf ochie .. bIe. COSI .!!e_"""""" go. """IVY .Ikien<'l' pro<,j<3ttlO in Utah . Tho study • ...,_!he in"""ts"'.,\IO' OSM me.!lSU<eS lind PfOOlromo <on 1\0"" Of> na ...... 9"" use •• _ . !he ~< «>010 and booof .. 01 DSM progroms, and 0...-. !he revenue imp.acts 10 0u0sIar G .. C"""4"I"I'_ The in .. report .. "" inclu<le> on _.smen, 0111>0 onYi"om1",,," impa<1O of !he achievable DSM 0!IIi<Jn0 _inlhio .. OOy_

19. E r>e'1IlI Emcieocy Po'ontial in Georgia _ Stu<fy lor 1110 ... m"nco '0 S."" Ene'gy _ GDS «>mpIeled thio study kif !he "'110<. 10 S."" E neflII' in July 2OIM_ Tho study pro.HIes _ ,os of !he m ....... .., odlievoble coot o1Ie<tiv. potential in !he SIa", 01 Georllio kif ..,""'~ ~ed" __ nq programs . In oddition, GaS ",,,,,,,,led expert""""'"" testimonyon _0I!he ASE bolore"'" Georg;. P\bk SeM<e Cormliosionll>o' C<I'ietod !he IoIIowing ........ :

!he p<>IetItaI no' p<eSft1t .aluedolar "I'irqo'o _ye<> in ~ due'o"'" ~1ation 01 <<>01 __ """"'" ,,1!\<ien<~ _"""'_ !he coot .!!ecti'o"oness '" _ """'9)' onI<ien<~ programs "'"'IJIY 011;';",,<'1' _ ""', cooId bo impiemorned in ~ ' 0 .... """'II)'

up--l<>-<! .. e rn~ on """'9)'.1Iieienc"; and OSM su<ce .... <>tie. ond_ .. \tiny. i"I <>!her region. 01 North Amertoa and tho ~ poten1ial for OSM in GeotQi. ~ .. ,,,,,,,, .. "'01 <OUId be marie i"I IIHI OSM mea..." ""eenin!I prooo • • in C_ re<ormlond.1ioos kif OSM cost te<OVO<"J ond __ i"leen~ mechanism.

20_ E ne'lIlI Emcieocy Po'ential in f lori,," _ S,udy 10rth. Allianco '0 S ..... Energ~ and 1110 Southern "'lIionce lor Cleon E ""'rg~ _ GaS wmpIeled """ otudyfor tho ~tion<.10 SO"" Enefgy in July 2004_ This study pro_ .s1imote> of tho moxmum .<hie._ ooaI ._. poIential i"I tho Sta'" of F lorida kif •• "enoI ""Iop-anked" """IJIY e1Iieieocy PfOOlroms

21 C""neeocU! E ""rg~ Con.Ofyooon Ma_omenl Il<>.rd _ In Ma<eh 2003. GOS ...... _ by"'" Cornecba.<t Enorgy Conservation M" ""01""'.'" Board IOcorWct o """"'-'lh ...... """"" of !he ooaI e1Ierne ma .. m .... a<hiev_ ",<hnie01 poIenlial kif eoer<Jy .Ikien<'l' lind """""",,,lion reoou-oeo in the S"". of C<>nr>e<tian and two ~ions of !he S,.",_ GDS «>Ie<led and _Iyzed ... _ in!ormaIion 00 <Net 250 """IJIY e!OCien<y and =-rvation, anddoYeiopod ~ a.orve. to.oow It>< rna .......... <I"Oovobie poIffitial_ GDS «>mpIeIed Ihe m al reporti"l .....,., 201M

22 "'Hion. Enefgy Corpor . .. Service. .... "" "",,"to to on _osmen' 01 po<ential <1/S1omot-$iledldistriOOted generation l«flro'O'H .pPi~. in aI~. (rosideOOal, omoMofQe <omrnero>ai, iMJoIDoI, ond 09ri_1 condu<led by GDS in 2001, ..... n. reque.ted "'"" ~ .ssumplions bo re_ and "'_ • • • n,,,:e •• af)'_ In addition, !he ~ Generation Soreening (OOGSl tooiWM "","""ed I>j MN ~ <>1 C~ .. pon '" a Hn<j in 2001 lind !hey _Sled ,",pon-. of ~ ted"noIo<Jieo and """'. i"ld\.<Iin<,/: _ ond me1!uone hMlllan<lllh ond cli<}e0l.,. 10 fuel

~ .~; ""'1hanoI. «hanoi. 9.-1>11. ond """"""" IOf ele<tJi<ily pr<dJ<tion from """ <eIIs_ Tho toYioed model r_ ..... be """" to • ...., .. " !he mar\o. ... poIen1ioIkIf

GO ..... ...... , ...... ' """P ..... ..,. ............ """ ".noo.,GA """"" 710--<",-""" • F .. TrO--<2O-<I3O' • _.~ __ ......... _<><>m ...... , ... -" .... ~ "-. -_ ... _ .......... _ .. ................... ,-



Page 6 of 14

EXHIBIT 32

Rlclrard F. Spdlman - GDS ..... OCia'6.InC. p ... . ....

di. ____ lion _ AAanr. Min"""",,, _ ,....-.

23. M ••• achu.ett. G • • UetwOfl<. _ In Januaty 01 2roI. GOS ... as _ by Go",,",""""'. {a ""OWOtk 01...,_ .. no!U<aI ~M _In "'00Sll_"'1 kl _eIop benetWCOOl analyse. and eneflJ"I saving. potential eolimateo for GuHeIW<>lb· ~ martel tnlnolofmalion and dem-and-_ man~ prt9"amo. Benera/wo< ralioa and _ sa ........ po!enbal estma' os we« _eloped for ..,vecaI ""lional 110" _ e rliaency prOIIf"'" using a opreOOsheeI model. lind similar data were developed lor eacl1 pnl9fM1 for e.<h ..."...;ce ""'" lor ""<h ,,'ur" g • • ~ ~ In tIIio 0IUdy

2. 1I<><1II ... n lItiti'i .. {G •• Com",nyl _ In 2002 GDS wo. _ by Nonhem ..-. to prepare beneWCOOI analyses _ ....... gy .... inQ. potenti .. estimo ... (J( . ponI_ 01 """'9)' elfteiency p'O\Iramo proposed lor ~_ In .,..,.. New Hampohife ..".,.;ce """'. This prtJje<t ... as <ompIe1ed duri<"oJ September 2002 and " _NIl "'port ..... filed _ Ihe New Hampo/li"e P UC. ... wortshop '013' condu<ted at !he NH Pubk Uditieo C~ ~ In 2003 kl review coo,·dectiv1>ne .. ~ and key model inp<AA>u1;IuI reqoi"emento.

25. Ke yS ""n Energy [)e~ve<)' (G •• ComponYI _ 1n 2002 GDSw ... hired by KeySpan Energy Ilrivery _ New ~ 10 prepare benettrWSl.....,...,. __ .......... potenliol _ ,os 01 ten enefQI' natura! _ enenn efftOen<y prt9"ams proposed lor ~_In "'" KeySpon New Hompohire """';00 are •. This prtJjeet ..... <OmpIeted durir><J Septembef 2002 and " Iin.aI report ... as tied "';111 "'" New Hampohife PUC III. , ~.

26. 6 ", Ri..,,. Electnc C<><porotioon _ 1001 Eftergy Elliciency Te<:hnical Poten'ia l S'udy . Kemocky · During 2002. GDS completed • SIUdy oIt1>e te<hnical __ potenliol 01 _illY eIII eie<ley _ load """""}Omen' "", • ..re • • nd prt9"'mo for!he _ ""'" 01 Ihe iii<) RivOB Electric COI»O<8Iioo • • iorll" Gene<0Ii00 and Tr""""- eleetri< .-y In ()h;o . Th. "'~ and economic potenti .. study wo. ~'ed as pert 01 the comprehensive MlaIysis 01 supp/y __ . nd demooiI-uIe option. lor Ihe 10" .. BREC I_ted Re"""ce PIon ~ willi !he K<"flIud:y f>WIic SeMoe ~.

27 C~y 01 Gfond !ol .. d. He"'_ ko _ Municipoi lltmly _ EnOfgy Elliciency Technical P oten".1 5.U<Iy _ GOS completed _ SIUdy 01 !he te __ economic potentia! lor

_erli<i«><"Iand_~.me-=.andprogramolor!he_8fe.oI_ IoIJlO municipal electric.-y ln lIebr ...... This t~ _ e<onomic pot""ti .. study ..... completed ... pert 0I1he ~e aoaIysi. oI ..,ppIy __ and demaoiI __ option.

for an InteQnlted Re ...... "" PIon for this utBy. 28. C iIy of Lof.,..,tte. lotJi""m. _ Municipal U tilily _ Ene,lII' E~y T ecllnical Potential

Slt>dy . GDS compIeIed _ .tuIIy 01 the technic .. and e conomic potenti .. lor _

e!li<ieney and load ~ me."",,, and pro;jf .... 1or ""''''''';<0 Ofea 01 this IorQe munic<po! e1eC1ric u1iily In looOoiona . This te<lneal and economic potential study was completed ... pert 0I1he ~e aoaIysi. oI ..,ppIy __ and ___ o¢ono

!of an In1eQf8ted Re""""" PIon for this utBy. 29 lIe w Y<><k State Energy ReHarch.nd Oevelopmen. "' uthority (UYSERO"'I · Ene'gy

$fIYn'· P'O\IfOm E .. luotion Serviceo: In the IoI! 01 1999. GDS ..... retained I'f NYS ERD ... "' be Ihe pri"ne .-..tion contr.clor lor "'" New Y 0fII EnelllY $mMt'" pro<,jfan\.

Ilurin<j!he I""'B 2000, 2001 . 2001 • • nd 2OOJ. GDS "". -. re~ lor proWlln<) _ elfl<ieneyprt9"am and me"""", data «>Iie<tion, 0I>I>!yM. _ reporIwriIng_ to NYSERDA in suppon 01 ",,",overaK evaluation . nd market _osment e!lons, and 10

<letennine lI<1uai oaYirlQ. 01 !he PfOII"""" . To date, GDS teom ""aklalion actMlie. hove InWoJe<l devdopment 01. Gop Analysis lor the purpooe 01 ~ priorities and oIo<:8tiI>:l ""a/uotion reOOUfoe.lOthe.1Ifiouo New Yorii EnefQ'/ Sman'" prtJje< •• ", .. ; .nd nunerou.

GO ..... ...... , ...... ' """P ..... ..,. ............ """ ".noo.,GA """"" 710--<",-""" • F .. no--<2O-<I3O' • _.~ __ ........ . <><>m ...... , ... -" .... ~ "-. -_ ... _ .......... _ .. ................... ,-



Page 7 of 14

EXHIBIT 32

Rlclrard F. Spdlman - GDS ... . . OCiat6.InC.

p.'"''

e-wa/uotion . clivibe.1eadin!j to dev.lopm",,, <>!. d<an.oo _ Pro\Iram EvU>atioo Stat .. report.mich.,...,.-Hled the New Vork Pubt< SeM,. ~ willi "'If"""'" inlomlalion to <IetemWI< Ih< Iunre <>! SBC·kIOOed pubIi< beneM. pro;jramO be)'OO<l ito rui .. Ihree-,.., ... """1iIion pe<iod which erderir"'l the I .. 012001. GDS _ the te<lni<," pote<Iti.oI 01 eu ___ _

gene<a_ tecl>noloc.lY ~.Ior AIia"l' • • major m ..... _ "'"'J located in Ih< MidW .... The onaIysio covered Ih< _ . _'9< convne<a... ..,..,otriaI. ond 1t<Jrl<'*co-'" __ . GDS developed a DiHit>utedlOmi\e Gener .. ion ~ oprea<fllheet model to determine Ih< <OOI-dIedi~ .. of variou. _ gene<a_ optiono; used Ih< model to assess Ih< potential tor.arious , ..... orner _.00 then ocoIed "' ..... osing CUS1<Mnef proftIeo IOOdel r_ we« Ill"" "sed to estrnat. the techni<:," potenI>aIlor distributedlonsi\e _-. _ AIUn!"s Minnesota and Iowa

31 Re""w.bIe Electric Efterg~ and 1' • .- Dema"" S .. ingo Methodolog~ Re.iews . Wind P ower ond Pho'o.olt.ies Pr_.ms: GDS pe<fotme\jrAm.oo ...., Photo-..., (PV) prowamo. The.., Sal'inls Mell><>dology review. entMecl tI>-ee. ~: 1) . review of the ''''"'''. method uoed b~ NVSERD ... for .. tima~ .. WIgs (~ ~ and _ .... ... ,,,np'io,,,). 2) • """"'" of the me_ and ouumption. used by __ and prOliram 1Ni"n ........ _1or ._~ saWlqs from

_1If'9"""" being in1p1emente<l_ ... the WOOlly. and 3) a IIf"senIation ofk.~ iVl<Iirqs .00 recommendations.

32 En "'.'"", Servie • • 10< CommerciaUlndustriol Pr_om Are ••• "" Tecl>nicol ... . ....... "" Re.i<wing Engineering ....... Iy •• • · Ef!icieoc~ VennonC GDS ... ssoci .... is the lead """"'ctor in a team lII.t flo. beer! hOOlOd 10 ...... the VT DPS in ovalullli">\l • ... _ ~ 01 """"lY e!li<iel1<y _oms tafge1ed to the C"""""""" 000_ mn .. oecttn The GIlS "'am is also ~ tec/ri,," engineerin<J .00 r"_tance. on .... "on-eoIr ba .... 10 the Itdminiotn>tor 01 \I""""" ... """"lY eIII<ier>cy ~.

33. Developmefl' . "" Implem ..... tiOfI of Fi •• ·Ve.r El>ergy Ef!ici ... cy P lan _ IIoston Edi.on: GDS ... _"'. was retained by!lostoo E<Iisoo to _. BECo .tallwitl> the <levelopmerlt of lIf'9"am designs. ev.....- PMlo, teehn<eaj potential esti"n .... _ budqeIo for the Compony. Fi'le VeM EneIl/)" Elli<iency Plan. Fa< this proje<' GDS performed """"lY em,iency tedlroIogy "reef1in<js 'o iderltif\' potential)' 'o"iable measures !Of UIiMy MldirqI-,. ood de~ the pro<J<3m deoi9n' lor a number 01 ...... intia""" . inckldng 0""'" • dozen ...... rna"''' Ir .... oforma_ ~. GDS 0100 """"'<ted cost ellecti'leoe .. ocreer>inll for aI of the flew OSM iniIi.ti"ies in<Iu<Ied in Ih< ,~

301 E .... rg~ Effi<:ienc~ Technical and Mar ke. Potential"'nlllyois: This report presented the resU!o 01. "'_ .00 martel pot.ntiaI " 00y lor _ em<iel1cy ~.Ior the E . .. T ..... Ele,tr\o: Coopemtj""'. Inc. (ETEC ). The purpose of ..... reporl w .. to review .....,.w eIII<ier>cy optiono th.t <""'1'1\' .,.;e, the Public Utifty C<Mnmiooion 01 Tex ... (PUCT) orner. issued in _.01 T., .. Elecmc Coope<_ (m EC). Sam Royburn Elecmc C~ (SRG&n and T.,·l a Ele<tr\o: Coopef8"'" of T .... [Te<..I..) rat. eo"" •. This study presert1ed cos. eIIe<tWerle • • findings ond recommend.tion. on enel]/)' elli<iency 0!Jli0n. and PfOII"""" tor ETEC and ito merrobe<~ and ~ e-le<:tric <OOpeflIti ..... (NTEC . SRG& T • • "" T .. ..I..) . .. this 0IUdy. GDS ....... te<l the <001 ellecti'lene .. of O"ief

GO . .... ...... , ... ... ' """P ....... ..,. ...... ...... """ .. >riotLo. GA """"" " .... """ 00 • F ... no.-<2O-<I3O' • _.~ __ ........ . oom ....... ... -" .... ~ ... . -_ ... _ .......... - "' ................... ,-



Page 8 of 14

EXHIBIT 32

Rlclrard F. Spdlman - GDS ..... OCiat6.InC. p ........

90 """"1Y elkiency opIioo. on<! IouocI many of """" ., be coot eIIedWe ac~ ., the Total R • ......ce Cost Test.

35. T.cllnical_ M""'.t Potential -'"o/)'.i. for l o od Moo.goment _ Energy EIIic "'n.cy Optlo".: GDS wa. r._ ., upd;>" etHHlI)" eft!-.,~ on<! I0o<I management .. <hnieal and "'""'et potefItiai anatyo.e. completed ",!he _ f99O". time period. on<!", develop ~metlIIatiom <dating., COOl efI.ctive DSM PfC9IWI'O"" eIe<1ric: coopenIlives in E ... , T.' .... This 0IUdy irlen1ifl.d """"1Y efliciency ..-..:I k>od monagemeflt (D5M) option. that w"",..-.- _ on e<onomie tests presenIed in !he C_ Standofd Pnrcti« Marual kif Economi< Analysis 01 Demand-Side M"'""'9"m<fIt Pro<,jrMlS. D5M ~ that _ • To<aI R.S<>I>I<e COOl test _co .. ratio gre"e<th"" 1.3 and. ~ net pre..,,' v ...... kif the partj~t were ...... that w..-. ~ by GOS .,.. """"" program -eenral Maine II<-. ~. Mamger at Ma"'<eIing ~eIing ..... Pr<Wa

"""-From 8190 10 8192 _ R.opon_ for man~ til< deoi9n and i"npIe1neI1_ 01 CMf' • .-, <Omme<eial. and indoJotri .. doefnand_side managemen' _ . ... ~ __ .,.. __ te

....net """arch, ""'_year OSM mpiementation pi ..... , ~ 00 DSM _. be_ ~ agen<ieo, and.,.. ~tng in in~'e:l .$26milk>nOSM bOO\Ietood . .. an olSOperoon • . Sel'led ""_penon leodt • ...,rrom 1969 10 199210 _eIopCMf'. _in~,...,..."" plan . Ilurin<j 1991 trneled toC=I,,,. I,w.kia on<! _ 10 provi<Ie COIlSUIIinIIIo fo<ei\In _ on D5M __

From Ml210 5193. re~klfi<Ientifyft<J .nd ~ ""''''«RJSInI1e9ieo'''' prodl><1S ood _ • .mid1 woUd ~ the eompettiIt"""" 0/ CM~ <"""""""'. in«ease the e1rI<ierocy 01 etHHlI)" _, inereM< CMf'. proMaWrty. ood .... <1> ~ redu<. the ra'. 01 ~rowth of ",",c1ricity priees kif .. <IIS1<>me'r>. O<feetly __ .,..the _9> o/=-_ """"1Y and <Iema"ld_ "'"""9Om.,," _amo. iI1tegnoted """"",. pllI<lIlinog, rese.rch OIl new te~ • • oM mon~ "'"""etinII one! product ""~ 01011. AI.., proOOed 000 ....... >e<Viees 10_ in New Z._. ",,,," ala. on<! Bulgan.. reI31inQ ., DSM proQ<lMll de...,. on<! implemefltooion.

r.'86-&'9O Cerlral Maine II<-. Cornpa"ty. !lHctor 01 MarIt .. 1Ie<.eart:h ..... Forecasting

Re~ for~ '-'Iy-m.. pro~~ OutiesindWe<l ~ DSM _am ev-...- a<tM!ie. , ""'" .nd I0o\I rarqe <>ad r.n.ca" development, local area """"1Y on<! pea~ I0og. oM """"1o!>inII oM """ating DSM ~ • .,.. ...... in the C~.1ong far>JO planning models. "'"'" ~ted in the de~t of the 1IBt P.......,- Pamer. RFP. one! in the ev"""'" one! selection 01 proposaI • ..-ted iI1 _ ... ., this RFP.

Cerlral Maine II<-. Cornpa"ty. Cor"",Ole E~

Re opon_ !of moritomg &Cd _easIiog e"""'lY and .oonomi<: tre_ in the CMP ... "';<e are. on<! in the New ~ R"'Jioo. 0-' inek>rled "" .. ,Iop,nem 01 <OtJ>OIl''' """'_term ~...." .. leo on<! "'...."... toreea .... ..-It.t re ... 3foh 0I00Ie •• and C~ eneill)' management OInI!e9Y. lnotn.mer1, aI iI1 prt>m<>!in<J til< use of .. _-<>1_ M PC_booed «>mp<>1er models lot inteQr .. enirlg (UPlAN) .... uthored • _ repaton CMP's DSM __ in Apn 1900. "'"'" __ kit supoMsing ... ~ . 1\aIy>ts.

GO ..... ...... , ...... ' """P ............. ...... """ ".noo., GA:lOOII7 " ... ""'"., • F .. no--<2O-<I3O' • _.~ __ ........ . <><>m ...... , ... -" .... ~ "-. -_ ... _ .......... _ .. ................... ,-



Page 9 of 14

EXHIBIT 32

Ridsard F. Spellmml - GOS ... . . oc .. , • • • Inc. p ... . .. ,.

(5fT1 '0 5fT8) _ C MP n May 1911 and WO<ked in !he Cu.tome< Se<Vi< .. Dep.ortmen, Re!lpO<l_ ' n clOOed lhort· temI """ca. ling . ........ 1 ~ee .. lIKalion ''''''0)'0. and pre~ __ of !he 1911 and 19181ong ... ~ ene«;; and pea~ _ """ ... ts.

(5fT8'" 12/110 ) In May of 1918 . ... lected '" join 0 ..... group. !he Corpofat. f ..... a .. .- Stall. '" de~ . ..... «IflH'flIt. ""ana" model klf CMP , Had mojof re. poo-,.!of development of . I ........ "".c'''' ing .....-. and assisted w;u, de,eIopme'" of mo<IeIs to ....,wee in<ome -"nI, 1>ll1an.., ..... et, and ..,..., oo and u .... of food. """casts In _ilion '" «IflH'flIt. ~ developme .... ",.poo-" neluded oOOrt-temI ""."SIin<) and mm.et , .... " ... '"

(1 2180 to 511!5 ) In Deeembe< of 1980. moved to CM!'". R""",,rU1 [)epa""""" and "",!led klf Phi Hasting'!or IN. ye~, Re!lpO<l" bIe klf .. """"",te mm.et re ... orell. lhort_temI ~Wh .. Ie. and ""eoue """cast, , ~ ... ..,...,. and klf .... ... and fore< ... ts of ~..,. «IflH'flI'e p annin<) .. sompIioo. , PfepMed and published C M!'". In, OS M ..... ,= . !Ud"y in MO<oh 1985.

Board of o;,.e>ors . ... uoeialion 01 Enefll)' SeMce. Prole. _ ("'ES P ). 2005 '" 20 10

Membe< of !he ... uoeialion of E""'lI)' Serviee Profeosional> (1 993 10 P resen' ), Vie. Ch--' of!he PoIi..,. Committee (1 995- 1996 ). Charof PoIi..,. Commiftee (1997 and 1998)

Pan .. L._, 1992 Ameriean C.,....a. for an E""'lI)' Ellicien' Economy ("'CEEE) Summe< Study on BuiIdn<) E""'lI)' Elliciency

Ch.uman of !he NEPO«. Demand_Side MOOO<}Ornen' PIoonin<j Committee , Sep1embe< 1989 to Seplembe< 1990, .0.<1\1"" 1991--"""1' 1992.

Vice CIIairman of !he NEPOOl Demand-Side Ma_ Committee _ Jan.,.,.,. '" A_st 1989, .lui)' 1990 - .lui)' 1991

Membe< 01 !he NEPOOl DtornaOO-Side Ma_em Took f .".., (1986-1988)

Membe< of !he load Re .. O<oh Committee of !he A""",_ of Edison IlI.lmina ling Companies (1 986- 199 1).

A1femat. to the NEPO«. Go,."...... l"-' Commiftee (1 986-1988 ).

Stal. f "' ... ., Analyst!of the NEPOOlload f ore ••• 1ing _ (1 919-- 1986)

M""", Model Maoa<JOr of the New Ell\Iland Economic Proje<' .eooorni. fo<e<aOlifl\l mOOeI, 1983- 19116

Membe< of !he S1lItiSlio .. R ..... ' ''' Comm;'te. 01 the Ele<tri. C.,....a. of New EIl\IIand (Choirpe<son 1982_1983, membe< 1911_1986)

Membe< 01 the Edison EIe<1ri< "'stiM. Eeonomi .. Committee (1 9116_199 1)

Po st membe< 01 the Interna tional Assoc:>otion of E '""lI)' Eeonomiot.

PWlic<1Iiom.:

Spellman. Riellard f " Modeling of Energ;; Ma n_ ment Slra,O!/ie. willr !Ire UtiJlt)' S1 ... m. Analysis _ . paper presented at the Intern.tion .. load Man~ement Coole"",.." No,embe< , _ , Chi<If9O, _

GO . .... -w..._ ,"""P._ ........... · SuM BOO Idoriotto, GA """'" rro_<>,..."lO ' "' rrG--<2!I-03OO • _,.~ . . ......... ,,,,,,,,

.. _ . ... . - IX • -.. " • _ ... .......... , • • ,,"_ , " • _ . ...... _'*'-_


Resume of Richard F. Spellman Exhibit RFS-1 Page 10 of 14

EXHIBIT 32

Ridsard F. Spellml111 -- GOS Anoc .. t ••• Inc.

'''' to .. ,.

2. Spellman. flje/>ord F .• U •• 01 Compute, Model. and L.-I R . ""Md! Dol. for DeW!1oping E""'IIY M.M\I<'menl Stm,.,. paper presented at the FiftI1 Annu .. Northeaol L.-I R ••• aro/1 Come'''''<tI. Sept.mIle< 1()'12. 1986. Farmington. Connecbeur

3. Spellman. fUeha«l F .• Polen",,1 Mar*'" Pone,,.OOir of DSM Pror;rMm a' C.mr.I Mome I'<lw<,. p3I>Ofpres.ented .t Thi"d N"-.I Cooler"""" on Utility OSM p~ . ........ 16·18. 1001. Homton. T .....

• . Spellman. Ri<IlO<d F .• D.,..nd.&k Manoge"",rn Mm. ' P"""rurio,,, IoIodeIir>g . M R.""""" ~ Pflrspect;v<.lI"cm (;Mlnt/M • ..., Pow.,eo...p.ny. _p-esented at !he Fou<th NationoJ ConIe<ence on U!iMy OSM f'ro<J r.,..... M.~ 2..01. '989. CineioMti. Ohio

5 Spellman. Richard F .• Using Program E.",,,,,OOir D.,. forL""f/""R""Il" R.""""", Planrritlf/a' Cenrul Maine Po...", Company. _ presented.t !he Canad"n Electri<ai AuociaOOir·. Coofe,,,,,,,,, on Enhan<in!l Ele<:trici1)'. Vakle to Soeie!y. 0_ 12·2 • • '990. Toromo. Canada

6. Spellman. Ri<Ilar~ F .• Demand.&k Moo_m.nt.rom • _ Am<:ricltll P"t>pedivo. Keynote Address to the Intematioo.>l Enefq'j Agen<'l Cooferenoe 00 A<!vonced Te<IlooIo\Iie. lor Eleetri< Oemand·Side MIOfIO<}eMeII~ _ ",,!or Joe C. Collier. Jr .• J>reojd""t aruI Ct-Oel E.e<uIi'" OIIi<.r of C..,.~ "'"""" p"""" ComPOill'. _ preserned in Sorren1o. IIao'\' on April 3. 1991

7. L.amon. Ann K .• and S~. Ri<l>ard F .• From 1M fIorrom Up: T&D _ DSI.!. pape' ... """ted at !he ~ Na_ Demand_Side MaRO<}ell1Oflt cooler"""". July 30 _ A~"'t 1. 1991 . _ton, Mauaehme-t!.

8. Kaeri. /of . _. and Spelman, RiehMd F .• 1m",.,.1iotr of E •• w_ Row"" imo II>e

R • • """", Planninr/ Prnce". ""pet I""sented . t the ~ Natioool Oemond-Side M"""IIO""'nt Cooleren"". July 30 _ A~"" 1. '991 , Booton. Ma.sadl<Joens

9 . Spellman. Rid\ard f .• ~. Fuel Swtchil>g Mair. Sen.., for err Electri<: Utilty? paper PI"..."ted at the 1992 1n"",,1ttioo0l Eneill)' Ellicienq aruI OSM Coolerenoe. 0<_ 22, 1992. Toronto. Ontooo

' 0. Spellman. Richonl F .• and B ...... n., 101 .",,,,,",,,. Mark.t R ... "",h for ,he Des(/n. mp,Iemerna OOir, _ E>'lII~.OOir of. Comp«1 F/""",.""" 4/hU">II ProrT&m. p3I>Of .. ...".ed at !he EPRIlEUMRC Mor*.t R • ...,aro/1 S~"""" No...-r , 7_20. 1992, Dalla •• T ....

1 '- Spellman. Ri<l>ard F, Forum For Aw'ed R.oearol1 and Public PokylFaI 1992. Energy 101""."."".",,, A V"w!rom Mome (Journal Article)

12. Spellman. Richard F .• DSM In".""",,. Plu. EIedrlc: R.te AdjUSlm. '" MechMti"". EQIUlI Bottom tine /mpKf, _ Pf!'sented at the 6th Notional Demood-Side Man"'l/<f\'l<'llt Cooler"""". Mardt 2._26. 1993. Miami lleaol1. FIorid.o

13. Spellman. fUchanl F .• Van W",. Oom A .• "".W, D~ E. , L • ...,..,,"". and eenn .. R.. Op,;_ing Oem. nd_SXle and &pp/y Reooun:<. U,;"g tine. r Pror/romrrriilfl

I.. Spellman. Richar~ f .• UtiOty E.perien". W." Load MarI.>\Iement in T ..... EPR lIHouston Ligh~ and Power Co. Load Mon.agemem Cooleren .... M.~ 3. 1_. Houoton. Tex ••.

, 5. Spellman. Ric""rd. f .• The Role 01 OSM in the Privatized EIe'mc~ Sector in England and Wale • • and N.w Z."and, Paper P,,,,.,,1ed at!he Association c>! Demand-Side M"""IIO""'nt Prol • .-wo Annuol MoetinQ. OrtanOO. Florida . Deeember ,_.

16. Spellman. Richanl. F .• Eneill)' SeM<e. in A Global Enwonmen~ Paper p,...."ted at til< A_ <>I E""'li~ SONic .. Prol • .-.. .. "'"'u .. Mee~. Phoeni:<. Arizona. O.cembe r 1995.

GO ................ _ '",.,P,_ .. __ · """"""" l.\oriotto,GII """'" no_", ... ,oo , .. mI-"'I"'-'>300 • _ .• _.onCh .. """"' ... .....,

.. _ . .... -... " . --''' . __ .... ,, __ . , • . "'_," . . ........ -.-..0.



EXHIBIT 32

Ridsard F . Spellml111 -- Ga S Anoc .. t ••• Inc.

e ... " .. ,.

11. Spellman. Richard. f .• vatu< Added Se<vi<eo • • Pro6t Cent .... in T.x ... Paper Presented . t til< Assoc:"- of ErIeflJ'/ Seo"le .. f>rofe ___ Annuol Meetin<j , 6<>vef!y _ . Calilornio. Ooeembe< 1996.

t B. Spellman. Ri<l> ... d. f ., ~repar;ng kif Competition I»' lJpd3tin\j CorponIt. Ma~eIing S .. a~·, P.p'" Presemed., the A_ of E.....,.lIY Service. ProIe"""",,1o AAnuoI Meemg, Boca R.ton, f i<>rida. 0ecernl><1" 1997.

19. Me9doj, Lori. Spefmon, Richard. f. , .IoIInsoo, Bru",,"" __ M.o~ 1 ...... 1or . OS M Evalu.tIOn ~. MarIo.et Tr. n>kl<m. tion Mo"'et A ..... """'" ood!looe4ine S'OOy", Pop'" Prell<'nte<l., 11>< 1999 E""'l/Y P""l'. m Ev ..... tion Cooference. Denver. CoIo<o<Io, " _011999.

20. Spellm.>n. Ri<hord F .• She! f eldman, Bruce _"IOn, Lori M09dol, "M •• ....,y,g Mark.t T",nofonn. tion Pro\j ..... & tho Bi"lomial Test Re<ent E<perien«>.t Boo'on G ... Compoony". Pop'" p<esenteefllY Ef1!eieney, A"IIY"' 2000.

2 1. Spellman. Rid>ord F .• G_. Thoma. M .• She;I, Joie"" A .• 1««>1. _ . ' E<pefienee_ le ....... from the W"coooin 1_ f ""US 00 Er>erlI)' P ""1""" : T flIOOIom\ation n Induo!rioj

Ene<qy Elli<ieney Mark . .. •• pre ... nle<l '" ~ Cooocil !of and E""'l/Y EJ1Icient Eeonomy Summer Stt.dy on E"""lY E1Iicienc~ n B<lildin<jo , T"""""",. New yOlt; . .NI'f 2S-27, 200 1

n. Spellm.>n. Ri<hord F., Sf>eI F.ldman, Bruce _SOl>, Lori M09dal, "Transition StrotO\lie. kif Ma~.t Tranolormotion f'ro9rwno: R.cent Exper.ence ., KeySpoon ErIeflJ'/ DeIivery", Paper pre"""ted ., the Oeeember 200 1 12~ National Ene'll)' Service. Conference.

2J. Rooney. Thomas; Spetm ..... Ri<l>ard; Rufo. Mi<l>aeI; S<I\Ie<,/eI, Je!t, "EoIima1io\i tho Potenti .. !of Coot Efleeliv< EIe<1ri< EI>Ofl/Y and Pe .. Dem_ S'vinI/! n COI>"le<Ii<tJI", Paper pre"""te<l . t 11>< 2004 Am"""",, Couneil kif an ErIeflJ'/ EIIi<ient Eeonomy Summer StU<ly in P • • ifIc Gro""" CoIi_. A_", 2004

2.. SpeQman. Rle1>ard f ., GokIIa rll. lynn K., Bomeo, Harley. "llM>9 Marler Reoeorol1 to Improve f'ro<,jram Oeoiqn ond Oe"""'l of R_ lilih~ Pro<,j(aMO n !he US NortheaotRegion". P.per presented . t the I S NatIOnal En.,w Servi .... Conlerence. Oeeernber 7, 2004, CIe.>rw.ter 6<>a<l>, Florid.

2 5. Spelman. Rieho.--d f.; GoIdIa<t>, lynn K ., Hub«, Je-I1r.y; ~ S THERE A f'OTENT""- ""TIONA!. MARKET FOR TRADING ENIIlRON .. EHTAJ.. CREDITS BAS ED ON THE ENIIlRON .. EHTAl SJlVliGS ACH'EVED THRO<JGH ENERGY EFFOC' ENCY SJlVINGS" p_ ... _"" ..... ' "~ II""""" ~ ~Coo_, Oocombor :lOO!l

26. SpeIm ..... Richard F., Roon<)', Thoma. ; B""' • • JeI'U-y, 6 . "", Stephen; ' PotentioIIorN",urot Gao Savin<,js in the _ ... , Paper presented ., the 2006 " C EEE Summer Study on ~ E"""lY Ef1!eieney, _ at P.<ifIc Grove, Calilomio.

Oi"ect T<'5Iirmny of Rid'Iard F. s,.,lm" t

'- On _ 01 Central Moine Power Compan~. 6e1ore lite S"'te of Maine PubM. UUitie. Commission, Ooe~.' Nos. 65 ..06. 6S-a2. 8 S-83. lIed .Nl'f 1, 19116. Subje<t M._: Eeooomi<. 01 Commereiol _ 1nd<J_ C""...,,,,.tion ~ ..... in tile C MP SeN;'" Are.

2 On BehaH 01 Central Moine Power Compo",!, Belore the S"',. of Maine Pubf<. ~. Commioooon, Oodo.., Nos. 65-111 ood 87_26 1. _ November6. 1987. Subje<t Matter: OSM " ..... """"""" kif Central Maine Powe r Compoony n Long Term Avoide<I COOl FiIin<}.

3. On Behall 01 Centro' Moine Power Compo",!. Belore the S"",,, 01 Moine Pubf<. U_ Commiooion, Dock.t No.. ~ 6-11 1 ood 87_26 1. filed ....... 22, 19811. Subje<t Ma_: OSM Potential ood COOl EfIe< ti"""" .. n 11>< C MP Service Area

• . On Behall 01 Central Maine Power Compan)'. 6e1ore the Stat. of .. aine Pubf<. litDIieo

GO . .... .......... __ ' "'" P._ .. e_ """"" """ Moriotto, GA """'" 77._., .... '00 F., ml--'t2ll-03OO " _ .• _.onCh<h .. """"' ... ....., .. -.... . -..." . --. " . -- .... "--. , .. "'-," .......... -----



EXHIBIT 32

Rid,old F. Spellntoll - GOS ..... o< .. , ••• lI>c.

p ... " .. ,.

Commiooion. Oo<~et No. 69-&11. Hoed May 19 . 1009 . Sl/bje<' r.Ia!tef: R.view and . xpIain the _ lor 1he updated oOO<t_tern> ~Wllooleo fo<e<o.'oo..mid1 CMP'. revised ... _ Study .. -5 On Be!IaII 01 C",,~ Maine _ Compo".,., Before the Stol. 01 M ...... PubOe UtJibe. Commiooion, Oo<~et No. 69-&11. tied 0<_ 2. , 1989 . Subjeet Matte<: Re_ and • • pIain 1he _lor !he .... OO~."" ~W~ _ lor ... ., on..mid1 CMP'. A_ Study .. based

6 On Be!IaII 01 C",,~ Maine _ Compo".,., Before the Stol. 01 M ...... PubOe U-. Commiooion, Ooe~.' No . 91 _213, filed No""mbe< 15, 1991 . s..bje<' Motter: Pr .... nI CMP·. eooe~. ~g the . d ..... ~ 01 inallQ<K.Iin<) . ",sidential _ce flea' eom~ pro<,jforn .. the C"""4I""y"' -. _0<)'.

7 On Be!IaII 01 C""~ Maine _ Compo".,., Before the Stol. 01 M ...... PubOe u-. Corm1iooion, Ooc~.' No. 91 _213, Hoed -'<>I"\' 31 . 1992 Subje<' Matter: Pfe>. ,u updated in1ormatioo ",g~ "'" &<MooWI'; 01 i"Iouogurotiog • residential spac. heat oo,,..,.ioo pro<,jfam .. the C"""4I""y"' -. _0<)'.

8 On BehoH 01 T .. ·<-o Electric Cooporotive 01 T ..... Ine. B.""" "'" Pubk lJIiIibe. C.....-01 T ..... , DocIo.et No . 12269, Hoed -'<>I"\' 1993. Subjoect Matter: T .. _l . ' . OSM . _ . and upd.1in<j 01 TEX-U. E""'9Y Ellleiency Pl"".

9 On Behalf 01 T .. ·<-o Electric Cooporotive 01 T .... . Ine. B.""" "'" Pubk lJIilibe. C~ 01 T . .... DocIo.., No. 12269, tied .lui\' 1993 . s..bject M._ R.buftal , .... ''''''y _lin<) 10 TEX-LA'. DSM . c_.

10 On Behalf of H.E. BtJ~ Groce<)' C~y. Before !he Publie lJ!iIties Commission of T . ... , DocIo.., No . 12620. f iled 0_ 17. 19901 . Subje<' Matt .. : Proposed modiI'iealiooo to Central _ and Ugh' DSM Program.

11 On Be/>d 01 Th. CooWon 01 Cities and Tfle City 01 Hoost"". B.Ior. the Pubk U-. eommiooiono1T ..... DocIo.etNo. 12065, tied N~ 15. 1_ . SubjoeetMatte~f>ropoIed ehar>ge. '" H""""" Ughlin<) and Pow ... C~y". OSM IIfOIII*llS

12. On BelloW 01 !he Geor9io Public SoM.., Cornmiuion Staff IRP Adv<nar; T.""" Be""" the GeorQO. PubIie Service Commissioo, Ooe~et NO . 5602--U, lied May 8 , 1995. Subje<' Man..., f>ropoIed modifiealioo. 10 DSM pro<,jfO<tlS IIfOI'OO"d by Geor-g" _ Compo".,. .. Integroted R • ..,...c. Plan Hoed by !he Compart)''' Jooo",,>, 1995

13. On BelloW 01 !he Geor9io Public SoM.., Cornmiuion Staff IRP Adv<nar; T.""" Be""" the GeorQO. PubIie Service Commissioo, Ooe~et NO . 5601_V, lied May 8 , 1995. Subje<' Man..., f>ropoIed roodili .. 1iooo to DSM proQram. proposed by S. """" .... Ele cllic and _ Compony .. ,ntegrated R."""",. PIon filed by the Compony " J • .......,. 1995

14 On Belial 01 the Sam R.ybt.<n G&T Electrie Coope<atiY. , lno. , B.fore 1he Publie u-. Corm1iooion 01 T ..... , Ooek., No . 1. 893, _ Septembef 1995. Subjeet Matter: o<.~ 01 SRG& T Compbn.., with prior C""""" jon <><den relatiog to SRG&Ts DSM ._.

15 On Behall 01 the Sam R.ybt.<n G&T Electrie Coope<atiY., lno. , B.fore 1he Publie UtJibe. Commiooion 01 Te",. , Ooek., No . H69J, I\Ied Jooo",,>, 1996. Sul>jeet M.u..., RebYttoi testimooy relati"tg 10 SRG&T. OSM ._ •.

16 On Behall 01 the Sam R.ybt.<n G&T Electrie Coope<atiY., lno. , B.fore 1he Publie U-. Commission 01 T. ", •• Oo<~et No. H693, flied Mard1 1996. Subjoect M.ttef: S...,ebYttoi testimooy relati"tg 10 SRG&T. OSM ._ •.

17. On BelloW 01 "'" Geor9io Public Servi.., C""""uion Staff IRP Adv<nar; T.""" Be""" the GeorQOa Pubt< Sero/iee Commission, DocIo.et Nos. 63 1 S-U and 6325--U. !\led Apr'i 5, 1996 Subject Matte<: Evaluation 01 Benefh and Coo" 01 R .. idefItiaIload Mor>agemem ProQra m

GO . ............... __ ,"""P._ .......... ·"....""" l.\ariotto, GA """'" 110--<1'-"'00 , ,, TrG---IlMI3OO • _ .• ---.... . . .......... oom

.. _ . .... - IX • -.." • -. ............. . .. ,,"_ , " .... ...... _ ...... _



EXHIBIT 32



EXHIBIT 32

Ridsard F . Spellml111 --mud1 ...... ,ostlO them.

GOS Anoc .. t ••• Inc. .... " .. " 21. On""""1 ol C~. Aga-.st ~ionaI lnte<eonne'~ Bel"", the Stat. ol New YOfl<

PubIi, Serv;.., Comrniaoion. C...., No. ()&. T..[)65(I. Filed JOIlUaIY 9. 2009. Subjee1 Mo_: The p..-pos.e of _ t.sti"oony were "'. ~: 10 p-e..",t the ~. ,ost ef!eC!i .... """" route alema""" to ..... otructioo olthe New y oo. Regional Intefeomect (NYR I)prnjee1 """ 10 """"""Ira .. that _ the m plemento_ olthe IIft>POSOd "",,--root. a ltem.>tr..... "'ere .. rIO

",aI .. cd !or the NYRI ",ojeet.

28. On beho~ of Connecbeut Natural G.u COIJXlf __ • Belo<e the S .. '" 0/ C""""di,ut Department 0/ _ UtIity Cootrd. 00e~e1 No. 00· 12.n6. ned J ..... ....,. 16. 2009. Subjed Matter: The po.oposeo of !his t.O!i"oony ""'" the~: (1) de..me how !he new Conr>e<bcut ~ ...... Gao (CNG) eneill)' effiOen<y PfOIiram. wi! otref>\III>en the p.art">ef$hip with ,uotome<s thr<KIgII .xp.3rlde<l eomrnunicatioo _ ootreach. coo'; ... ", _ the .......

poky ""eoo ragOl<j """'lI)' ellieieney; (2 ) "' . . .. '" an oV1>fView of exioling CNG er>ef1JJ" . lIi<iency PfO'JI"omo; (3) p", ... nl inlorm.tion 00 best ","cti"" nou.ralll'" "'""11"1 . lIi<ienC"/ Pf"9I"amo in _ St. ",. ; (4 )desc_ CNG·. proposal to ."""", """'II)' el!ieienC"/ PfOIiram o!!ering. ; (5) prom. • SlJmmary of prc>p<>Sed bt.d\I<ts, """'lI)' oavng. and oostde<li"ene .. 0/ proposed _ am ofIemg. ; (6 ) deoui>e .... !I'<lg """""' 10 oowon the prc>p<>Sed pro<,j<lII\"Io; (7) presen1 in!olmolion 00 the mpo cl of prc>p<>Sed ~. on ""'_9" use pef eustom ... ; (8 ) describe the r<9"I''''''"I mechanism lor recoYe ,,! of PfOIir. m coot.

29. On behalf 01 the Southern Connecbcut G .. C~Y. Before !he St . .. of C"""",tieut Deportment 0/ PubIi, UtiMy Cootrd. 00e~e1 NoD. 1)8..()3. H . Filed J ..... ary 20. 2009. Subject Matte~ The purposeo 0/ _ l<S!imoo"; """'" the foIIowin<,j: (1) descrk how the ...... So<.<hern Conr>e<bcut G .. Company (SCG)eoer\l)' e!llcieney pro<Jf""" will ~!he p3ftneBhit> with ,uotome<s thr<KIgII exp.3rlde<l eomrnunicatioo _ ootreach. eoooi ... ", _ the .......

poky """,uragOl<j """'lI~ .!!i<ienC"/; (2 ) p,,,,e'" an o ......... iew of .... lin<) SCG """'lI)' . lIi<iency PfO'JI"' ...... ; (3) pre ... nt inlorm.tion 00 best ","cti"" nou.ralll'" "'""11"1 . lIi<ienC"/ Pf"9I"anlO in _ SlOtes; (4 ) deocribe S CG·. prll!>OUIlO .. pond en"'llY ellieienC"/ PfO'JI"am o l!erir>\l' ; (5 ) provide • .......-naryof prc>p<>Sed bt.d\I<". """'lI)' .....-ng. """ ,ostelle<:tiYene .. 0/ proposed _ am ofIemg. ; (6 ) deoui>e .... !I'<lg """""' 10 oowon the prc>p<>Sed pro<,j<lII\"Io; (7) presen1 in!olmolion 00 the m po cl of prc>p<>Sed ~. on ""'_9" use pef eustom ... ; (8 ) describe the '<9""''''''' mechanism lor recoYe ,,! of PfOIir. m coot.

GO . ................ 1nc. ,",.,P._ .,.PIooo· """" """ l.\oriott.o. GI\ """'" n .... ' ... 'oo , .. mI--'t"'"'""'" • _ .• _.onCh<h .. _ ... ....., .. -..... -..." . --. " . -- .... .. --. , .. "'-." .......... -.-....


Rankings of US Electric Utilities by kWh Savings as Percent of Sales

Exhibit RFS-5 Page 1 of 6

Exhibit RFS - 5: Ranking of FEECA Utilities by Incremental Annual kWh Savings as Percent of Sales

Figure 1: Rankings of US Electric Utilities as a % of Annual kWh Sales Saved with Energy Efficiency Programs in 2007

0.00%

0.50%

1.00%

1.50%

2.00%

2.50%

3.00%

3.50%

4.00%

1

# 107: Florida Power and Light

133: Progress Energy Florida

#146: Gulf Power Company

# 154: JEA

# 158: Tampa Electric Company

# 177: Florida Public Utilities Company

Note: Based on incremental annual kWh Savings from Energy Efficiency Programs in 2007 for each utility from the US EIA Form 861 Data

Note: Orlando Utility Company did not report savings for 2007.

EXHIBIT 32




Figure 2: Rankings of US Electric Utilities as a % of Annual kWh Sales Saved with Energy Efficiency Programs in 2006

0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%

5.00%

6.00%

7.00%

8.00%

9.00%

1

# 132: JEA#133: Gulf Power Company

# 135: Progress Energy

# 139: Tampa Electric

#89: Florida Power and Light

Note: Based on incremental annual kWh Savings from Energy Efficiency Programs in 2006 for each utility from the US EIA Form 861 Database

Note: Orlando Utility Company and Florida Public Utilities Company did not report savings for 2006.

EXHIBIT 32




0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

0.03

0.035

0.04

0.045

#80: Gulf Pow er Company

#88: Florida Pow er and Light Company

#127: Tampa Electric Company

#136: Progress Enegy Florida

#145: Florida Public Utilities Commission

Figure 3: Rankings of US Electric Utilities as a % ofAnnual kWh Sales Saved w ith Energy Eff iciency Programs in 2005

Note: Based on incremental annual kWh Savings from Energy Efficiency Programs in 2005 for each utility from the US EIA Form 861

Note: Orlando Utility Company and JEA did not report savings for 2005.

EXHIBIT 32




Figure 4: Top Twenty Utilities Ranked by Annual 2007 Energy Savings as a Percentage of Annual kWh Sales

Utility Code Rank Utility Name State

2007 Energy Efficiency Savings (kWh) Incremental

2007 Annual Retail kWh

Sales

Annual 2007 Energy Efficiency Savings as a % of Annual kWh Sales

2182 1 City of Breckenridge CO 1,462,000 42,336,000 3.45% 7303 2 Glidden Rural Electric Coop IA 2,606,000 101,177,000 2.58% 2548 3 Burlington City of VT 9,276,000 364,586,000 2.54%

14328 4 Pacific Gas & Electric Co CA 1,662,875,000 79,450,903,000 2.09% 20806 5 City of Windom MN 1,480,000 71,208,000 2.08% 17609 6 Southern California Edison Co CA 1,551,503,000 79,505,231,000 1.95%

4176 7 Connecticut Light & Power Co CT 281,367,000 16,054,317,000 1.75% 11804 8 Massachusetts Electric Co MA 195,357,000 12,543,637,000 1.56% 19497 9 United Illuminating Co CT 86,011,000 5,917,448,000 1.45% 10768 10 Laurens Electric Coop, Inc SC 12,519,000 996,410,000 1.26% 20455 11 Western Massachusetts Elec Co MA 25,873,000 2,098,952,000 1.23% 16181 12 Rochester Public Utilities NY 15,815,000 1,307,897,000 1.21% 12312 13 Merced Irrigation District CA 4,709,000 422,674,000 1.11%

6374 14 Fitchburg Gas & Elec Light Co NH 3,049,000 276,004,000 1.10% 405 15 City of Alta IA 166,000 15,587,000 1.06%

24590 16 Unitil Energy Systems CT 9,983,000 941,779,000 1.06% 15500 17 Puget Sound Energy Inc WA 222,310,000 21,626,537,000 1.03%

1015 18 Austin Energy TX 117,649,000 11,546,977,000 1.02% 6022 19 Eugene City of OR 26,914,000 2,728,684,000 0.99%

15776 20 Reedy Creek Improvement Dist FL 11,607,000 1,183,620,000 0.98% Weighted Average Annual kWh Savings as a Percent of Annual Retail kWh Sales 4,230,924,000 236,012,344,000 1.79%

EXHIBIT 32






2006 Energy Effciency Savings (kWh) Incremental

2006 Annual Retail kWh Sales

Annual 2006 Energy

Efficiency Savings as a % of Annual kWh

Sales 14534 1 City of Pasadena CA 96,632,000 1,229,963,000 7.86%

7303 2 Glidden Rural Electric Coop IA 2,243,000 98,493,000 2.28% 11804 3 Massachusetts Electric Co MA 256,956,000 12,990,328,000 1.98% 20455 4 Western Massachusetts Elec Co MA 43,298,000 2,276,376,000 1.90%

2548 5 Burlington City of VT 6,604,000 359,268,000 1.84% 2182 6 City of Breckenridge CO 682,000 40,123,000 1.70%

12312 7 Merced Irrigation District CA 5,451,000 375,279,000 1.45% 13214 8 Narragansett Electric Co RI 96,048,000 6,707,930,000 1.43% 10768 9 Laurens Electric Coop, Inc SC 12,433,000 951,468,000 1.31% 19497 10 United Illuminating Co CT 76,242,000 5,919,000,000 1.29%

4176 11 Connecticut Light & Power Co CT 264,916,000 22,109,070,000 1.20% 14328 12 Pacific Gas & Electric Co CA 779,603,000 76,817,131,000 1.01% 17609 13 Southern California Edison Co CA 787,563,000 78,863,143,000 1.00%

3477 14 Chicopee City of MA 4,438,000 458,566,000 0.97% 6374 15 Fitchburg Gas & Elec Light Co NH 2,548,000 283,887,000 0.90%

24590 16 Unitil Energy Systems NH 9,210,000 1,048,943,000 0.88% 9417 17 Interstate Power and Light Co IA 134,177,000 16,026,131,000 0.84%

16181 18 Rochester Public Utilities MN 10,417,000 1,266,716,000 0.82% 17166 19 Sierra Pacific Power Co NV 69,404,000 8,726,238,000 0.80% 15500 20 Puget Sound Energy Inc WA 166,254,000 21,091,533,000 0.79%

Weighted Average Annual kWh Savings as a Percent of Annual Retail kWh Sales 2,562,817,000 236,548,053,000 1.08%

EXHIBIT 32






2005 Energy Efficiency

Savings (kWh) Incremental

2005 Annual retail kWh Sales

Annual 2005 Energy

Efficiency Savings as a % of Annual kWh

Sales 10768 1 Laurens Electric Coop, Inc SC 35,951,000 924,781,000 3.89% 7303 2 Glidden Rural Electric Coop IA 2,008,000 89,156,000 2.25%

17609 3 Southern California Edison Co CA 1,239,175,000 75,301,581,000 1.65% 14328 4 Pacific Gas & Electric Co CA 1,191,221,000 72,727,705,000 1.64% 12647 5 Minnesota Power Inc MN 137,033,000 9,051,942,000 1.51% 1998 6 Boston Edison Co MA 160,406,000 10,888,695,000 1.47% 4089 7 Commonwealth Electric Co MA 31,760,000 2,210,570,000 1.44%

21013 8 City of Worthington MN 2,634,000 186,896,000 1.41% 19497 9 United Illuminating Co CT 80,931,000 6,106,000,000 1.33% 20455 10 Western Massachusetts Elec Co MA 40,238,000 3,113,996,000 1.29% 11804 11 Massachusetts Electric Co MA 199,421,000 15,491,461,000 1.29% 6374 12 Fitchburg Gas & Elec Light Co NH 3,986,000 332,612,000 1.20% 1015 13 Austin Energy TX 111,000,000 10,997,914,000 1.01% 4176 14 Connecticut Light & Power Co CT 236,818,000 24,125,638,000 0.98%

13214 15 Narragansett Electric Co RI 66,093,000 7,115,094,000 0.93% 12312 16 Merced Irrigation District CA 2,905,000 345,224,000 0.84% 15500 17 Puget Sound Energy Inc WA 171,390,000 20,465,557,000 0.84% 6022 18 Eugene City of OR 22,030,000 2,663,174,000 0.83% 2886 19 Cambridge Electric Light Co MA 8,845,000 1,117,811,000 0.79%

13441 20 New Hampshire Elec Coop Inc NH 5,878,000 747,260,000 0.79% Weighted Average Annual kWh Savings as a Percent of Annual Retail kWh Sales 3,749,723,000 264,003,067,000 1.42%

EXHIBIT 32