8. Assignment of Proceeding
This proceeding is assigned to Commissioner Michael R. Peevey and ALJ David M. Gamson. ALJ Gamson is the Presiding Officer.
1. D.09-09-047 adopted energy efficiency portfolios for 2010 through 2012 for SCE, SoCalGas, SDG&E, and PG&E.
2. ESPM is a benchmarking tool which is widely available, but it is not a universally-applicable tool.
3. There may be available alternative benchmarking tools, including the California rating tool and the asset rating tool known as BEARS available from the CEC.
4. It is feasible to benchmark most commercial buildings in the 2010-2012 timeframe either through working with customers or by using proxy customer data to develop benchmarking proxies.
5. The CEC has provided guidelines which provide guidance on how to phase in benchmarking efforts by using existing tools to benchmark larger commercial buildings first.
6. The utility-proposed modifications regarding sponsorship costs narrowly expand the category of allowable administrative costs to allow utility staff to promote utility energy efficiency programs to targeted audiences.
7. Differences among the utilities (such as differences in customer sizes) at times provide a need for small differences in energy efficiency programs which otherwise would be uniform across the state.
8. It is important to ensure that third-party implementers can easily work among and between different IOUs across California without concern over differences in IOU programs.
9. Allowing each utility to have significant variation in incentives and program logic models would undermine the concept of statewide energy efficiency programs.
1. To address the non-ubiquity of the ESPM benchmarking tool, the utilities should also pilot the best available alternative tools, including the California rating tool and the asset rating tool known as BEARS when available from the CEC.
2. It is reasonable to allow utilities to use the CEC guidelines on how to phase in energy efficiency benchmarking efforts by using existing tools to benchmark larger commercial buildings first.
3. It is reasonable to establish specific requirements for benchmarking commercial buildings, consistent with the targets established in D.09-09-047.
4. The utility-proposed modifications regarding sponsorship costs are reasonable and consistent with the intent of D.09-09-047.
5. It is reasonable to allow small variations to statewide programs to fit the needs of different utility territories, as long as these variations are generally consistent with the intent and design of the statewide programs.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Ordering Paragraph 30 of Decision 09-09-047 is modified to read:
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), Southern California Edison Company (SCE), San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E), and Southern California Gas Company shall benchmark facilities that enter any of the Commercial Energy Efficiency Program sub-programs for services. PG&E shall benchmark at least 50,000 buildings. SCE shall benchmark at least 50,000 buildings. SDG&E shall benchmark at least 20,000 buildings. Benchmarking may be phased in so that established benchmarking tools are used to target larger facilities first, consistent with California Energy Commission guidelines for phasing in benchmarking of buildings to apply to all existing commercial programs. The budget for Southern California Edison Company for benchmarking is set at $4.8 million.
2. Ordering Paragraph 63 is added to Decision 09-09-047 as follows:
The following are allowable energy efficiency administrative costs for 2010 through 2012 for Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company, in addition to any other administrative costs allowed by Decision 09-09-047:
Travel and Conference fees: This category includes labor, travel and fees for conferences. Utility sponsorships for energy efficiency program-specific events or activities are allowable administrative costs, including membership-based, issue-specific trade organizations that include as a component of membership benefits entry into conferences. Other staff travel costs to participate in energy efficiency conferences are also allowable administrative costs. However, utility sponsorship fees for major national energy efficiency conferences that provide company recognition or status are prohibited as energy efficiency allowable costs. Such costs shall not be funded with energy efficiency program funding.
3. Ordering Paragraph 64 is added to Decision 09-09-047 as follows:
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall ensure statewide utility energy efficiency offerings are coordinated (i.e., very similar or the same) across a number of areas, including: a) program name; b) incentive levels offered; c) delivery mechanisms; d) marketing materials; e) regular inter-utility coordination; f) on-going review and adoption of best practices and feed-back from program evaluations across the utilities; and g) intra-utility coordinated actions with state, local and federal agencies and other key actors.
4. Pacific Gas and Electric Company's motion of March 23, 2011 is granted.
5. This proceeding remains open.
This order is effective today.
Dated April 14, 2011, at San Francisco, California.
MICHAEL R. PEEVEY
President
TIMOTHY ALAN SIMON
MICHEL PETER FLORIO
CATHERINE J.K. SANDOVAL
MARK FERRON
Commissioners
