5. Comments on the Proposed Decision

The proposed decision of the ALJ in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Section 311 of the Public Utilities Code and comments were allowed under Rule 14.3 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. Comments were filed on December 5, 2011 by The Consumer Federation of California, The California Energy Efficiency Industry Council, Southern California Edison Company, Portland Energy Conservation Incorporated, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and The California Large Energy Consumers Association, and reply comments were filed on December 12, 2011 by Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Women's Energy Matters, and Southern California Edison Company.  We make no changes to the decision.

Mark J. Ferron is the assigned Commissioner and Darwin E. Farrar is the assigned Administrative Law Judge for this portion of this proceeding

1. The PGC funds a portion of the state's electric energy efficiency programs this Commission oversees; a charge known as the PEEBA funds the remainder.

2. The statute authorizing collection in rates of the PGC, only allowed collections for a 10-year period, starting January 1, 2002, and ending January 1, 2012.

3. The Legislature did not extend the January 1, 2012, deadline for collection of PGC before the close of the 2011 legislative session.

4. No party has identified anything in D.09-09-047 or elsewhere that authorizes the IOUs to use the PEEBA as a substitute for PGC funds.

1. The California Public Utilities Commission is required to prioritize energy efficiency in funding the mix of energy resources.

2. The failure of the Legislature to pass a particular bill cannot be relied upon as legislative intent.

3. The proposal in the September 28, 2011, Assigned Commissioner's Ruling is not inconsistent with any identified legislative intent.

4. Nothing in today's decision should be construed as prejudging particular programs.

5. Nothing in today's decision should be construed as allowing a portion of the PEEBA to be used to backfill PGC program beyond the 2010-2012 cycle.

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The proposal to use a portion of the Procurement Energy Efficiency Balancing Account to replace the Public Goods Charge set forth in the September 28, 2011, Assigned Commissioner's Ruling is adopted.

2. That portion of the Procurement Energy Efficiency Balancing Account that is used to replace the Public Goods Charge (PGC) shall be recovered on the basis of usage, just as the PGC.

3. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall use their Procurement Energy Efficiency Balancing Accounts to replace the Public Goods Charge funding for their energy efficiency programs in the 2010-2012 cycle only.

4. Nothing in this decision should impede or influence the Investor Owned Utilities' upcoming general rate cases.

5. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall adopt the backfill mechanics set forth in their October 12, 2011, Comments.

6. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall file new Tier 1 advice letters on or before December 22, 2011 detailing the mechanics of their proposals.

This order is effective today.

Dated December 15, 2011, at San Francisco, California.

Previous PageTop Of PageGo To First Page