7. Comments on Proposed Decision
The proposed decision (PD) of the ALJ in this matter was mailed in accordance with Section 311, and comments were allowed under Rule 14.3 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. Comments were filed on
April 14, 2008 by CAISO, CLECA, Ice Energy, the Joint Parties, and the Joint Utilities. Reply comments were filed on April 21, 2008 by the Joint Parties, the Joint Utilities, and North American Power Partners LLC.
Comments received from CAISO support the commitment expressed in Section 6 of the PD to develop an operational load impact protocol, and encourage the Commission to aim to have such protocols in place for summer 2009.34 CLECA expresses general support for the PD,35 and Ice Energy supports the PD in adopting load impact protocols that address permanent load shifting.36
Ice Energy also supports the PD's acknowledgement of the value of geographic specificity in load impact estimation, and recommends that the Commission encourage greater focus on this concept in the future.37 The protocols have not been changed to require greater granularity in reporting because we lack a sufficient record on which base specific requirements at this point, however this is an area in which the protocols may be refined or expanded in the future.
The Joint Utilities support the PD in general, and suggest several small revisions to the PD and Attachment A (Load Impact Protocols). We have made small corrections and clarifications in the PD and attachment in response to these comments. The Joint Utilities also ask for flexibility to tailor the Load Impact Protocol reporting requirements to waive reporting in specific situations, with the approval of the DRMEC.38 We decline to provide this flexibility; we require the information described in this decision for DR program planning and evaluation purposes, and it is not appropriate to allow the DRMEC to modify or waive reporting requirements adopted by this Commission.
The Joint Parties assert that the PD errs by not addressing load impact estimation related to customer settlements39 or (at a minimum) explaining in what proceeding(s) the Commission will address appropriate settlement baseline methodology.40 We have modified Section 3.1, above, to clarify the difference between settlement baselines for individual customers (which are not within the scope of this phase of this proceeding) and baselines for ex post evaluation of program-wide impacts (which are within the scope). In addition, we reiterate that the appropriate methodology for determining the settlement baseline for a given program is determined in the proceeding in which the particular program is adopted. Joint Parties also recommend that the PD be modified to adopt or pre-approve a specific baseline methodology.41 As discussed in section 3.1, above, it is not possible to adopt a single "best" methodology, or even a comprehensive list of "approved" methodologies, at this time. However, Attachment A does list several methodologies for program evaluators to consider; the methodology supported by the Joint Parties is one of these possibilities.42
34 Comments of the California Independent System Operator to the Proposed Decision Adopting Protocols for Estimating Demand Response Load Impacts, April 14, 2008. p. 2
35 Comments of the California Large Energy Consumers Association on the Proposed Decision of ALJ Hecht on Load Impact Protocols, April 14, 2008. p. 3.
36 Comments of Ice Energy, Inc., April 14, 2008, pp. 1-2.
37 Comments of Ice Energy, Inc., April 14, 2008, pp. 2-3.
38 Comments of Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, and San Diego Gas & Electric Company on Administrative Law Judge's Proposed Decision Adopting Protocols for Estimating Demand Response Load Impacts, April 14, 2008, pp. 7-9.
39 Comments of EnerNOC, Inc., EnergyConnect, Inc, and Comverge, Inc., on Proposed Decision on Demand Response Load Impact Protocols (Joint Party Comments on PD), April 14, 2008. p. 1.
40 Joint Party Comments on PD, p. 3.
41 Joint Party Comments on PD, p. 3.
42 See discussion in Attachment A at p. 50.
