8. Comments on Proposed Decision
Pursuant to Rule 14.3, parties have an opportunity to file comments and reply comments limited to the discussion of legal, factual, or technical errors in a proposed decision. The ALJ waived the usual page limit and invited parties also to comment on substantive concerns related to any program modifications reflected in the proposed decision. Several parties filed opening and reply comments.
Several parties filed opening and reply comments. While we have incorporated changes in response to comments throughout the decision, we will discuss newly-raised issues in this section.
8.1. Involvement of Regulated Water Utilities
In its comments on the proposed decision, the California Water Association (Water Association) (a trade association representing investor-owned water utilities) objects to two aspects of the programs to be adopted. First, the energy utilities have not proposed any programs in collaboration with regulated water utilities. Second, despite the assigned Commissioner's encouragement in the October 16, 2006 to include pilot programs addressing the energy intensity of water use and efficiency of energy use for treatment and delivery, the utilities almost exclusively proposed water conservation programs. The Water Association asserts that several Class A and Class B regulated water utilities stand ready to undertake various programs designed to improve the efficiency of treatment and delivery, by doing such things as deploying more efficient pumps and motors.
It is implicit, in the comments of the Water Association, that it is important for the energy utilities to pursue energy efficiency opportunities with the regulated water companies, and we agree. Although we expect that the energy utilities have worked with many of the regulated water companies to improve the efficiency of the waterworks, the record in this proceeding does not provide us with enough information to say definitively that this is or is not the case. For whatever reasons, the energy utilities did not propose pilot programs in partnership with regulated water providers. However, that does not mean that the proposed programs will not provide benefits for regulated water providers. For instance, PG&E points out that it is including private retailers of Santa Clara Valley Water District supplies in the list of potential water partners for the Emerging Technology component of its pilot program.
We lack a record that would support the approval of any other specific programs beyond those described in this decision. At the same time, the water companies should be able to pursue energy efficiency improvements through existing utility energy efficiency and self-generation programs. PG&E agrees and points to several existing programs that might be of interest to the Water Association's members. To create some kind of pilot effort to do things that could be accomplished through existing programs might lead to a delay in the implementation of such activities.
It is important, however, to ensure that the energy utilities are seeking out and accomplishing efficiency gains at the facilities of regulated water companies affirmatively, and effectively. PG&E states that it would be happy to work with any water or waste water facility customer to help it develop projects that would be eligible for PG&E's existing incentive program. This expression of interested is laudable, and we assume that the other energy utilities feel the same way. Toward that end, we direct each applicant energy utility to do the following within 90 days of the effective date of this order:
1. Contact each Class A and Class B regulated water utility that is one of its customers and meet with each company, as required, to determine the potential for improving the efficiency of energy use for treatment and delivery of water by that utility.
2. Establish a plan and schedule for pursuing those energy efficiency opportunities that can be accomplished within the bounds of existing energy efficiency programs.
3. Identify opportunities for efficiency improvements that each water utility can pursue on its own, and those which may require a new or augment energy utility program offering.
Provide a full report on these efforts (setting forth both a record of the contacts and the results) and deliver that report to the Energy Division, the Water Division, and all parties to these consolidated proceedings.
8.2. Stakeholder Advisory Group
In its opening comments, NRDC repeated its suggestion that the Commission establish a stakeholder advisory group to oversee the programs and to comment on the studies. In its reply comments, SCE endorsed NRDC's proposal. While we are convinced of the merit of providing ample opportunity for public comment on the study plans and program results, no one has made a compelling case for the creation of a new committee. As discussed below, we will ensure that there is meaningful opportunity for input on the study design, but will do so without forming the proposed committee.
8.3. Public Review of Draft Study and Evaluation Plans
Several parties comment on the need for a public process enabling them to review and comment on the draft plan to be developed by Commission staff and consultant for the pilot evaluation and other studies. The utilities propose a workshop and comment process while NRDC (with SCE's concurrence) recommends setting up an additional advisory group to aid in the design and implementation of the studies undertaken in this proceeding. DRA on the other hand, suggests a more flexible, ad hoc approach that would allow parties to review the study plans, ask clarifying questions and file written comments. The utilities cite the need for the work to be subject to the same external review requirements as the energy efficiency program evaluations.
We agree that public vetting of the draft study plans is necessary and likely beneficial. However, we also agree with DRA that obtaining comments on the plan does not require a workshop. DRA appropriately cites to language in D.05-01-055 suggesting that using an informal approach can be more efficient than setting up an advisory group.25 We agree with this perspective, and want to avoid any further delay in the collection of pre-data formal workshop that might result from convening an advisory committee process.
Thus, Energy Division shall seek comments on the draft evaluation plans as indicated in the revised process protocols in Attachment 2 of the January 2, 2007 ruling in R.06-04-010. This is the same process that energy efficiency program evaluations follow and stipulates either public comments or workshops to solicit input on the draft evaluation plans.
8.4. Pilot Program Starting Date
The Proposed Decision set an 18-month timetable for the pilot process. During the first six months, the utilities and the Energy Division would pre pare for the program period, which would run for 12 months beginning July 2008. This would enable Energy Division to have the consultant in place, and ready to take necessary measurements at the facilities of program participants prior to the installation of water-saving measures. This would make it possible to measure the direct impacts of the installation.
PG&E and SCE requested flexibility in program start dates so that they could begin offering program benefits before the July 2008 if they were ready to do so. PG&E, in particular, was concerned that it may be unable to offer measures to a number of candidate customers in the winery and laundry sectors if the programs did not start prior to July. PG&E explains that since winery production occurs in the fall, a program starting in July would not leave enough time to perform an audit and complete the retrofits and/or needed process changes before bottling starts. Further, PG&E describes the marketing activities of an ozone laundry vendor and expresses concern that there are a limited number of these types of customers and some may choose to implement the technology with or without the PG&E program.
We chose the July 2008 start date as the earliest possible time a program could start due to the need to get evaluators on board, draft study and evaluation plans, and collect pre-data. We would like to have these programs start sooner, but the evaluation constraints are such that it is not possible to do this and have meaningful evaluations. PG&E suggested working with Commission staff and contractors on the necessary data gathering activities and protocols to ensure that pilot implementation would not jeopardize impact evaluation. Without an evaluation plan in place, neither PG&E nor the Energy Division will know the nature of the pre-data they need to collect in order to determine a program effect. Furthermore, without evaluator input, the utilities may inadvertently design and implement a program in such a way that data collection may be limited or impossible. Additionally, since in some cases only a sample of the sites may be monitored, excluding some customers from the sampling process could produce bias in the results that may lead to unreliable conclusions about the full potential population.
While we are concerned that winery participants may be unable to participate in the pilot during this bottling cycle, we are less troubled by the prospect of laundry customers not participating. From the description in PG&E's comments, it appears that these customers would convert to ozone technology with or without the PG&E program. This, in and of itself, is not cause for concern if the results gained through measurement of these participants is applicable to a large potential population. What is unclear here is whether there is a need for this type of program at all, since PG&E notes that there are a limited number of these customers in the pilot footprint.
We are convinced that it is important to have consultants and measurement procedures in place prior to the start of the pilot programs. However, we want to ensure that programs will be able to start as soon as measurement is in place. We will encourage the Energy Division to beat the July 1 target date, if possible, and inform the utilities, if this were to happen. After receiving such a directive from the Energy Division, the utilities would be free to start the 12 month programs at an earlier date, as specified by the staff.
25 See, for instance, D.05-01-055, pp. 109 and 110.
