12. Enabling Technologies, Automated Demand Response, and Related Activities
Several utility programs support demand response through the development, application, and funding of services or technologies that make demand response easier for program participants. Such services may include audits of demand response or energy saving potential, recommendation of appropriate processes and technologies to facilitate demand response, and funding of process improvements and equipment upgrades. The three main utility activities in this area are the Technical Assistance and Technology Incentives programs, the Emerging Market and Technology Projects, and automated demand response programs and services. These activities, and some related activities conducted by single utilities, are described in this section.
12.1. Technical Assistance and Technology Incentives Programs
The Technical Assistance and Technology Incentives Programs were first authorized in D.05-01-056. The Technical Assistance and Technology Incentives programs of the three utilities differ somewhat in participation requirements, incentive payments, and other structural aspects, but all support the installation of technologies to facilitate customer peak load reduction and demand response. In general, these programs provide large commercial customers with site assessments and technical audits to determine demand response potential, followed by rebates or incentives for the installation of recommended enabling technology to support demand response or related activities such as thermal energy storage or permanent load shifting.
12.1.1. Utility Technical Assistance and Technology Incentives Proposals
For 2009-2011, SCE proposes to continue to integrate demand response and other demand-side management audits by incorporating both demand response and energy efficiency recommendations into its audits. SCE currently requires customers receiving Technical Assistance and Technology Incentives services to be enrolled in a qualifying demand response program at the time of participation. SCE's program provides incentives upon installation of technology by the customer. SCE proposes that in 2009-2011, customers that receive an incentive payment under Technical Assistance and Technology Incentives should be required to enter a bi-lateral participation schedule agreement with SCE to ensure the customer uses the technology in accordance with their stated intent for participating in the program. Based on SCE's proposal, such an agreement would require those receiving large payments under this program to participate in a qualifying demand response program, with a financial penalty if the customer does not perform under that program. SCE requests $50,262,525 including incentives for this program.85
PG&E has a description of its Technical Assistance Program, and a separate description of its Technology Incentives Program. Through its demand response Technical Assistance program, PG&E offers customers free audits of their facilities. During 2009-2011, PG&E proposes to integrate the Technical Assistance program with its Integrated Energy Audits Program, funded through its energy efficiency budget. Through the resulting combined program, PG&E proposes to conduct detailed energy audits that will include consideration of energy efficiency, demand response, and Distributed Generation options. In addition, PG&E proposes creating an enhanced web-based audit tool, called the Universal Energy Audit Tool, to allow customers to generate reports that include specific information on the costs and benefits of energy efficiency, energy conservation, demand response, and distributed generation, customized for their particular circumstances. PG&E requests a total of $2.9 million for the demand response activities associated with the Technical Assistance portion of its Integrated Energy Audits program.
Similar to its plan for Technical Assistance, PG&E proposes to integrate its Technology Incentives program with its energy efficiency incentives, to better coordinate these activities and make the incentive programs more convenient. PG&E intends to evaluate all Technology Incentives projects for Auto demand response potential. PG&E also proposes expanding its Technology Incentives program to new construction projects in 2009-2011; in 2006-2008, this program only funded projects to retrofit existing construction. PG&E's program provides incentives of 50% of the cost of technical incentives project with a maximum rebate of $125 per kilowatt of expected demand response.86 PG&E proposes to require customers receiving Technology Incentives rebates of more than $50 per kilowatt to participate for at least three years in PeakChoice options with committed load reduction, Critical Peak Pricing, the Capacity Bidding Program, the Base Interruptible Program, or a program under PG&E's aggregator managed portfolio. Customers receiving a rebate of less than $50 per kilowatt could participate in its Demand Bidding Program or a PeakChoice "best efforts" option. PG&E also requests authority to lower the maximum incentive it pays for retrofit projects from the current level of $250 per kilowatt to $125 per kilowatt, and to offer the same $125 per kilowatt incentive to new construction projects. PG&E requests a total budget of $10.3 million for the Technical Incentives program for 2009-2011. About $3 million is requested for new construction projects, with the remaining $7.3 million for retrofit projects.
Like PG&E, SDG&E separates the descriptions of its Technical Assistance Program and its Technology Incentives programs. SDG&E's Technical Assistance program provides audits to help customers participate in demand response activities and reduce energy costs. Customers with a demand of 20 kilowatts or greater are eligible for the program and receive an incentive to offset the cost of the audit.87 Like PG&E, in 2009-2011 SDG&E proposes offering customers a fully integrated audit service that will include energy efficiency and demand response.88 SDG&E requests $10 million for its Technical Assistance program during 2009-2011.89
SDG&E's Technology Incentive program provides an incentive that offsets the cost of purchase and installation of demand response measures. Non-residential customers with an energy demand greater than 20 kilowatts are eligible to participate in the program. SDG&E proposes an incentive level of $100 per kilowatt for non-automated demand response technologies customers receiving 60% of their incentive after completing a load shed test, and the remaining 40% only if they enroll in a demand response program with a one-year commitment.90 SDG&E proposes a higher per-kilowatt rebate for installation of automated demand response technologies; this is discussed along with auto demand response proposals, below. The utility proposes funding of approximately $12,762,841 for the 2009-2011 time period; this includes the utility's requested budget for automated demand response.
TURN recommends cuts to the proposed Technical Assistance and Technology Incentives budgets for all three utilities. TURN suggests a Technical Assistance and Technology Incentives budget for SCE of $15.159 million, $35.113 million less than the SCE proposal.91 TURN argues that SCE's requested funding is inflated relative to its recorded costs, and contends that the administrative costs are high compared to the incentives paid under the program. Specifically, TURN asserts that SCE spent $5.885 million on Technical Assistance and Technology Incentives in 2007, of which TURN asserts that only $1.043 million went towards incentives compared to $4.842 million on program administration. TURN further notes that SCE projected to spend $12.824 million on incentives and $2.195 million on administration in 2008, but notes that as of its September 2008 report, SCE had only recorded $2.451 million in total costs for that year total.92 SCE responds to this assertion by noting that not all funds committed under this program in 2008 were actually paid within that year, and that the amounts committed are being paid over time.
TURN counters that SCE should have a line in its monthly report for total commitments, so that committed funds are not recorded as "unspent" on SCE reports. Additionally, TURN argues that SCE's recent monthly reports do not reflect a dramatic change in recorded costs, which one might expect would occur consistent with SCE's claim that it has an additional $12.1 million committed through this program in addition to the amounts already paid.
TURN objects to PG&E's high administration costs for the Technical Assistance and Technology Incentives programs, and recommends that the Commission reduce the combined budget for these programs by $2.22 million.93 In its reply brief, PG&E responds that its Technology Incentives proposal includes services such as technical consulting, design, and verification, which are not appropriately classified as administrative costs, and making the administrative costs appear high relative to incentives.
TURN also objects to PG&E's request for authority to unilaterally change the 50% customer contribution to qualify for a 50% payment for new construction under Technology Incentives.94 TURN asserts that the current requirement is consistent with existing Line Extension rules applicable to new construction. TURN suggests that a decision on this proposal should be made in the context of a review of the utilities' rules for connecting new residential and non-residential customers (Rules 15 and 16 Electric Line and Service Extension rules), rather than in this proceeding, to ensure that all parties and the Commission understand the ramifications of the proposed changes.
With reference to SDG&E's Technical Assistance and Technology Incentives request, TURN notes that in SDG&E's AMI application approved in D.07-04-043, SDG&E claimed that AMI deployment would enable the company to reduce or eliminate the Technical Assistance and Technology Incentives funding and services, beginning in 2009. TURN highlights the fact that SDG&E's proposed budget is 97% of the authorized budget for 2006-2008, which does not appear to be a significant reduction.95 TURN further recommends that if the Commission decides to approve any SDG&E Technical Assistance and Technology Incentives funding, that the proposed budget should be adjusted downward to reflect recorded expenditures for 2006-2008.
DRA comments only on the SDG&E Technical Assistance and Technology Incentives proposal, and not on those of SCE or PG&E. DRA objects to SDG&E's treatment of its Technical Assistance and Technology Incentives activities as a stand-alone program for reporting and analysis. DRA argues that, like the other utilities, participants in SDG&E's Technical Assistance and Technology Incentives programs should be categorized and their load impacts analyzed according to the Demand Response program in which they ultimately enroll after receiving program services. To accomplish this, DRA recommends that SDG&E change several aspects of its program, specifically its reporting, analysis, and cost allocation, to be more consistent with the other utilities' treatment of their comparable programs.
Technical Assistance and Technology Incentives activities facilitate peak load reduction and demand response by utility customers, and in many cases lead directly to customer enrollment in utility demand response programs. By increasing the effectiveness of other demand response programs, and supporting demand side management in general, Technical Assistance and Technology Incentives support is consistent with state policy goals including reduction of peak electricity demand and promoting energy efficiency.
As SCE notes, TURN objects to SCE's proposed budget for Technical Assistance and Technology Incentives but does not object to the objectives; or costs related to benefits of the program.96 In fact, no party argues against retention of Technical Assistance and Technology Incentives activities; TURN and DRA raise questions about the appropriate funding levels and specific program design issues. It is reasonable for Technical Assistance and Technology Incentives activities to be available to customers statewide, and we will retain this program for all three utilities.
TURN argues in part that the utilities' administrative costs for this program are too high compared to the program incentives. While it is desirable in general for the administrative costs of a demand response program to be less than the program's incentives. This principle is not applicable to Technical Assistance and Technology Incentives activities, which include many activities that do not result in the payment of financial incentives. These services, such as conducting audits, developing company-specific demand response plans, and recommending equipment and strategies to improve load reduction, are not true program administration activities (such as data collection or processing), and should not be considered program administration in the determination of program budgets. As a result, it would not be appropriate to limit the budget for such services to twice the financial incentives paid to customers.
TURN objects to the SCE budget request on the additional grounds that SCE's application and program reports show spending for 2006-2008 well below the level requested for 2009-2011. SCE notes that the application and reports cited by TURN do not show money that has been committed under the program, which allows customers to "reserve" funds for up to 18 months while they make recommended improvements and upgrades to facilitate demand response. When the improvements are made, SCE pays the "reserved" money to the customer in the form of a rebate. In addition, SCE notes that the spending data provided for all three utilities in their applications is not current.
SCE's method of reporting money spent under its Technical Assistance and Technology Incentives program makes it difficult to determine the demand for this program or the budget required to sustain it through 2011. To address this, we require SCE to add a line to all future reports on this program to show the funds committed under this program in a given month and year. This will make it possible to develop better budget forecasts for future funding cycles.
TURN further objects to SDG&E's request for Technical Assistance and Technology Incentives because in the company's AMI application in A.05-03-015, SDG&E estimated that it would be able to reduce budgets for these programs after AMI deployment, with decreases in funding starting in 2009. TURN argues that, because SDG&E's business case included approximately $110 million in benefits for the reduction or elimination of Technical Assistance/Technology Incentives costs, and the Commission in adopting SDG&E's business case agreed that AMI would lead to a reduction in funding for this category, SDG&E should not receive funding for continuing its Technical Assistance and Technology Incentives program. In its comments on the proposed decision, TURN asserts that funding Technical Assistance and Technology Incentives modifies the Decision in SDG&E's AMI case without proper notification of parties.
SDG&E has not yet fully deployed its Advanced Metering Infrastructure system, and will not complete deployment for several years. It is not reasonable to expect that SDG&E would be able to immediately eliminate demand response programs based on the approval (not implementation) of its AMI system. In addition, as discussed elsewhere in this decision, forecasts based on assumptions of future activities are estimates, and may be subject to some change. For these reasons, we do not reduce the utility's proposed budgets in conformance with estimates the company provided in that earlier proceeding. By 2012, SDG&E will have completed deployment of its AMI system, and we expect SDG&E will be able to substantiate the claims made in its AMI proceeding by substantially reducing or eliminating Technical Assistance and Technology Incentives costs.
As described above, DRA objects to several aspects of the design and analysis of SDG&E's Technical Assistance and Technology Incentives activities. We share many of DRA's concerns. We adopt the Technical Assistance and Technology Incentives budget requested by SDG&E, but we also require SDG&E to make its activities more consistent with the Technical Assistance and Technology Incentives activities of the other utilities. Specifically, in future reports, SDG&E will no longer consider its Technical Assistance and Technology Incentives activities as a stand-alone program for the purposes of reporting and analysis. SDG&E will classify participants by the demand response program in which they ultimately enroll, and will report load impacts of those customers by the program in which they are enrolled. SDG&E shall work with Energy Division staff to ensure that the Technical Assistance and Technology Incentives sections of its monthly reports are designed appropriately and include sufficient information.
We allow PG&E to extend its Technical Assistance and Technology Incentives activities to new construction, but the company's request for authority to unilaterally change the required customer contribution towards Technical Assistance and Technology Incentives funding for new construction is denied. There is not sufficient information in the record on the desirability of making this change or the possible implications on PG&E's line extension rules.
The Technical Assistance and Technology Incentives activities and participation requirements of the three utilities vary widely; it is not reasonable for customers in different utility service territories to be subject to very different requirements and program rules for similar services. It would be difficult to require completely uniform requirements; the utilities already have outstanding commitments based on their current program designs, and some differences between utility operations may justify some level of variation across the state, as is the case for other demand response programs. Still, to ensure equal treatment and access to customers throughout the state, we require all three utilities to make their programs more consistent in several ways, as follows:
· The maximum rebate or incentive for non-Automated Demand Response services provided through Technical Assistance and Technology Incentives programs will be $125 per kilowatt for all utilities.
· The maximum rebate for automated demand response equipment installed through Technical Assistance and Technology Incentives or Automated Demand Response Programs will be $300 per kilowatt for all utilities.
· Customers receiving an incentive of $100 or more will be required to make a minimum one-year commitment to a demand response program or Critical Peak Pricing tariff.
· SCE and SDG&E will follow PG&E's lead to develop proposals for integrating their Technical Incentives programs with other, similar demand side management incentive or rebate programs; They should submit detailed proposals consistent with ongoing work through the Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan workgroups as part of their next demand response program applications.
These rules will apply to customers receiving services under these programs beginning January 1, 2010. We approve the following budgets for the utilities' Technical Assistance and Technology Incentives Activities:
2009-2011 Requested Budget |
2009-2011 Authorized Budget | |
PG&E Technical Assistance |
$2,942,000 |
$2,942,000 |
PG&E Technology Incentives |
$10,310,000 |
$10,310,000 |
SDG&E Technical Assistance |
$10,011,326 |
$10,011,326 |
SDG&E Technology Incentives |
$12,662,841 |
$12,662,841 |
SCE Technical Assistance and Technology Incentives |
$50,262,525 |
$50,262,525 |
Because the Technical Assistance and Technology Incentives activities will interact with other demand-side management programs, and are likely to be affected by further developments in Commission proceedings related to Energy Efficiency in particular, we encourage the utilities to coordinate the activities in this category with other approved demand side management activities.
12.2. Emerging Markets and Technologies
The Emerging Markets and Technologies Programs fund research projects for technologies and equipment, processes, and products. Currently, there are no statewide standards that specify what types of technologies or projects are appropriate for funding through Emerging Markets and Technologies, but past projects have included research into energy storage technologies, the potential of AMI systems to influence demand response, and coordination between demand response and energy efficiency.
SCE notes that during 2006-2008, it funded three main types of projects through Emerging Markets and Technologies: development of technologies, codes and standards, and innovative technologies. SCE requests a budget of $9,244,405 for Emerging Markets and Technology for 2009-2011. Proposed projects include energy storage projects, integrated demand side management activities, and projects to expand demand response to residential customers. In addition, SCE describes projects that would integrate with its AMI system, such as development of customer interfaces and displays, intelligent circuit breakers, smart appliances and communication tools for pool pump cycling.97 SCE also notes that research is done in collaboration with other institutions and agencies in order to facilitate identification of new technologies and participation in research and experiments. Additionally, SCE requests that funding for a given project be allowed to continue for 48 months after the initiation of a project, and not be limited to the 2009-2011 period.98
PG&E's Emerging Markets and Technology program focuses on research and development into improving processes, developing resources, and increasing the attractiveness of demand response technology. PG&E provides a general description of its contemplated activities in the 2009-2011 period, stating that it intends to emphasize projects which integrate energy efficiency and demand response, and, like SCE, plans to continue to work with the Demand Response Research Center and other research organizations. Specific areas of focus mentioned by PG&E for 2009-2011 include: energy storage, smart thermostats and smart appliances, technologies compatible with AMI, advanced lighting systems and energy management systems. PG&E forecasts $2,421,000 for this program in the 2009-2011 cycle.
SDG&E's Emerging Technologies program was previously called the Emerging Markets Program. The program evaluates and develops technologies to be installed at customer sites to maximize demand response potential. The program also provides technical support related to statewide codes and standards for demand response. In 2009-2011, SDG&E proposes to pursue technologies that emphasize demand response, energy efficiency, and renewables. SDG&E proposes $2,142,495 for this program in 2009-2011.
12.2.2. Party Positions on Emerging Markets and Technology Funding
TURN objects to the funding requests of both SCE and SDG&E. TURN notes that both of these utilities intend to use Emerging Markets and Technology funding at least in part for projects that will utilize or integrate with the utility's AMI system.99 As in its discussion of Technical Assistance and Technology Incentives, TURN argues that the Commission should not fund AMI efforts beyond what was already adopted in the utility's AMI budget.100 TURN recommends that the Commission deny all requested funding for SDG&E's Emerging Markets and Technology projects because of their connection to SDG&E's AMI system. As an alternative, TURN proposes that if the Commission does not reject SDG&E's program, it should reduce funding to the level spent in 2006-2008. Similarly, TURN recommends that the Commission authorize no more than SCE's 2008 spending level annually for Emerging Markets and Technology projects in 2009-2011. SCE spent $1,818,879 in 2008, which TURN argues would support a three-year budget of $5,456,637.
Given the rapid evolution in demand response techniques, enabling technologies, and evaluation methods, and the desirability of increasing the availability of cost effective demand response, there is a clear benefit to investing in research and development that will encourage the adoption and growth of demand response. It is reasonable to continue funding Emerging Markets and Technology projects for all three utilities. As discussed elsewhere in this decision, we support activities that will leverage the utilities' AMI investments to increase demand response. For these reasons, we do not adopt TURN's proposal to discontinue funding for Emerging Markets and Technology.
Similarly, while the utilities, particularly SCE, took several years to ramp up their Emerging Markets and Technology activities to current funding levels, the expansion of availability of and participation in demand response programs and dynamic pricing tariffs support the utility requests for maintaining or increasing budget in this area for 2009-2011. For this reason, we approve the requested utility budgets for Emerging Markets and Technology.
At the same time, it is important to ensure that the research and development undertaken is understood by this Commission and can be shared with other research entities. We require SCE, SDG&E, and PG&E to provide annual reports on their Emerging Markets and Technology projects to the Commission's Energy Division. These reports shall summarize the projects the utility is supporting with Emerging Markets and Technology funds, including the potential benefits of the technology or technique, the types of activities undertaken as part of the project, and any results that are available. The utilities will work with Energy Division staff to develop a reporting format, and will provide reports on the previous year's Emerging Markets and Technology activities to the Director of the Energy Division by March 31 of each year.
We decline to approve SCE's proposal that specific projects retain their funding for 48 months after they are initiated. We recognize that some projects might continue for several years, and that it may be appropriate for particular projects to go beyond the end of the 2011. Rather than giving blanket approval for unidentified long-term projects, we require utilities to include discussions of the expected term of each project in the project annual reports. Utilities also may either file a Tier 2 advice letter to request funding from within their existing budget for specific projects that need to go beyond the end of 2011, or may include a request to continue these projects in their next demand response funding application.
It may be helpful to develop guidance on the use of demand response-related research and development funds. Such guidance could define the types of projects that are appropriately funded under the Emerging Markets and Technology program and reasonable ranges for future funding, as well as helping to ensure that utilities do not duplicate one another's projects. We intend to develop such guidance before the next set of demand response portfolio applications are filed for a future budget cycle.
2009-2011 Requested Budget |
2009-2011 Authorized Budget | |
PG&E Emerging Markets and Technology |
$2,421,000 |
$2,421,000 |
SDG&E Emerging Markets and Technology |
$2,142,495 |
$2,142,495 |
SCE Emerging Markets and Technology |
$9,244,405 |
$9,244,405 |
12.3. Automated Demand Response
Automated demand response, also known as "auto demand response," "auto DR" or "auto demand response," refers to automated enabling technologies that allow a customer's equipment or facilities to reduce electricity usage automatically in response to peak load conditions or high prices without the customer needing to take a specific action. In D.06-11-049, the Commission directed the utilities to establish pilots for automated demand response, and all three utilities propose maintaining or expanding their automated demand response activities in 2009-2011.
For 2006-2008, the Commission authorized SCE to conduct an automated demand response pilot with a budget of $1,790,000. SCE's program was expected to generate as much as 10 MW of load reduction from more than 20 large commercial customers enrolled in either the Demand Bidding Program or a Critical Peak Pricing tariff.101
SCE suggests that its automated demand response program is now starting to generate customer interest.102 SCE proposes transitioning its existing pilot into a broader program in order to accommodate more participants in 2009-2011. Along with this change, the utility proposes enhancing customer outreach and changing some aspects of program implementation, for example by allowing automated demand response customers to participate in the Energy Options Program when it replaces the Demand Bidding Program in 2010.103 SCE estimates that these program enhancements will result in an additional 30-35 megawatts in estimated load reduction by the end of 2011.104 SCE requests $4,302,881 for this proposed automated demand response program in 2009-2011.105
PG&E conducted automated demand response programs in 2006-2008 that were expected to generate about 30 megawatts in estimated load reduction by end of 2008 through participants' enrollment in Critical Peak Pricing and the Demand Bidding Program.106 PG&E proposes to expand the Automated Demand Response program, make certain enhancements, and offer more demand response program enrollment choices (ABEC, Capacity Bidding Program, and PeakChoice) to customers implementing the automated demand response program.107 PG&E requests a budget of $16,117,000, with an estimated demand response capability of 45 megawatts by the end of the 2009-2011 cycle.108
SDG&E's existing automated demand response pilot offers customers a rebate of the lesser of the cost of automated demand response equipment and installation or $300 per kilowatt. SDG&E administers these rebates through its Technical Incentives program, described above. Unlike PG&E and SCE, SDG&E did not report any estimated load reduction associated with this program to date, nor did it provide any estimated load reduction for the 2009-2011 cycle. SDG&E suggests that because its automated demand response program is "just beginning to produce results [in 2008], SDG&E does not believe further modifications are warranted at this time." Based on this assessment, SDG&E does not propose any specific augmentations to its Automated demand response program other than a slight modification to the incentive payment.109
No parties objected to the automated demand response requests of the utilities. The automated demand response program appears to result in some load reduction, through participant enrollment in other demand response programs. The utilities have not submitted any analysis of whether automated demand response programs are cost effective on their own, separate from the underlying programs in which participants ultimately enroll. Nor have they provided data on actual past performance of Automated Demand Response customers or data to indicate the portion of load reduction attributable to Automated Demand Response on an individual program basis. As a result, it is not clear whether similar load reductions could have been achieved if participants had enrolled directly in the underlying demand response program without first receiving services and rebates through automated demand response. Without knowing whether these programs are cost effective, it is difficult to evaluate the reasonableness of the utilities' proposals the funding and growth targets set by all three utilities.
So, we expect that a formal analysis of Auto DR program may likely yield positive results and believe that continuing these programs is reasonable and in the public interest. Rather than discontinuing these promising activities because insufficient information is available on their results at this time, we adopt the activity and funding proposals of the utilities and require them to collect detailed information on Auto DR programs in order to facilitate a complete analysis of these programs results, including cost effectiveness, comparison of load reduction performance by customers with and without Auto DR, and comparison of predictability and reliability of load reduction by customers with and without Auto DR, and an evaluation of the effectiveness of Auto DR in enabling further expansion and improvement of demand response programs in line with Commission's goals for demand response and the integration of demand response into CAISO markets. The Demand Response Measurement and Evaluation Committee (DRMEC) will oversee these evaluations. Utilities will report these results by September 30, 2010, to the Energy Division Director, along with reports on their Emerging Markets and Technology projects.
We direct the utilities to (1) jointly hold a public workshop to present and discuss their findings and solicit feedback from the parties and (2) jointly hold a second public workshop to present proposals based on the results of the first workshop and solicit feedback and other proposals from the parties. The timing of these workshops shall be coordinated with other workshops planned by the DRMEC. Future Auto DR proposals should leverage applicable Auto DR-related open standards emerging from the federal Smart Grid standards development activities. The utilities are directed to include proposals based on the workshop findings for funding and incorporating Auto DR into demand response programs in their applications in the Demand Response proceeding for the next 2012-2014 cycle. In the interim, in recognition of expected rollout of default dynamic prices for large C&I customers offering a potential opportunity to leverage Auto DR to ease the transition for some customers, we direct the utilities to consider allocating funds within the appropriate authorized budgets (in this or other proceedings) toward education of customers about Auto DR option and encourage implementation of Auto DR by customers being defaulted to dynamic prices.
2009-2011 Requested Budget |
2009-2011 Authorized Budget | |
PG&E Automated Demand Response |
$16,117,000 |
$16,117,000 |
SDG&E Automated Demand Response |
(included with Technical Assistance and Technology Incentives) | |
SCE Automated Demand Response |
$4,302,881 |
$4,302,881 |
85 Exhibit 201, p. 54.
86 PG&E requests authority to unilaterally lower the percentage it pays in order to serve more customers with the same funding.
87 Exhibit 103B, Appendix B Program Concept Papers, p. 54.
88 Exhibit 103B, Appendix B Program Concept Papers, p. 58.
89 Exhibit 103B, Appendix B Program Concept Papers, p. 56.
90 Exhibit 103B, Appendix B Program Concept Papers, p. 61.
91 TURN Opening Brief, pp. 7 & 8: This revision is based first on prorating SCE's costs for 2008, which TURN projects to be $2.85 million. TURN then increased this figure by 60% to account for increased customer participation and administration costs. Finally that figure was increased by 5% per year to reach TURN's proposed total of $15.159 million
92 TURN Opening Brief, p. 77.
93 TURN Opening Brief, pp. 74-75.
94 TURN Opening Brief, pp. 75-76.
95 TURN Opening Brief, pp. 79-80.
96 SCE Exhibit 7, p. 44.
97 SCE Exhibit 1, pp. 97-100.
98 SCE Exhibit 1, p. 100.
99 TURN Opening Brief, p. 54.
100 TURN Opening Brief, p. 36.
101 SCE Exhibit 1, p. 60.
102 SCE Exhibit 1, p. 62.
103 SCE Exhibit 1.
104 SCE Exhibit 1.
105 SCE Exhibit 1, p. 63.
106 PG&E Exhibit 201, Chapter 2, p. 36.
107 PG&E Exhibit 201, Chapter 2, p. 39.
108 PG&E Exhibit 201, Chapter 2, p. 39.
109 SDG&E Exhibit 102A, p. 54.
