2. Background

In Decision (D.) 09-09-047, the Commission adopted energy efficiency portfolios for 2010 through 2012 for Southern California Edison Company (SCE), Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas), San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E), and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) (collectively, Joint Utilities or Joint Investor-Owned Utilities (Joint IOUs)).

On September 17, 2010, Joint Utilities filed a Petition for Modification of D.09-09-047, seeking 28 separate changes to the Decision, in eight subject areas.

D.10-12-054 adopted modifications to D.09-09-047 in the following areas:

· Freezing ex ante values based on 2008 Database for Energy Efficiency Resources (DEER) version 2.05.

· Clarifying that co-branding requirements with the Engage 360 brand apply to all energy efficiency programs provided through energy efficiency funds, but not provided solely through other funds. Also, the decision clarified the timing for the start of the co-branding efforts.

· Reducing annual energy savings goals per home for the statewide Prescriptive Whole House Retrofit Program from 20% in utility service territories to 10%, while retaining the annual energy savings goals per home for the utilities' Whole House Performance Programs at 20%. The decision clarified that these are average annual savings goals per home; the annual savings at individual participant homes will fall below and above these levels.

· Providing that the required $1,000 performance bonus applies only to single family units in the California Advanced Home Program. The decision also provided that a lower $200 bonus or a territory-specific incentive (e.g., marketing dollars, customized engineering reports, etc.) apply for each applicable multi-family unit.

· Adding language to provide a State Action Doctrine defense for utilities engaging in certain joint energy efficiency activities which are consistent with state policy and supervised by the Commission.

D.10-12-054 deferred other issues in the Petition to a subsequent decision in this docket. The specific proposals included in the Petition for issues not decided by D.10-12-054 are summarized as follows:

· Amend D.09-09-047 to remove ambiguity around non-DEER ex ante assumptions and ensure its directives to freeze data are implemented.

· Modify IOU benchmarking requirements¹ to exclusively promote the Energy Star Portfolio Manager (ESPM) tool for all IOU benchmarking activities; target larger facilities first; and remove the requirement to benchmark all facilities now specified in the D.09-09-047.

· Adopt a reporting process for limited statewide program variations among IOUs to allow flexibility for appropriate regional and IOU differences.

· Clarify that sponsorships for energy efficiency events or activities that directly promote programs or partnerships (as opposed to solely providing company specific recognition) are considered allowable administrative costs.

Comments on all issues in the Petition were jointly filed on October 18, 2010 by the Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) and The Utility Reform Network (TURN), and comments were separately filed by EnerNOC, Inc. A Prehearing Conference (PHC) was held on October 22, 2010. A major theme of both the Petition and the PHC involved Energy Division implementation of provisions of D.09-09-047, as that decision gave Energy Division the responsibility to work with the utilities to implement the decision.

¹ The idea of benchmarking is to establish a base of energy demand and usage to use for analysis of potential and actual energy efficiency measures.