ATTACHMENT 5

DATA REQUESTS AND RESPONSES

STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, Governor



PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

505 VAN NESS AVENUE

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298

Insert Date

Jody W. Moore

President

Ecos Consulting

580 E Arrow Highway, Suite E

San Dimas, CA 91773

moore@ecosconsulting.com

This correspondence is with respect to the Ecos Consulting program proposal entitled, "Litevend." We are requesting the following additional information regarding your proposal:

A complete and itemized " Program Budget Summary" and "Program Budget Detail" with a one-to-one connection between the two. To be more specific please provide these two budget sheets where the various total lines from the "Budget Detail" sheet correspond with their associated budget lines in the "Budget Summary" sheet. (Eg Program Budget Detail, Total Labor amount = Program Budget Summary, Labor amount).

A response should be provided via e-mail, by noon on Monday, March 18, 2002. Please send your response to ru4@cpuc.ca.gov. If you wish to mail a hard copy as well, please use the address listed in the above letterhead, Attn: Ariana Merlino.

Thanking you in advance for your prompt response,

Energy Division Staff

CPUC

From: My Ton [mton@ecosconsulting.com]

Sent: Monday, March 25, 2002 11:49 AM

To: ru4@cpuc.ca.gov

Cc: srt@cpuc.ca.gov; pfreedman@ecosconsulting.com

Subject: Ecos' response on "LiteVend" budget for Ariana Merlino

Importance: High

Dear Ariana,

Thank you for the opportunity to clarify the budget for the LiteVend

program. We appreciate your patience in this matter.

Attached is a spreadsheet that shows the connections between the Program

Budget Summary and the Program Budget Details. This document includes the

individual Utility Service Territory budgets from which the final "Program

Budget Detail" spreadsheet was created.

Please note that some of the numbers differ slightly between the "Program

Budget Summary and "Program Budget Detail" documents. This is due to

rounding and working with percentages in the linked spreadsheets in the

workbook. As you are aware, we consider the financial information contained

within the workbook "business confidential" and are requesting you to treat

it as such.

If you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact me

at 503-525-2700 ext. 104 or mton@ecosconsulting.com

<mailto:mton@ecosconsulting.com>. If you would also use my name and contact

information for any additional contact the CPUC may have with our office

regarding this proposal as well as others submitted by Ecos Consulting, it

will help to expedite matters while others in our office are on travel.

Thank you,

My K. Ton

Principal

My K. Ton

Ecos Consulting

208 SW Stark St. Suite 400

Portland, OR 97204

503.525.2700 x 104

503.525.4800 Fax

www.ecosconsulting.com




STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, Governor



PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

505 VAN NESS AVENUE

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298

Insert Date

Joy Yamagata

San Diego Gas and Electric Company

101 Ash Street

San Diego, CA 92101-3017

619-696-4325

jyamagata@sempra.com

Ms. Yamagata:

This correspondence is with respect to SDG&E's program proposal entitled, "Local Nonresidential Retrofit EZ Turnkey." Please provide the following information:

Itemization of projected financial incentives - listed as a line item in the amount of $517,830 in the Budget Summary

A response should be provided via e-mail, by noon on Monday, March 18, 2002. Please send your response to ru4@cpuc.ca.gov. If you wish to mail a hard copy as well, please use the address listed in the above letterhead, Attn: Ariana Merlino.

Thanking you in advance for your prompt response,

Energy Division Staff

CPUC

STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, Governor



PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

505 VAN NESS AVENUE

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298

Insert Date

Mark Gutheinz

Chief, Plant, Energy and Utilities

California State University - Long Beach

401 Golden Shore

Long Beach, CA 90802-4219

562-951-4122

mgutheinz@calstate.edu

Dear Mr. Gutheinz:

This correspondence is with respect to California State University Chancellor's Office Energy Efficiency Program. We are requesting the following additional information regarding your proposal:

Complete, itemized budget including all direct implementation costs. The budget should be separated by utility territory as well as by university within each territory. Please also include the expected contribution amount from the universities participating in the program.

A response should be provided via e-mail, by noon on Monday, March 18, 2002. Please send your response to ru4@cpuc.ca.gov. If you wish to mail a hard copy as well, please use the address listed in the above letterhead, Attn: Ariana Merlino.

Thanking you in advance for your prompt response,

Energy Division Staff

CPUC

March 18, 2002

Ariana Merlino

California Public Utilities Commission

Energy Division

505 Van Ness Avenue

San Francisco, CA 94102

Dear Ms. Merlino:

In response to your March 11, 2002 letter to Mark Gutheinz requesting additional information on California State University's ("CSU") energy efficiency program, Grueneich Resource Advocates, on behalf of CSU, submits the following documents, which we believe provide all the information you requested:

1. CSU Energy Efficiency Cost Proposal (Word table format)

2. CSU Cost Allocation by Utility and Campus (Excel spreadsheet)

3. CSU In-Kind Services Contribution (Excel spreadsheet)

The CSU Energy Efficiency Cost Proposal table contains program cost information corresponding to the amount of funding that CSU is requesting from the California Public Utilities Commission ("CPUC"), as well as the corresponding amount that would be applied in each UDC's territory. Additional program costs to be borne by CSU (and therefore not reflected in this table) include payment of the 5% Administration Fee to the UDCs¹ and in-kind services provided by the campuses and the CSU Chancellor's Office to cover site inspection, installation, and M&V services, as well as overall project and contract management. These costs are identified in the spreadsheet entitled CSU Cost Allocation by Utility and Campus. Campus costs are estimated to be 15% of the amount being requested from the CPUC. This spreadsheet table also contains the breakdown in direct implementation costs by campus as well as by UDC service territory. A third spreadsheet, called CSU In-Kind Services Contribution, contains the assumptions and calculations used to derive the value of CSU's in-kind services.

CSU appreciates the opportunity to provide this addendum to our energy efficiency proposal. If you have any questions please contact Mark Gutheinz or Clyde Murley.

Sincerely,

Clyde Murley

STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, Governor



PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

505 VAN NESS AVENUE

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298

Insert Date

Kurt J Kammerer

Executive Director

San Diego Regional Energy Office

401 B Street, Suite 800

San Diego, CA 92101

kkam@sdenergy.org

Mr. Kammerer:

This request is with respect to the following program proposals submitted by The San Diego Regional Energy Office (SDREO):

1. San Diego Public Agency and Technical Support Program

2. San Diego Regional Energy Resource and Education Center

3. San Diego Region Cool Communities Shade Tree Program

4. Sand Diego Region Agriculture, Water, and Energy Program

5. San Diego K-12 Energy Education Program

Please provide the following information for the above programs:

1. San Diego Public Agency and Technical Support Program.

· A complete and itemized budget for the program. Please be as specific as possible in your itemization of all budget areas including labor and subcontractor costs.

2. San Diego Regional Energy Resource and Education Center.

· A complete and itemized budget for the program. Please be as specific as possible in your itemization of all budget areas including labor and subcontractor costs.

· Please indicate how much joint funding would be provided by SDREO or any other agencies beyond the PGC funds for this program.

· Please provide the details of the funding for the building that would be used for the San Diego Region Energy Resource and Education Center. Please include in this funding detail the nature of the building acquisition (lease/purchase), and the amount and source of funding for the SDREO offices that would possibly be housed in the building.

3. San Diego Region Cool Communities Shade Tree Program.

· A complete and itemized budget for the program. Please be as specific as possible in your itemization of all budget areas including the material cost per tree. Please also break out the budget based on first year and second year expenses.

4. San Diego Region Agriculture, Water, and Energy Program.

· A complete and itemized budget for the program. Please be as specific as possible in your itemization of all budget areas.

· Please segregate the complete and itemized budget into the three program target areas (Agriculture, Water Agencies, High Water Volume Users).

5. San Diego K-12 Energy Education Program.

· A complete and itemized budget for the program. Please be as specific as possible in your itemization of all budget areas including labor and subcontractor costs.

A response should be provided via e-mail, by noon on Monday, March 18, 2002. Please send your response to ru4@cpuc.ca.gov. If you wish to mail a hard copy as well, please use the address listed in the above letterhead, Attn: Ariana Merlino.

Thanking you in advance for your prompt response,

Energy Division Staff

CPUC

March 19, 2002

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

505 VAN NESS AVENUE

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298

Attn: Ariana Merlino

Email: ru4@cpuc.ca.gov

Dear Ms. Merlino:

This letter is in response to your data request dated March 11, 2002 regarding the program proposals submitted by The San Diego Regional Energy Office (SDREO).

Correction to SDREO Response dated March 18, 2002: General Changes to Each Budget

Year-one originally assumed a 9-month program instead of 8 month (April - Dec 2002). This lowers labor cost and subcontract cost in year one.

San Diego Regional Energy Resource and Education Center (ERC)

SDREO appreciates this opportunity to clarify some of the costs estimated in our original submission. SDREO did not spend a lot of resources on planning the ERC, and subsequenbtly, as we looked closer at costs were able to improve our costs significantly. If selected, we belive there will be additional significant savings that can be achieved through a) integrating IOU and non-IOU information programs into a single program and b) considering commiting to a longer-term education program.

Other programs that may provide synergistic staff and resource to the ERC are as follows:

Program	Annual Funding Level (estimated)	Current Staff	Anticipated Staff (2002-2003)
Regional Energy Planning and Policy Development (Local funding)	$150,000	0.5	1.5
Energy Efficiency Incentive Program Management: Cool Roofs (CEC)	($2,000,000)**	1.5	0.0
Self-Generation Incentive Program Management (CPUC)	$15,500,000	2.9	2.9
Demand Response Program Management (CPUC)	($2,000,000)**	2.7	1.0
Public Agency Technical Assistance (CPUC- Proposed)	$500,000	1.0	2.0
Water and Wastewater Technical Assistance (CPUC- Proposed)	$500,000	0.0	1.0
Renewable Energy Program Management (DOE/CEC)	$75,000	1.0	1.0
Other Energy Efficiency Programs (CPUC- Proposed)	$450,000	0.0	2.5
K-12 Energy Education (CPUC Proposed)	$220,000	0.0	0.8

If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (619) 595-5630 or email kkam@sdenergy.org.

Regards,



Kurt J Kammerer

Executive Director

San Diego Regional Energy Office

401 B Street, Suite 800

San Diego, CA 92101

kkam@sdenergy.org

Attachment A: Detail Budget: San Diego Regional Energy Resource and Education Center (ERC)

LABOR DETAIL (For internal Planning Use)	2002	2003	Total	Notes
Program Director	$ 9,750.00	$ 13,000.00	$ 22,750.00
Assistant Director	$ 42,120.00	$ 56,160.00	$ 98,280.00
Senior Program Manager	$ -	$ -	$ -
Program Manager	$ 46,800.00	$ 62,400.00	$ 109,200.00
Project Manager	$ 46,800.00	$ 62,400.00	$ 109,200.00
Senior Project Engineer	$ 10,920.00	$ 14,560.00	$ 25,480.00
Project Engineer	$ 78,000.00	$ 104,000.00	$ 182,000.00
Admin/ Project Assistant	$ 62,400.00	$ 83,200.00	$ 145,600.00
Other	$ -	$ -	$ -
Subtotal	$ 296,790.00	$ 395,720.00	$ 692,510.00	3
OTHER DIRECT COSTS
Office Supplies	$ 5,000.00	$ 4,500.00	$ 9,500.00
Facility	$ 38,500.00	$ 66,000.00	$ 104,500.00	4
Multimedia Equipment	$ 44,136.90	$ 1,000.00	$ 45,136.90	5
Office Equipment/ Furniture	$ 45,000.00	$ -	$ 45,000.00	6
Diagnostic Tools	$ 44,760.00	$ 2,500.00	$ 47,260.00	7
Education/ Library Materials	$ 65,000.00	$ 12,000.00	$ 77,000.00	8
Exhibits	$ 125,000.00	$ 25,000.00	$ 150,000.00	9
IT Support	$ 35,000.00	$ 6,500.00	$ 41,500.00	10
Other	$ -	$ -	$ -
Subtotal	$ 402,396.90	$ 117,500.00	$ 519,896.90
CONTRACT SERVICES
Contractor - Facility Improvements	$ 87,500.00	$ -	$ 87,500.00	11
Contractor - Program Development	$ 125,000.00		$ 125,000.00	12
Contractor - Education Programs	$ 75,000.00	$ 65,000.00	$ 140,000.00	13
Subtotal	$ 287,500.00	$ 65,000.00	$ 352,500.00
Program Budget for CPUC Proposal
Item	2002	2003	Total
Administrative Costs
Labor	296,790	395,720	692,510
Benefits	Note 1	Note 1	Note 1
Overhead	Note 1	Note 1	Note 1
Travel costs	2,400	1,800	4,200
Reporting costs	Note 2	Note 2	Note 2
Materials and Handling	402,397	117,500	519,897
General and Administrative costs	Note 1	Note 1	Note 1
Subcontractor costs	287,500	65,000	352,500
Subtotal	989,087	580,020	1,569,107
Marketing/Advertising/Outreach costs
Workshops	-	-	-
Brochures	35,000	35,000	70,000
Advertising	65,000	12,000	77,000
Web site	6,500	2,500	9,000
Subtotal	106,500	49,500	156,000
Direct Implementation Costs
Financial Incentives	-	-	-
Installation costs	-	-	-
Activity costs	-	-	-
Subtotal	-	-	-
Evaluation Measurement and Verification Costs	50,000	30,000	80,000
Total SDREO Budget	1,145,587	659,520	1,805,107
IOU Administration Fee (assumes 5%)	57,279	32,976	90,255
Total Program Budget	1,202,866	692,496	1,895,362

Additional Notes:

3. Labor costs assume this program funded independent of other proposed PGC-EE programs. If other are funded, these costs will likely be reduce by 10-25%.

4. First year facility costs (lease or sub-lease payments) are estimated lower since estimated for 7 months assuming contract awarded 4/1/02 and occupy space 6/1/02. Size increased slightly to 2,500 sq-ft.


5. Mulitmedia Equipment to support ERC operations as follows:

ERC EQUIPMENT			Qty	Estimated Costs	Total
Powerpoint/Video Projector			2	$ 4,379.00	$ 9,633.80
Screen (Projector)				$ 250.00	$ -
Electronic Whiteboard			2	$ 599.00	$ 1,317.80
Overhead projector (Transparencies)			1	$ 300.00	$ 330.00
Projector Stand			2	$ 169.00	$ 371.80
3 in 1 Stand			1	$ 189.00	$ 207.90
3 in 1 Printer/Fax/Scanner			2	$ 799.00	$ 1,757.80
Printer			2	$ 599.00	$ 1,317.80
Copier			1	$ 400.00	$ 440.00
Computer Workstations			12	$ 1,800.00	$23,760.00
Miscellaneous/Contingency					5000
		Total			$44,136.90

6. Estimated furniture costs are as follows (Second year costs are estimates are for repairs, replacements):

ERC FURNITURE			Qty	Estimated Costs
Telecommunications wiring			1	$ 7,500.00
Telecommunications Equipment			1	$ 18,000
Workstation			6	$ 3,500
Office			2	$ 5,500
Lobby/ Info area				$ 5,000
Library				$ 5,500
		Total		$ 45,000

7. Diagnostic tools costs are for tool loan program. See Attachment B for listing of tools that we anticipate having on stock and available.


8. Library materials are various books, CDs, interactive training, periodicals. Detail list not available. This is an estimate and not to exceed figure only.

9. Exhibits- Assumes initially 15 exhibits at approximately average $8,000 per exhibit. Subsequent year would upgrade or replace 3-4 exhibits with new technologies.


10. IT Support - Costs are for wiring Computer-based Training Workstations 300 hours at $100 per hour plus miscellaneous interconnection equipment costs. Second year costs are for maintenance and improvements. Ongoing costs will likely be lower once system operational.


11. Facility Improvements- Initial estimate was too conservative. Revised estimate is at $35 psf, for 2500 sq-ft. Actual costs are likely to be much lower depending on whether facility has pre-existing improvements. Improvement costs may be avoided altogether with longer-term lease, which is not possible due to term of contract (18 months). This is a not to exceed figure.

12. Program Development- Cost estimate is for consultant to assist with planning, designing and implementing ERC. Initial estimate was overly conservative. New estimate based on 1000 hours at $125 per hour and SDREO staff assuming some of the anticipated workload.

13. Education Programs- Initial estimates were too conservative. New estimates based on developing 15 online, flash-based educational programs at an average of $4000 per program. Once developed, standard educational programs can be made available statewide with slight modifications for local regions. Additional costs for support of 10 imported training sessions at estimate $1500 per session. Second year costs continue imported training and expand/improve online training.

Attachment B: ERC Tool Lending Service Inventory

Occupancy Sensor
Model No. 49-425
2.5 volt output occupancy sensor. Sensor uses infrared detection and the LED indicates activation of sensor. Capacitor allows voltage to degrade slowly over time indicating exact time of occupancy. Operates with 2.5 volt DC output in chime mode.

$30-$200

Minolta Illuminance Meter
Model No. T-1H
Measures: Illuminance/Light
Hand-held illuminance meter with LCD display and detachable sensor. Cosine-corrected sensor with output in lux or footcandles. Meter self calibrates before use and a hold button freezes the displayed illuminance value. Range: 0.1 to 999,000 lux

$120

LeakMaster Ultrasound Detector
Model No. 101
Measures: Flow
Ultrasound detector for leaks, friction and electrical discharge. For use with compressed air, steam, vacuum, process gasses and refrigeration gasses.

$200-$1000

E. Vernon Hill Borozin Smoke Gun or smoke generators or fog machine
Model No. 17-023
Measures: Air movement
Hand-held powder gun for studying air movement. Device can be used to analyze diffusers in mechanical systems and slow-moving air currents.

$3 for smoke generators, $150 for smoke gun and $500 for fog machine.

Raytek Raynger Infrared Thermometer
Model No. MX4
Measures: Temperature
Infrared thermometer measures temperatures from -30°C to 900°C. Accuracy is +/- 1%. Digital display, laser target, data logging capability.

$300 - $1000

Flue gas analyzer
Model No. PCO2500/3500
Measures: O2, CO, NO, Gas & Ambient Temps, Stack Draft
The GA-20 is a multifunctional gas analyzer used in measuring boiler combustion gases

$1000-$7000

Pressure Meter
Model No. PDM204
Measures: Differential, static and gauge pressure.
Pressure meter with zeroing function, fast or slow response and output in inches of water or kilaPascal. Maximum pressure for meter is 7 kPa (19.99 in H₂O).

$450

Electronic Balometer
Model No. amp150
Measures: Air flow
The Alnor balometer is designed to measure supply or exhaust airflow from HVAC diffusers and grilles. The hood can be reconfigured for several standard size diffusers: 2'x2', 1'x4', 2'x4' and 4'x4'. The meter has an LCD readout and a range from 50 to 2000 cfm

$1900-$2100

Hand Tachometer
Model No. 82682-G
Measures: RPM
Dial-face tachometer that reads revolutions per minute. Operates in a clockwise or counterclockwise mode.

$300-$750

Temp/RH/Air Velocity Meter
Model No. 637-0000
Measures: Temperature, relative humidity, air velocity.
The Barnant Tri-Sense is a hand-held instrument, which provides accurate measurements of temperature, air velocity, and relative humidity. It is used with either the temp/RH probe (model 637-0050) or the air velocity/temp probe (model 637-0062).

$300-$600

Inframetrics Infrared Camera
Model No. 760
Measures: Surface temperature/long wave infrared radiation
Infrared camera produces a high resolution LCD thermal image of the long wave radiation emitted from objects between -20 and 400o C (-4 to 752o F). Temperature scale can be adjusted to one of six ranges. Images can be routed to a VCR or saved to a disk.

$15,000

Environmental Instrument
Model No. mpm500e
Measures: Flow/Humidity/Indoor Air Quality/Pressure/Temperature
This kit includes a variety of sensors that are compatible with a single meter. The sensors include a hot-wire anemometer, a vane anemometer, a fast-response relative humidity probe, an immersion temperature probe, a surface temperature probe, a tachometer and a differential pressure probe. Average, minimum and maximum values are reported and a continuous output signal can be sent to data loggers.

$450

Ultrasonic flowmeter

Measures fluid velocities without ever touching the fluid.

$800

 
Fluke True RMS Clamp Meter
Model No. 33
Measures: Current/Frequency
True RMS current meter with a maximum range of 700 amps. Model has a min/max feature, measures crest factor and frequency and has a LCD display.

$200

Powersight Energy Analyzer
Model No. PS-3000
Measures:Voltage, current, power, energy, PF, harmonics.
True RMS energy analyzer with 1000 amp current probes and voltage references for 3 phase loads. Default setup collects data on 59 measurement parameters with storage capacity for 946 readings. Reading verification with LCD display and button interface.

$500-$1500

Hobo RH/Temp/Light/External
Model No. H08-004-02
Measures:Relative Humidity, temperature, light level & external voltage
This multichannel logger can simultaneously record temperature, relative humidity, light levels and a 2.5VDC input signal. The logger can record 7943 readings, uses the standard Boxcar software, has a programmable launch feature and a blinking LED when logging.

$200

Hobo Volt W/ Phono Jack
Model No. hobo volt (HV)
Measures:2.5 VDC input signal
Logger receives a 2.5 volt DC input signal from independent sensors and transducers. This signal is accurate to +-10mV. The logger can store 1800 readings in its nonvolatile memory. Blinking led confirms operation.

$200

Hobo Motor On/Off Logger
Model No. H06-003-02 & H06-004-02
Measures: Motor status
Stand-alone logger detects vibration or AC-field to determine the ON or OFF status of motorized equipment. Can record 2000 state changes with a time resolution of 0.5 seconds. Blinking led confirms operation. Programmable launch time.

$200

Elite Pro Logger
Model No. Elite Pro
Measures: Power/Energy/Data logger
Recording poly phase power meter with 4 integrated voltage references. 30K memory. Uses 333mV CTs.

$500

Attachment A: Detail Budget: San Diego Direct Install Commercial Program (SD-DISC)

Year 1		Program Set-up		Marketing & Outrearch		Proposal Development		Contractor Coord. And Inspections		Mgmt and Tracking		Evaluation		Total
Personnel	Rate	Hours	Dollars	Hours	Dollars	Hours	Dollars	Hours	Dollars	Hours	Dollars	Hours	Dollars	Hours	Dollars
SDREO
Executive Director	$135	21	$2,873	8	$1,080	0	$0	0	$0	48	$6,480	0	$0	77	$10,433
Program Manager	$90	26	$2,370	39.6	$3,564	39.6	$3,564	39.6	$3,564	59.4	$5,346	0	$0	204.534	$18,408
Field Coordinator/Engineer	$70	32	$2,234	117	$8,190	144	$10,080	102	$7,140	72	$5,040	0	$0	466.92	$32,684
SDREO Labor		80	$7,477	164.6	$12,834	183.6	$13,644	141.6	$10,704	179.4	$16,866	0	$0	748.734	$61,525
XENERGY
Principal	$175	21	$3,724	8	$1,400	0	$0	0	$0	48		0	$0	77	$5,124
Project Manager	$135	53	$7,218	80.4	$10,854	80.4	$10,854	80.4	$10,854	120.6	$16,281	0	$0	415.266	$56,061
Engineer	$100	37	$3,724	0	$0	126	$12,600	126	$12,600	0	$0	0	$0	289.24	$28,924
Analyst	$80	37	$2,979	63	$5,040	0	$0	0	$0	168	$13,440	0	$0	268.24	$21,459
Field staff	$50	0	$0	810	$40,500	810	$40,500	432	$21,600	0	$0	0	$0	2052	$102,600
Tech Support	$50	53	$2,660	120	$6,000	0	$0	0	$0	0	$0	0	$0	173.2	$8,660
Support	$30	53	$1,596	80	$2,400	80	$2,400	80	$2,400	80	$2,400	0	$0	373.2	$11,196
XENERGY Labor		255.6	$21,901	1161.4	$66,194	1096.4	$66,354	718.4	$47,454	416.6	$32,121	0	$0	3648.426	$234,024
Travel			$200		$1,800		$1,200		$600		$0				$3,800
Material			$0		$5,000		$0		$0		$0				$5,000
Misc.			$500		$300		$300		$300		$300				$1,700
Total Cost Y1			$30,078		$86,128		$81,498		$59,058		$49,287		$0		$306,049
Year 2		Program Set-up		Marketing & Outrearch		Proposal Development		Contractor Coord. And Inspections		Mgmt and Tracking		Evaluation		Total
Personnel	Rate	Hours	Dollars	Hours	Dollars	Hours	Dollars	Hours	Dollars	Hours	Dollars	Hours	Dollars	Hours	Dollars
SDREO
Executive Director	$135	0	$0	12	$1,620	0	$0	0	$0	60	$8,100	24	$3,240	96	$12,960
Program Manager	$90	0	$0	52.8	$4,752	52.8	$4,752	26.4	$2,376	79.2	$7,128	0	$0	211.2	$19,008
Field Coordinator/Engineer	$70	0	$0	156	$10,920	192	$13,440	136	$9,520	96	$6,720	0	$0	580	$40,600
SDREO Labor		0	$0	220.8	$17,292	244.8	$18,192	162.4	$11,896	235.2	$21,948	24	$3,240	887.2	$72,568
XENERGY
Principal	$175	0	$0	12	$2,100	0	$0	0	$0	60	$10,500	48	$8,400	120	$21,000
Project Manager	$135	0	$0	107.2	$14,472	107.2	$14,472	53.6	$7,236	160.8	$21,708	160	$21,600	588.8	$79,488
Engineer	$100	0	$0	0	$0	168	$16,800	168	$16,800	0	$0	200	$20,000	536	$53,600
Analyst	$80	0	$0	84	$6,720	0	$0	0	$0	224	$17,920	180	$14,400	488	$39,040
Field staff	$50	0	$0	1080	$54,000	1080	$54,000	576	$28,800	0	$0	300	$15,000	3036	$151,800
Tech Support	$50	0	$0	160	$8,000	0	$0	0	$0	0	$0	0	$0	160	$8,000
Support	$30	0	$0	80	$2,400	0	$0	0	$0	120	$3,600	79	$2,360	278.65	$8,360
XENERGY Labor		0	$0	1523.2	$87,692	1355.2	$85,272	797.6	$52,836	564.8	$53,728	966.65	$81,760	5207.45	$361,288
Travel					$2,400		$1,600		$800		$0		$800		$5,600
Materials					$5,000		$0		$0		$0		$0		$5,000
Misc.					$400		$400		$400		$400		$400		$2,000
Total Cost Y2			$0		$112,784		$105,464		$65,932		$76,076		$86,200		$446,456
Total Cost			$30,078		$198,912		$186,962		$124,990		$125,363		$86,200		$752,505

Attachment B: Revised Summary Budget: San Diego Direct Install Commercial Program (SD-DISC)

Item	First Year Cost	Second Year Cost	Total Cost
Administrative Costs
Labor	$136,523	$140,408	$276,931
Travel costs	$800	$800	$1,600
Materials and Handling	$0	$0	$0
Miscellaneous	$1,100	$800	$1,900
Marketing and Outreach Cost
Labor	$159,026	$208,448	$367,474
Travel costs	$3,000	$4,000	$7,000
Materials and Handling	$5,000	$5,000	$10,000
Miscellaneous	$600	$800	$1,400
Direct Implementation Costs
Incentives
6,400 CFL @ $15	$38,400	$57,600	$96,000
32,000 Light Fixture Upgrades @ $30	$384,000	$576,000	$960,000
640 Light Controls @ 37.50	$9,600	$14,400	$24,000
32 Economizer Controls @ $900	$11,520	$17,280	$28,800
32 Window Film Projects @ $563	$7,206	$10,810	$18,016
32 Prog. Thermostats @ $75	$960	$1,440	$2,400
200,000 Annual kWh of Custom Savings @ $0.225	$18,000	$27,000	$45,000
20,000 Annual Therms of Custom Savings @1.125	$9,000	$13,500	$22,500
Evaluation, Measurement and Verification Costs
Labor	$0	$85,000	$85,000
Travel costs	$0	$800	$800
Materials and Handling	$0	$0	$0
Miscellaneous	$0	$400	$400
Other Costs
	$0	$0	$0
TOTAL BUDGET	$784,736	$1,164,485	$1,949,221
Utility Administrative Fee @ 5%			$97,461
Total Amount Including Fee			$2,046,682

April 2, 2002

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

505 VAN NESS AVENUE

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298

Attn: Ariana Merlino

Email: ru4@cpuc.ca.gov

Dear Ms. Merlino:

This letter is in response to your data request dated March 29, 2002 regarding the San Diego Direct Install Commercial Program proposal submitted by The San Diego Regional Energy Office (SDREO).

The revised budget consistent with the re-submitted budgets provided in response to your Data Request dated March 11, 2002 is found as Attachment A.

With regard to the second question: SDREO apologizes for the problem with formatting of Section 9: Budget Detail. The 7th line should read "200,000 Annual kWh of Custom Savings @ $0.225" and the next line should read "20,000 Annual Therms of Custom Savings @$1.125." These are the same items listed in the bottom two rows in the cost-effectiveness spreadsheet.

A revised Summary Budget can be found as Attachment B. A small error was found I the Miscellaneous M&V costs that reduced the line item from $1,179 to $400.

If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (619) 595-5630 or email kkam@sdenergy.org.

Regards,



Kurt J Kammerer

Executive Director

San Diego Regional Energy Office

401 B Street, Suite 800

San Diego, CA 92101

kkam@sdenergy.org

STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, Governor



PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

505 VAN NESS AVENUE

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298

March 11, 2002

Merrilee Harrigan

Senior Program Manger

1200 18^th ST, NW

Washington DC 20036

Re: Data Request on Proposal dated January 15, 2002

Dear Ms. Harrigan:

Thank you for submitting your proposal to CPUC dated January 15, 2002 (Green Schools, Green Communities). In reviewing your proposal, we have the following questions:

1. Please confirm that on page 20 of your proposal, the Total of the table should be $1.38 million and not $3.38 million.

2. For the total proposal expenditures of the program of $1.38 million, what is the breakdown for SCE and PGE territories?

Please respond ASAP to this informational data request. Thanks

Very truly yours,

Sarv Randhawa

Energy Division

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your inquiry. 

 

Question 1:  Yes, the correct total amount requested in the proposal is $1,380,000.  I apologize for the typographical error on page 20.

 

Question 2:  The funds would be split approximately one third/two-thirds between the Green Schools Programs in the two areas, with approximately two-thirds of the funds ($920,000) going to the two Green Schools clusters in the SCE territory, and approximately one-third ($460,000) on the Green Schools cluster in the PG&E territory.

 

If you would like more details on exactly how the funds will be spent in each area, I would be happy to provide them.

 

Merrilee Harrigan

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Randhawa, Sarvjit S. [mailto:ssr@cpuc.ca.gov]
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 6:28 PM
To: mharrigan@ase.org
Cc: Drew, Tim
Subject: Alliance to Save Energy Proposal to the CPUC

Please provide response to the attached data request asap.  Thanks    <<EE - Alliance to Save Energy(Green Schools,Green Communities).doc

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

505 VAN NESS AVENUE

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298

March 12, 2002

G. Patrick Stoner

Program Director

Local Government Commission

1414 K Street, Ste 600

Sacramento CA 95814

Dear Mr. Stoner:

This correspondence is with respect to the LGC program proposal for Regional Energy Authorities in Humboldt, Marin and Ventura Counties sent to the Commission on January 15, 2002. We are requesting the following additional information regarding your proposal:

1. Please provide separate budgets for the LGC proposed programs in Humboldt and Marin Counties. Please follow the same format used in your original proposal.

2. Please describe any other sources of funding the LGC has secured or may secure for this program.

A response should be provided via e-mail, by noon on Monday, March 18, 2002. Please send your response to zap@cpuc.ca.gov. If you wish to mail a hard copy as well, please use the address listed in the above letterhead, Attn: Tim Drew.

Thanking you in advance for your prompt response,

Energy Division Staff

CPUC

From: Pat Stoner [pstoner@lgc.org]
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 10:01 AM
To: Drew, Tim
Cc: John Nimmons; Tim Rosenfeld; Ron Ishii
Subject: RE: Local Government Commission Energy Efficiency Proposal to the CPUC

Importance: High

Reply to CPUC staff request for information regarding the LGC program proposal for Regional Energy Authorities in Humboldt, Marin and Ventura Counties sent to the Commission on January 15, 2002 for:

1. Separate budgets for the LGC proposed programs in Humboldt and Marin Counties.

Please see the attached file that breaks down the budget for Humboldt and Marin Counties for the LGC and each of its subcontractors. Please note that the overall budget for the REA proposal assumed some economies of scale involving the development of the REA structures and some of the later-stage activities. If fewer than three REAs are funded, some of these economies may not be achievable, and some costs may be higher for each REA that is funded.

2. A description of any other sources of funding the LGC has secured or may secure for this program.

If this project is selected for CPUC funding, every participating community will be contributing staff and elected official time to the development and startup of their REA structures during Phase I. For example, a task force will be convened in each community to prepare a written REA agreement describing the powers and authorities of the REA, its roles, responsibilities, and area of service, and other essential matters. In addition, project team staff will be meeting with local government staff and elected officials throughout Phase I.

Beyond Phase I, this project proposes to develop mechanisms whereby each of the REAs will become self-sufficient after their initial start-up financial assistance during Phase II. These mechanisms may vary by community, but are expected to include reinvestment of energy dollars saved; grant funding from other government entities (such as the CEC, other State agencies , and the U.S. DOE) , and private sources identified by each REA; charges for services; and contributions from participating communities. As an example of the latter, we note that the Marin County Board of Supervisors has now moved to initiate the process to create an REA. A vote is expected in the next several weeks, and may include some seed funding from the County's own budget.

Respond via e-mail, by noon on Monday, March 18, 2002 to zap@cpuc.ca.gov.

Please let me know if you need anything else.

G.Patrick Stoner

Program Director

Local Government Commission

1414 K Street, Suite 600

Sacramento, CA 95814

916/448-1198, ext 309

916/448-8246 fax

pstoner@lgc.org

www.lgc.org

Reply to CPUC staff request for information regarding the LGC program proposal for Regional Energy Authorities in Humboldt, Marin and Ventura Counties sent to the Commission on January 15, 2002 for:

1. Separate budgets for the LGC proposed programs in Humboldt and Marin Counties.

Please see the attached file that breaks down the budget for Humboldt and Marin Counties for the LGC and each of its subcontractors. Please note that the overall budget for the REA proposal assumed some economies of scale involving the development of the REA structures and some of the later-stage activities. If fewer than three REAs are funded, some of these economies may not be achievable, and some costs may be higher for each REA that is funded.

2. A description of any other sources of funding the LGC has secured or may secure for this program.

If this project is selected for CPUC funding, every participating community will be contributing staff and elected official time to the development and startup of their REA structures during Phase I. For example, a task force will be convened in each community to prepare a written REA agreement describing the powers and authorities of the REA, its roles, responsibilities, and area of service, and other essential matters. In addition, project team staff will be meeting with local government staff and elected officials throughout Phase I.

Beyond Phase I, this project proposes to develop mechanisms whereby each of the REAs will become self-sufficient after their initial start-up financial assistance during Phase II. These mechanisms may vary by community, but are expected to include reinvestment of energy dollars saved; grant funding from other government entities (such as the CEC, other State agencies , and the U.S. DOE) , and private sources identified by each REA; charges for services; and contributions from participating communities. As an example of the latter, we note that the Marin County Board of Supervisors has now moved to initiate the process to create an REA. A vote is expected in the next several weeks, and may include some seed funding from the County's own budget.

Respond via e-mail, by noon on Monday, March 18, 2002 to zap@cpuc.ca.gov.

Please let me know if you need anything else.



G. Patrick Stoner

Program Director

Local Government Commission

Local Government Commission Cost Proposal

PG&E - HUMBOLDT COUNTY

Local Government Commission Cost Proposal

PG&E - MARIN COUNTY

AESC, Inc., Subcontract Cost Proposal

PG&E - HUMBOLDT COUNTY

AESC, Inc., Subcontract Cost Proposal

PG&E - MARIN COUNTY

JNA, Subcontract Cost Proposal

PG&E -HUMBOLDT COUNTY

JNA, Subcontract Cost Proposal

PG&E - MARIN COUNTY

HMW International, Inc., Subcontract Cost Proposal

PG&E - HUMBOLDT COUNTY

HMW International, Inc., Subcontract Cost Proposal

PG&E - MARIN COUNTY

STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, Governor



PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

505 VAN NESS AVENUE

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298

Thursday, March 14, 2002

Karen Hamilton

701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20004-2696

Dear Ms. Hamilton:

This correspondence is with respect to GHPC program proposals to promote Geoexchange to PG&E and SCE Commercial and Educational Customers. We are requesting the following additional information regarding your proposal:

1. The GHPC proposal for PG&E territory briefly cites earlier involvement in implementing a geoexchange demonstration project with PG&E from 1997 to 2000. Please describe the results of this project, including total expenditures.

2. There is an error in the GHPC cost-effectiveness spreadsheets - you have omitted incremental measure cost per unit of geoexchange (measured in tons). Please revise your spreadsheet to include incremental measure cost per ton of installed geoexchange.

A response should be provided via e-mail, by noon on Monday, March 18, 2002. Please send your response to zap@cpuc.ca.gov. If you wish to mail a hard copy as well, please use the address listed in the above letterhead, Attn: Tim Drew.

Thanking you in advance for your prompt response,

Energy Division

CPUC

Geothermal Heat Pump Consortium

701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20004-2696

March 18, 2002

Mr. Timothy Drew

Energy Division

California Public Utilities Commission

505 Van Ness Avenue

San Francisco, CA 94102-3298

Dear Mr. Drew:

This correspondence is in response to the California Public Utilities Commission's request for clarification of portions of the GHPC's proposals to promote geoexchange to SCE and PGE customers. These proposals were submitted by the GHPC on January 15, 2002 in response to the Commission's "2002-03 Energy Efficiency Program Selection R.01-08-028". The Commission has requested additional information in two areas. Our response follows, along with the Commission's verbatim questions.

1. The GHPC proposal for PG&E territory briefly cites earlier involvement in implementing a geoexchange demonstration project with PG&E from 1997 to 2000. Please describe the results of this project, including total expenditures.

The GHPC collaboration with the PG&E was known as the "Northern California Geoexchange Commercialization/Model Utility Program Demonstration". The project was also supported by the California Energy Commission and the EPA/DOE Energy Star Program. The goals of the demonstration project were to:

· Conduct public education to raise awareness and acceptance among residential and commercial customers;

· Identify geoexchange system and loop configurations that optimize cost-effectiveness in California's climatic and soil conditions; and

· Remove cost and infrastructure barriers to commercialization. This was accomplished through the use of then GHPC funded West Coast regional training center in Davis, California.

Over the course of the demonstration project, geoexchange systems were installed in 326 residential properties (in a few cases completion was pending). In addition, 198 tons of geoexchange were installed in commercial buildings as a result of this program. Targeted outreach successfully educated consumers in the region, as demonstrated by an awareness survey conducted in 2000. Demonstration of this technology in the PG&E service territory led the company to include geoexchange in its Residential Air Conditioning System Distributor Incentive Program launched in 2000.

Total project funding was $2,084,000, with PG&E contributing $1,560,000 and GHPC co-funding of $524,000. Final PG&E budget numbers were unavailable as a result of PG&E's bankruptcy, although the budgeted utility funding level represents a good approximation for expenditures. As of June 1999, program expenditures were: PG&E - $1,208,813, CEC - $376,512, and GHPC - $348,677. A second phase of the project was launched in 2000 with a budget of ~$728,000 of which GHPC share is ~$175,323. This phase involved a marketing campaign targeting the Sierra Foothills region, contractor & trade ally training, trade ally & consumer outreach, technical support, and a financial assistance program. Due to PG&E's bankruptcy filing, GHPC has not yet received the deliverables for this phase of the project.

An Adobe PDF copy of the executive summaries of the phase one final report and a comfort & satisfaction survey report are enclosed for your review.

2. There is an error in the GHPC cost-effectiveness spreadsheets - you have omitted incremental measure cost per unit of geoexchange (measured in tons). Please revise your spreadsheet to include incremental measure cost per ton of installed geoexchange.

GHPC prepared a revised cost effectiveness spreadsheet for PG&E and SCE with values inserted for the incremental cost per ton of geoexchange. These are provided as an attachment for your review. Both programs are still cost effective at the $1,500 per ton estimate that is used. Please bear in mind that this estimate is conservative for planning purposes. The real incremental cost may turns out to be considerably lower, particularly in commercial buildings. The GHPC has found many cases in which the incremental cost is as low as $300 per ton in cases where geoexchange is selected over HVAC systems that are more advanced than the minimum allowed by building code (e.g. comparing geoexchange to a 4-pipe or a VAV system vs. 2-pipe). Also, please keep in mind that the cost effectiveness sheets assume a 15 year life for geoexchange (ground source heat pumps). This underestimates the life for geoexchange. The American Society of Heating Refrigeration & Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) estimates the life of geoexchange at 19.8 years which is still a conservative estimate since replacement reports from the field show service life exceeding 22-23 years.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,



Wael El-Sharif

Business Development Director

STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, Governor



PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

505 VAN NESS AVENUE

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298

March 13, 2002

Douglas Mahone, Partner

Heschong Mahone Group

11626 Fair Oaks Blvd, # 302

Fair Oaks, CA 95628,