29. Assignment of Proceeding
Dian M. Grueneich is the assigned Commissioner and Sarah R. Thomas is the assigned Administrative Law Judge in this proceeding.
1. In D.07-12-051 and the Plan, the Commission has stated its long-term vision for the LIEE program: "By 2020, 100% of eligible and willing customers will have received all cost effective Low Income Energy Efficiency measures."
2. This decision is based on a significant written record, as well as the parties' oral input at the PHC and the workshop. Parties claiming we should have held hearings do not raise any disputed issue of material fact that requires resolution by hearing.
3. The direction that LIEE should be a program designed to meet the state's resource goals first appeared in D.06-12-038 almost two years ago.
4. It is most cost effective for an IOU to install all feasible measures once it incurs the expense and expends the effort to reach eligible customers.
5. In D.07-12-051, we ordered that the IOUs, in their budget applications, "propose specific program participation goals in specific population sectors or segments and budgets designed to meet those goals, consistent with D.06-12-038."
6. D.06-12-038 held that "SCE, SDG&E, PG&E and SoCalGas shall file applications for 2009-11 LIEE and CARE budget authority and program modifications [that] propose specific program participation goals in specific population sectors or segments...."
7. In D.07-12-051, the Commission held that "[t]he complementary objectives of LIEE programs will be to provide an energy resource for California while concurrently providing low income customers with ways to reduce their bills and improve their quality of life."
8. By targeting whole neighborhoods at once the LIEE program will become more visible in the communities the program serves.
9. The transiency rate among the low income population is high.
10. By installing measures in homes based on what is feasible for the housing type, rather than based on the current occupants' energy usage, the LIEE program will be more in line with the "whole house approach" outlined in the Plan. That approach focuses on making California's housing stock increasingly energy efficient.
11. On September 27, 2007, the ALJ issued a ruling seeking the parties' comments on how the KEMA Report could be used to develop LIEE program strategies. Parties thus had an opportunity to comment on the Report.
12. Energy burden represents the portion of a household's total income that is spent on energy bills; households that spend a large portion of income on such bills have a high energy burden.
13. High energy insecurity refers to customers who have trouble paying their bills, late payments, and actual or threatened utility shutoffs.
14. High energy users are more likely to need retrofits to their housing structure in order to reduce their energy consumption.
15. Over 43% of the low income population in California spends more than 5% of its total household income on energy. Out of these households, 66% are also energy insecure, which means the customers experience difficulty in paying energy bills and actual or threatened utility shutoffs.
16. Energy burden and energy insecurity demonstrate a high correlation with high energy usage.
17. The IOUs have a great deal more technical capacity and customer data at their disposal than most agencies and contractors involved in program delivery.
18. Customers with late utility bill payment histories and customers on medical baseline are very likely to need energy efficiency services provided through the LIEE program.
19. Overall, 38% of California's low income households have lived in their current home for two years or less and 11% have lived in their current home for 20 or more years.
20. The CARE databases or customer lists provide important information on the customer base shared by both LIEE and CARE.
21. Remote rural areas require different approaches to targeting customers for program enrollment than urban areas.
22. LIEE programs go to considerable expense in identifying customers to target and enroll customers, and then only install a few measures in many homes.
23. The reduction of travel time from house to house can save contractors and outreach workers both time and cost. The approach also reduces transportation costs, in turn decreasing the program's carbon footprint, consistent with the Commission's goal of reducing statewide greenhouse gas emissions.
24. D.05-10-044, issued in light of anticipated high natural gas prices in the winter of 2005-06, eased the LIEE enrollment processes in certain areas.
25. In D.06-12-038, the Commission approved the continuation of targeted self-certification and enrollment for 2007-08.
26. LIEE self-certification after the issuance of D.05-10-044 resulted in a 21% increase in customers enrolling in the LIEE program during November and December of 2005 compared to the level of enrollment during the same period in 2004.
27. The LIEE self-certification proposal in D.05-10-044 raised no objections while cutting costs and increasing program participation.
28. Self-certification has been met with success in increasing LIEE penetration. Extending this approach through the next budget cycle will help the IOUs meet the programmatic initiative of serving 25% of the eligible population.
29. LifeLine allows customers categorical enrollment for programs that LIEE does not. Customers can be categorically eligible for LifeLine by proving enrollment in the following programs: Medi-Cal; Food Stamps, TANF; WIC; LIHEAP; Healthy Families Category A; SSI; Federal Housing Assistance/ Section 8; NSL Free Lunch Program; Bureau of Indian Affairs General Assistance; and Head Start Income Eligible (Tribal only).
30. Section 2790 does not contain the language "all feasible measures."
31. The Commission has often exercised discretion to limit the number of type of measures installed in individual LIEE-eligible homes.
32. The 2006 P&P Manual contains 25 pages of conditions that render each measure in the LIEE program infeasible under certain circumstances.
33. The LIEE program has never consisted of a cookie cutter set of measures in every home.
34. The UCT and PCm Tests incorporate Non Energy Benefits as well as direct energy related benefits.
35. Non Energy Benefits capture a variety of effects, such as changes in comfort and reduction in hardship, that are not captured by the energy savings estimates derived from load impact billing evaluations.
36. The IOUs spend significant funds every year marketing various energy efficiency and low income energy efficiency programs with different names, taglines, and target markets.
37. The Plan mandates a single statewide ME&O program that combines low income and non-low income energy efficiency messages, uses a single program name and tagline, and targets all eligible communities.
38. Ethnic marketing is a key way of reaching language minorities and communities of color.
39. Because more than 20% of low income customers are disabled, increasing LIEE outreach and service to the disabled community serves to enhance program penetration in the low income community.
40. In D.06-12-038, we stated that structures, information and services related to CARE and LIEE programs must be accessible to and tailored to the needs of customers with disabilities.
41. Persons with disabilities are disproportionately low income, and serving the disabled community with LIEE outreach and especially measure installation will enhance penetration of the LIEE program in the low income community.
42. Twenty-three percent of low income households contain a member who has a hearing, vision or physical disability, and 15% of low income households have a member who is mentally and/or emotionally disabled. Among all low income households, 22% contain a member who is disabled and also responsible for paying the utility bill.
43. In D.07-12-051, the Commission stated "[t]he LIEE portion of the statewide strategic plan should include specific training strategies for reaching disadvantaged communities. Utilities should also work with community stakeholders to assist them in the development of training strategies."
44. The Plan envisions that "IOUs will act as a catalyst to change by implementing several foundational activities that are necessary to accurately identify specific WE&T needs and recommendations for action."
45. Stakeholders supporting action toward developing "green jobs" in California are numerous, and ratepayers will fund but a part of these efforts. Other funding and training will come from taxpayers, community-based and nonprofit organizations, educational institutions, the business community, labor organizations and others.
46. CFLs are currently the mainstay of the LIEE lighting program; all of the large electric IOUs collectively plan to install over three million bulbs over the period 2009-11.
47. CFLs continue to provide low income customers the opportunity for significant energy savings in a cost effective manner.
48. Significant state and federal legislation will mandate energy efficient and non-toxic lighting fixtures starting in 2011.
49. 20%-30% of customers who receive CFLs through LIEE do not install them.
50. A customer will not capture a LIEE measure's energy and bill savings until someone installs the measure.
51. The three electric utilities (SDG&E, PG&E and SCE) have very different per installed bulb costs, with almost a $5 per bulb difference.
52. There may be a worldwide shortage of CFLs as demand for them increases in developing nations (particularly China, where CFLs are manufactured).
53. Energy efficient lighting is currently undergoing a major shift towards newer, more efficient bulb technologies.
54. The high performance lighting market is no longer focused solely on CFLs.
55. Any customer served since 2002 will have received up-to-date LIEE treatment for the most part.
56. Customers served by LIEE prior to 2002 may be in need of energy efficiency upgrades.
57. Certain households may need fewer than three measures to adequately improve energy efficiency.
58. The costs of outreach, enrollment and assessment are substantial.
59. John Peterson, a consultant who provides the IOUs with annual estimates of the CARE and LIEE eligible population, sent an email on June 22 to various utility representatives, stating "I wish that we had used 5.63 million and a growth rate, but I understand the reasons for the approach taken."
60. It is unlikely that the low income population diminished by 4% from 2006-09.
61. The 2007 annual reports showed eligible LIEE household estimates of 1,868,598 for PG&E; 1,368,584 for SCE; 354,489 for SDG&E; and 2,046,086 for SoCalGas. In total, approximately 5,637,757 households were eligible for the LIEE program in 2007.
62. Five percent of customers are unwilling to participate in LIEE.
63. The number of homes treated under LIEE from 2002-2008 is 1,138,349 households. Approximately 224,387 homes were treated by LIHEAP from 2002-07.
64. "Integration" constitutes an organization's internal efforts among its various departments and programs to identify, develop, and enact cooperative relationships that increase the effectiveness of customer demand side management programs and resources. Integration should result in more economic efficiency and energy savings than would have occurred in the absence of integration efforts.
65. Incompatibility of databases should not pose a concern for integration, since IOUs will be tracking data internally.
66. LGPs are an ideal place to pursue integration between LIEE and Energy Efficiency programs.
67. By coordinating LGPs with the LIEE programs, the IOUs can use the pre-established working relationships between the utility and the local government to pursue leveraging opportunities.
68. "Leveraging" is an IOU's effort to coordinate its LIEE programs with programs outside the IOU that serve low income customers, including programs offered by the public, private, non-profit or for-profit, local, state, and federal government sectors that result in energy efficiency measure installations in low income households.
69. The most obvious LIEE leveraging opportunity is the federal LIHEAP program.
70. The IOUs' current LIEE programs do not adequately leverage with LIHEAP. Part of the reason for this is the unavailability of a LIHEAP database.
71. The income qualifications for LIEE/CARE and for subsidized housing are different; residents of such housing may have incomes over the LIEE/CARE levels.
72. Public housing recipients who do not qualify for CARE/LIEE are not evenly distributed across all of the IOUs' service territories.
73. NGAT testing is a basic utility service.
74. IOUs other than PG&E fund REACH-type shutoff assistance programs through general rates.
75. The pilots and studies we approve in this decision are described adequately by the IOU, contribute to the program goals we outline in this decision, and/or are required by statute.
76. The pilots and studies we disapprove in this study either are not adequately described by the IOU, or are inconsistent with the program goals set forth in this decision.
77. There is a CCA in the area near San Joaquin, where PG&E proposes a pilot.
78. The Commission in the past has allowed fund shifting in the LIEE and CARE programs on a limited basis, with an Advice Letter required in other situations.
79. IOUs' CARE administrative budgets have increased because it costs more to reach each new customer as IOU CARE penetrations reach higher levels; postage and mailing costs have increased; the need for supervision and oversight of the program increases as penetration increases; capitation fees to contractors have increased as the program expands; and due to other more individualized reasons.
80. In 2008, the estimated penetration rate for CARE enrollment is as follows: PG&E - 70%; SCE - 79%; SoCalGas - 79.6%; and SDG&E - 72%.
81. A CARE penetration goal of 100% may not be attainable because of the difficulty in identifying and reaching certain customers; the fact that certain customers have a very low energy burden; and unwillingness to participate.
82. 10% of all low income households are unwilling or unlikely to participate in CARE.
83. CARE outreach expenses will increase in 2009-11.
84. Costs of reaching certain CARE customers can be quite high. The cost of direct mail can be as high as $21 per customer enrolled. SDG&E's mass media campaign (which includes radio, TV, and print) cost a total of $239,020 in 2007 yet only resulted in a net enrollment of 900 customers, a cost of $266 per customer enrolled. SCE conducted several outreach events for CARE in 2007, spending $33,000 for a net enrollment of only 1,033 customers (a $32 per customer enrolled cost).
85. The IOUs regularly recertify customers' income eligibility for CARE by contacting them and requiring them to prove that they continue to be eligible. Each IOU does this in various ways.
86. The Commission's CAB has received approximately 5 complaints about the IOUs' CARE recertification efforts in 2007-08, according to a review of records that are not categorized by type of CARE issue involved.
87. When the Commission began certifying income for LifeLine, we received more than 5,000 complaints.
88. By including CARE in One-E-App, the Commission will leverage both the tool and the associated resources that are dedicated to helping enroll low income vulnerable community members in these important support programs.
1. We should allow LIEE marketing and outreach efforts to focus on customers with high energy use, burden or insecurity.
2. The IOUs should target neighborhoods with high energy usage/burden/insecurity, severe climate zones, or other customer segments in choosing where to install feasible measures first, so as to ensure the greatest energy savings from the LIEE program, but all customers shall ultimately receive measures.
3. The IOUs should focus on treating homes, rather than customers, because while a home will remain, its occupants may change.
4. The LIEE program should serve all willing and eligible customers.
5. The IOUs should use a segmentation approach which first locates neighborhoods with a large numbers of low income customers and thereafter segments eligible customers within each neighborhood by energy usage.
6. The IOUs should consider the particular neighborhood and its population when deciding which neighborhood outreach methods to employ.
7. The IOUs should work with willing local governments and agencies to understand which strategies work best in which neighborhoods.
8. The IOUs should use more aggressive outreach to target high energy users (and customers with late payment histories and on medical baseline), though not to the exclusion of low energy users.
9. The categorical eligibility requirements that apply to LifeLine should be the same as those for LIEE and CARE. The IOUs should allow customers receiving federal means-tested SSI to qualify for LIEE and CARE categorically.
10. IOUs should be allowed to add additional means tested programs to the list of programs that afford categorical eligibility for LIEE and CARE, so long as they receive approval to add such programs by Tier 2 Advice Letter.
11. IOUs should not segment customers by energy usage or other characteristics in deciding which measures to install.
12. We should require a "whole house" approach to meeting customer's energy needs, which focuses on making the state's entire housing stock energy efficient, rather than installing insignificant measures in a scattering of homes on a piecemeal basis.
13. Each house IOUs serve in the LIEE program should receive an individualized energy audit so that it receives all feasible measures necessary for maximal energy efficiency. To the extent the energy audit focuses on energy use, such information should not be used to limit the number of feasible measures installed in an eligible home.
14. In order to achieve long-term and enduring energy savings, a home should be treated with long-term occupancy patterns in mind, thus resulting in the installation of all feasible measures.
15. IOUs should minimize the number of times they visit a home as part of the LIEE program.
16. LIEE measure installation should occur at the same time as energy audits, except where impossible.
17. The IOUs should use the Whole Neighborhood Approach to minimize the number of trips the utility or its contractors make to serve eligible LIEE customers.
18. The Commission has discretion to determine what measures are feasible, taking into account cost effectiveness and hardships. Feasibility depends in part on the cost effectiveness of measures. Feasibility must also focus on reducing energy-related hardships facing low income households.
19. "All feasible measures" for LIEE does not mean "all available measures."
20. We should adopt the following methodology, as of January 1, 2009, for determining whether specific measures are cost effective (taking into account the housing type as well as climate zone) and set forth an approach to screening all measures going forward:
a. Measures that have both a PCm and a UCT benefit-cost ratio greater than or equal to 0.25 (taking into consideration the housing type and climate zone for that measure) for that utility shall be included in the LIEE program. This rule applies for both existing and newly measures.
b. Existing measures that have eight a PCm or of a UCT benefit-cost ratio less than 0.25 shall be retained in the program.
c. Existing and new measures with both PCm and UCT test results less than 0.25 for that utility may be included in the LIEE program for all climate zones if they consist of furnace repair and replacement or water heater repair and replacement. Air conditioning and evaporative cooling measures may be included in the LIEE program in hot climates (in accordance with the measure guidelines of the 2007-08 LIEE program, which disallowed cooling measures in temperate climate zones), subject to new reporting requirements. Heating and water heating measures in landlord-owned property may not be installed with LIEE funds, as landlords' legal habitability obligations require them to pay for such amenities.
22. We should require expanded reporting by IOUs on measures that fall below the 0.25 cost effectiveness threshold to determine the impact of such measures on Plan goals.
23. Any LIEE measure meeting the criteria in the foregoing two paragraphs should be eligible for installation in a low income customer's home, except where infeasible.
24. We approve the IOUs' cost effectiveness and energy savings analysis for purposes of the 2009 program year. The IOUs will perform a 2009 Impact Evaluation study and we also authorize them to perform a new Non Energy Benefits study. We expect the results of these studies to be used to show updated cost effectiveness numbers and new expected energy savings. Although we understand that the energy impacts cannot be pre-determined, we expect that energy savings will increase given the many changes this decision makes to the IOUs' programs. We also require the utilities to incorporate these new cost-effectiveness and energy savings numbers into their estimates in drafting their 2012-14 budget applications.
25. The IOUs should carry out the Non Energy Benefits study we authorize in this decision as early in 2009 as possible.
26. We should require that the IOUs' energy efficiency education - in which the IOUs inform and teach low income customers about the benefits of energy efficiency - occur close in time to installation of measures, rather than in a vacuum. We should allow IOUs to fund facilitated education, including workshops, provided such workshops target low income persons eligible or likely to be eligible for LIEE and take steps to enroll customers in LIEE.
27. We should disallow the portion of SCE's budget devoted to effort that involves education-only kits not tied to measure installation. We also should disallow SCE's proposal for "door-to-door canvassing structured to provide energy education and awareness to low income customers who might otherwise not be treated through LIEE due to ineligibility for LIEE measures."
28. PG&E's Energy Education workshops should not occur unless they lead to installation of energy efficiency measures or enrollment of customers in LIEE.
29. We do not have a record to determine the adequacy of the IOUs' ethnic marketing efforts. We should allow the IOUs to continue such marketing at current levels in 2009 (except PG&E, which should add ethnic marketing to its LIEE program for 2009). The single statewide ME&O program will have an ethnic marketing component.
30. The Commission and IOUs should focus on training for LIEE installation workers so those expanded programs also benefit from a trained workforce.
31. New state and federal law will drastically alter the marketplace for lighting, and it is imperative that we and the IOUs begin to prepare customers for the transition. Given the timelines in the legislation, such preparation must begin now.
32. Buying and installing lightbulbs should be a fungible activity funded equally across all IOUs.
33. Population growth should be taken into consideration in determining the number of customers eligible for LIEE.
34. Households treated under the LIHEAP program should also be counted as treated in determining the number of LIEE eligible customers, given that LIHEAP offers most of the same measures offered by LIEE.
35. The LIEE and CARE statutes do not allow for funding of programs such as PG&E's REACH utility shutoff assistance program.
36. We should not approve pilots or studies that the IOUs fail adequately to describe, or that would accomplish goals that are inconsistent with the mandates of this decision.
37. The Commission should approve SDG&E and SoCalGas' LIEE customer rewards program on a pilot basis.
38. The Commission should approve LIEE and CARE fund shifting consistently with its prior decisions.
39. Telling customers about services for which they are likely eligible is a basic utility function to be borne in general rates.
40. CARE recertification is essential so that ineligible customers do not receive the often substantial subsidies the program affords.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. We approve 2009-11 Low Income Energy Efficiency (LIEE) and California Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE) budgets of the large investor owned utilities (IOUs), Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), Southern California Edison Company (SCE), San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E), and Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas), as follows:
2. We authorize the IOUs their requested LIEE Marketing, Education & Outreach (ME&O) budgets, adjusted to reflect new LIEE population estimates, subject to the restriction that they may only expend 1/3 of their requested 2009-11 budgets for 2009. The IOUs shall hold the remaining 2/3 of their ME&O budgets (the amounts for 2010 and 2011) in abeyance as the Commission works to develop a single statewide ME&O program that supplants existing IOU ME&O for 2010 and beyond.
3. To ensure that the IOUs' ME&O and the single statewide ME&O program are coordinated, the IOUs shall stay abreast of developments on the ME&O program as part of the general Energy Efficiency proceeding.
4. The IOUs shall coordinate 2009 LIEE marketing so that it is consistent with the developing single statewide ME&O program.
5. The IOUs shall not spend ME&O funding we allocate for 2010-11 except on the single statewide ME&O program, which we expect to be in place in late 2009 or early 2010 as part of the Commission's general Energy Efficiency proceeding.
6. The IOUs shall, for the 2009-11 period, continue or institute the LIEE targeted self-certification and enrollment activities the Commission ordered for 2007-08 in Decision (D.) 06-12-038. Such LIEE self-certification and enrollment consists of offering LIEE in areas of their service territory where 80% of the customers are at or below 200% of the federal poverty line.
7. The IOUs shall immediately make all categorical eligibility requirements that apply to LifeLine the same as those for LIEE and CARE.
8. The IOUs shall allow customers receiving federal means-tested Supplemental Security Income (SSI) to qualify for LIEE and CARE categorically.
9. The IOUs shall investigate the eligibility requirements of each of the benefits programs that qualify customers for LifeLine. If the IOUs find that certain listed programs have eligibility requirements that differ from the requirements applicable to LIEE and CARE, they may file with Energy Division a request for a workshop, listing the programs that present problems, the problems at issue, and their proposed response. If Energy Division finds the workshop request has merit, it will schedule a workshop at that time, but it need not do so if it is able to resolve the IOUs' concerns in another manner.
10. The IOUs may add additional means-tested programs to the list of programs that confer categorical eligibility on customers seeking CARE or LIEE benefits beyond those identified in the preceding three ordering paragraphs. The IOUs shall seek such additions by Tier 2 Advice Letter.
11. Unless otherwise provided in this decision, all Advice Letters this decision requires shall be Tier 2 Advice Letters pursuant to General Order 96-B.
12. To carry out the "Whole Neighborhood Approach," the IOUs shall use their own data about customer energy usage, late bill payment, and service shutoffs or threatened shutoffs to find neighborhoods (including rural areas) with concentrated high energy usage, burden and insecurity.
13. We expect the IOUs to work with the Energy Division in carrying out the Whole Neighborhood Approach, and delegate responsibility to Energy Division to offer additional guidance and oversight to ensure that the IOUs follow the approach in an efficient manner.
14. IOUs may segment customers by energy usage or other attributes in conducting LIEE outreach.
15. The IOUs shall install all feasible measures for all eligible LIEE customers.
16. The IOUs shall pursue a "whole house" approach to meeting LIEE customers' energy needs. Each eligible home shall receive an individualized energy audit so that it receives all feasible measures necessary for maximal energy efficiency. To the extent an energy audit focuses on the energy use in a home, such usage shall not be used to lower the number of feasible measures to be installed in the home.
17. We adopt the following methodology, as of January 1, 2009, for determining whether specific measures are cost effective (taking into account the housing type as well as climate zone) and set forth an approach to screening all measures going forward:
a. Measures that have both a PCm and a UCT benefit-cost ratio greater than or equal to 0.25 (taking into consideration the housing type and climate zone for that measure) for that utility shall be included in the LIEE program. This rule applies for both existing and new measures.
b. Existing measures that have either a PCm or a UCT benefit-cost ratio less than 0.25 shall be retained in the program.
c. Existing and new measures with both PCm and UCT test results less than 0.25 for that utility may be included in the LIEE program for all climate zones if they consist of furnace repair and replacement or water heater repair and replacement. Air conditioning and evaporative cooling measures may be included in the LIEE program in hot climates (in accordance with the measure guidelines of the 2007-08 LIEE program, which disallowed cooling measures in temperate climate zones), subject to new reporting requirements. Heating and water heating measures in landlord-owned property may not be installed with LIEE funds, as landlords' legal habitability obligations require them to pay for such amenities.
18. The IOUs shall forecast, for 2009-2011 (per year and for the full three year period), for any measure that we include in the program that falls below the 0.25 cost effectiveness threshold test, the following:
· The measure type and climate zone;
· How many such measures the IOU anticipates installing in 2009-2011 in each "add-back" climate zone;
· The budget impact of the "add-backs," and
· The energy savings impacts of the "add-backs,"" based on the assumption that installation of measures that do not already exist in a home will increase, rather than decrease, energy usage.
19. The IOUs shall report in their annual reports, for the prior year, the actual figures in each of the foregoing four categories. If the LIEE measure "add-backs," this decision allows will compromise the IOUs' ability to meet the 2020 Plan goal that 100% of eligible and allows willing customers will have received all cost effective LIEE measures, the IOUs shall include a narrative in their annual reports on how they propose to address the shortfall in other parts of their LIEE program. We direct Energy Division to examine these reports when they are submitted, and to recommend Commission action aimed at enhancing program energy savings if the information reported shows a lack of progress toward meeting Plan goals.
20. The provisions of the foregoing ordering paragraphs regarding furnace repair and replacement and water heater repair and replacement are subject to the holding in D.07-12-051 that landlords are responsible, pursuant to the warranty of habitability, for providing heating and water heating to their tenants. No cost of furnace repair and replacement or water heater repair and replacement shall be borne by the LIEE program in rental housing.
21. IOUs shall perform a 2009 Impact Evaluation study and Non Energy Benefits study. The IOUs shall report the results of these studies once the studies are completed. We anticipate that these reported results will show that energy savings of the LIEE portfolio are increasing over time, with a closer correlation between program spending and energy savings than shown in the IOUs' 2009-11 budget applications.
22. We require that the IOUs' energy efficiency education - in which the IOUs inform and teach low income customers about the benefits of energy efficiency - occur close in time to installation of measures, rather than in a vacuum. We allow IOUs to fund facilitated education, including workshops, provided such workshops target low income persons eligible or likely to be eligible for LIEE and take steps to enroll customers in LIEE.
23. We disallow the portion of SCE's budget devoted to effort that involves education-only kits not tied to measure installation. We also disallow SCE's proposal for "door-to-door canvassing structured to provide energy education and awareness to low income customers who might otherwise not be treated through LIEE due to ineligibility for LIEE measures."
24. To the extent PG&E's Energy Education workshops do not result in installation of energy efficient measures, they shall be removed from PG&E's LIEE program.
25. We allow the IOUs approximately one third of their proposed ME&O funding to pursue their own, individual marketing campaigns in 2009. The IOUs shall implement this marketing in coordination with the California Long-Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan's (Plan) work on a single statewide ME&O program.
26. Those IOU personnel involved in developing the single statewide ME&O program shall communicate with the IOUs' LIEE program personnel and ensure that 2009 IOU marketing for the LIEE program is consistent with the direction of the single statewide ME&O program.
27. For 2010-11, while we approve the IOUs' requested funding, we do not allow the IOUs to spend the funds on the marketing efforts they propose. Rather, they shall hold this money in reserve so that it forms part of the single statewide ME&O program budget. Once we approve the single statewide ME&O program in our Energy Efficiency proceeding, the IOUs will receive further direction on how to allocate this funding.
28. PG&E's shall add a LIEE component to its ethnic advertising campaign for 2009.
29. We set a goal for the IOUs to increase their disabled household enrollments for the 2009-11 program years so that customers with disabilities customers comprise approximately 15% of new LIEE enrollments annually.
30. We require the IOUs to leverage their LIEE program outreach with the Commission's Deaf and Disabled Telecommunications Program (DDTP) and disability-related community based organizations (CBOs) in California.
31. We will allow IOUs to count customers they enroll in LIEE as a result of leveraging with CBOs that serve the disabled community, or with the DDTP, toward the 15% annual disabled enrollment goal. IOUs may also count customers who voluntarily self-identify as disabled or whom the IOUs enroll from the Medical Baseline program, but should not ask customers whether they are disabled. Rather, the IOUs may count as disabled persons who voluntarily describe themselves as having a disability, persons who have an observed disability such as a mobility, vision or hearing disability, and persons who use TTY/TDD or request accessible formats of written materials (i.e., large print and/or Braille).
32. IOUs shall enroll in CARE all eligible customers they add to the LIEE program as part of the 15% goal for enrollment of customers with disabilities.
33. We require that the IOUs report the status of their efforts to enroll persons with disabilities in their annual reports to the Commission identifying the level to which their efforts meet the 15% penetration goal. In cases where the participation from the disabled community is below the 15% goal, the IOUs shall provide an explanation.
34. The IOUs shall track the training and hiring of a low income energy efficiency workforce, and report on progress in their annual reports.
35. The Commission directs the Energy Division to issue a Request For Proposals for the development of Workforce Education and Training (WE&T) pilot programs. The selected proposals shall receive funding to be distributed by the utility in the pilot's service territory.
36. IOUs or their agents shall install all CFLs distributed in the LIEE program.
37. The IOUs or their agents shall remove old bulbs after installing CFLs, unless a customer asks to keep the old bulbs.
38. The IOUs shall include information with CFLs explaining how to dispose of them safely.
39. This decision does not establish any presumption for ratepayer CFL funding in the pending general Energy Efficiency applications.
40. We set a maximum $6.90 per installed bulb cost that is the same across IOUs, although IOUs shall install bulbs at a lower cost if they can negotiate the costs downward. The IOUs shall charge less than $6.90 if their actual cost is lower than this amount.
41. The IOUs shall immediately pursue joint lightbulb procurement, warehousing, transportation and related expenses unless such procurement will raise the per-bulb price above $1.90 and/or the overhead and related expense per bulb above $5.00.
42. The IOUs shall begin monitoring whether lightbulb shortages are threatened, and begin contingency planning if shortages or bulb price increases appear possible. They shall also notify the Energy Division in their monthly reports if shortages may affect the LIEE program.
43. For the 2009-11 LIEE budget cycle, the utilities' programs may continue to install CFLs as part of their standard measures, because they still have potential for cost effective energy savings in low income households, when installed.
44. As new technologies in lighting come into play between 2009 and 2011, the IOUs shall adhere to the new legal standards in introducing lighting measures to LIEE portfolios. They shall report in their annual reports their preparation to meet the new legal requirements.
45. Should the general Energy Efficiency decision, expected in 2009, develop a major shift in lighting focus for the state, the IOUs may need to readjust their lighting portfolios midcourse to reflect such changes.
46. We allow the IOUs to go back and treat any dwelling not treated since 2002, but the IOUs shall first seek out new dwellings that have not yet been treated. In their annual reports, IOUs shall distinguish between customers treated as "go backs" and brand new customers/dwellings so the Commission has clear information on the number of new customers/dwellings added to the LIEE program.
47. We eliminate the 3 Measure Minimum rule (which prohibits IOUs from installing measures in a home that does not require at least three measures) in favor of a rule that allows IOUs to install one or two measures in a home, as long as the measures achieve energy savings of at least either 125 kWh/annually or 25 therms/annually. Attachment G to this decision specifies, based on the data the IOUs provided with their applications, which measures qualify.
48. The utilities shall treat a total of 1,055,096 households over the next budget cycle to meet 25% of the programmatic initiative, as shown in the following table:
49. In order to be counted as successful, IOUS shall demonstrate that their integration efforts accomplish at least two of the following four goals:
· Interdepartmental Coordination: Increased coordination in work efforts between departments within the utility. This type of integration results in cost and/or resource savings as well as one or both of the following:
o Consolidation of work efforts,
o Elimination of overlapping and/or repetitive tasks.
· Program Coordination: Increased coordination between multiple programs managed by the utility. This type of integration results in cost and/or resource savings as well as one or both of the following:
o Increased services provided to customers,
o Greater number of customers served by a program.
· Data Sharing: Increased information and data sharing between departments within the utility and/or multiple programs managed by the utility. This type of integration results in cost and/or resource savings as well as one or both of the following:
o Greater number of customers served,
o Consolidation of work efforts.
· ME&O Coordination: Consolidation of marketing, education and outreach for multiple programs managed by the utility. This type of integration results in cost and/or resource savings as well as any or all of the following:
o Greater number of customers reached,
o More cost effective marketing, education and/or outreach to customers,
o Elimination of customer confusion.
50. We decline DRA's proposal to discontinue the Quarterly Public Meetings.
51. IOUs shall track and report the status of each of the integration efforts listed in their applications or Plan submissions in their annual report submitted to the Commission each May. In cases where the integration effort does not meet at least two of the above goals, the IOUs shall provide a reasonable explanation. We direct Energy Division to review the reports and work with IOUs to enhance integration during the 2009-11 cycle if our metrics are not met.
52. The utilities shall coordinate all LIEE outreach with CARE.
53. The IOUs shall pursue integration in other program functions such as income verification.
54. All utilities shall increase coordination between LIEE and Energy Efficiency departments, thereby achieving greater interdepartmental coordination.
55. The utilities shall examine current and future Local Government Partnerships and pursue any potential synergies that exist with the LIEE program to ultimately reduce costs.
56. The IOUs shall make sure that what they learn in their Demand Response proceedings is leveraged with the LIEE program.
57. In accordance with D.07-11-045, the Commission directs the utilities to remove any barriers to LIEE participation for eligible customers who wish to participate in the CSI low income programs. Solar applicants shall be fast-tracked through the LIEE program in the event that a waiting list for LIEE measure installation exists.
58. Low income single family homeowners may receive solar facilities (1) if they have already received all feasible LIEE measures, or (2) if they are on the waiting list to receive such measures.
59. IOUs shall use the following three criteria to measure the level of success of each of their leveraging efforts and partnerships:
(i) Leveraging results in dollars saved;
(ii) The opportunity results in energy savings/benefits; and
(iii) The opportunity results in enrollment increases.
60. The IOUs shall report the extent to which their LIEE leveraging efforts meet the foregoing metrics in their annual reports provided each May to the Commission. In cases where the leveraging effort or relationship does not meet a criterion, the IOU shall provide a reasonable explanation. We direct Energy Division to review the reports and work with IOUs to enhance leveraging during the 2009-11 cycle if our metrics are not met.
61. IOUs shall use all available resources that will assist them in determining, before a LIEE contractor goes to a home, whether that home has received LIHEAP measures and the type of measures involved.
62. The IOUs shall make arrangement with DCSD or LIHEAP contractors to have their personnel trained on what the LIHEAP program entails.
63. Our goal is full LIHEAP and LIEE leveraging, as well as ensuring that LIHEAP and LIEE measure installation happen at the same time, or sequentially, as part of the Whole Neighborhood Approach. The IOUs shall assist in working with DCSD and the Commission to develop a database that will allow IOUs and their contractors to determine if a home has already received LIHEAP service, and the measures installed. They shall also use all means currently available to determine such service by LIHEAP.
64. Each IOU shall make a reasonable effort to differentiate between eligible and ineligible public housing residents for CARE and LIEE enrollment, and only enroll eligible public housing residents in the programs. We grant the IOUs discretion how to do this in each of their service areas.
65. Natural Gas Appliance Testing (NGAT) funding shall be from general rates and not the LIEE program. No IOU shall request otherwise in future LIEE requests, as we have resolved the issue in the same manner for many LIEE program cycles.
66. PG&E shall not reduce the number of LIEE customers it serves as a result of our holding on NGAT funding.
67. The IOUs shall coordinate with the Energy Division to incorporate all changes we make in this decision to the relevant sections of the 2006 LIEE Policy and Procedures Manual within 180 days of the effective date of this decision. The IOUs shall thereafter serve a link to the updated version of the Manual on the service list for this proceeding.
68. For all pilots and studies we approve here, all IOUs shall meet with Energy Division staff, and the other IOUs, and other stakeholders to review the pilots' and studies' results. In the annual reports filed after the completion of each pilot, the affected IOUs shall make clear recommendations as to whether the pilots should be expanded statewide.
69. We approve the following budgets for pilots and studies for 2009-11:
70. PG&E shall not use its pilot in San Joaquin to attempt convince customers eligible to sign up for the San Joaquin Valley Power Authority CCA to retain their service with PG&E.
71. All IOUs shall file a Tier 2 compliance Advice Letter expanding upon the Program Implementation Plans (PIPs) provided in attachments to the IOUs' budget applications prior to the start of each pilot we approve herein. The expanded materials shall include:
a. A timeline: Projected start and finish dates, report dates, assessment timeline and final assessment date;
b. Projected breakdown of budgets: Categories displaying material costs, administration, data collection and analysis, reporting costs, etc., should be included along with a brief paragraph explaining the breakdown;
c. Estimated Energy Savings - (Measure Pilots; Measure pilots involve trials of new technology and/or energy efficiency hardware on a small scale, with the intention of expanding the measure to the entire utility and/or sharing results with other utilities if proven successful);
d. Estimated Resources Leveraged/Saved (Non-Measure Pilots; Non-Measure pilots consist of partnership, leveraging, education, training and/or other types of trial initiatives that involve increased leveraging or more efficient use of utility resources in execution of its low income programs);
e. Combined estimate of Energy Savings/Shared Resources (Combined Pilots; Combined pilots have elements of both measure and non-measure pilots);
f. Overview of Pilot Evaluation Plan (PE): The PEP should identify target data for capture, specify data capture activities, state how the IOU will provide results for estimated energy savings or resources leveraged/saved, give relevant dates and deadlines, and set forth a definition of success for the pilot.
72. For all approved pilots, the IOUs shall submit "budget used" against "budget authorized" calculations in their monthly reports. The utilities must also submit in their annual reports, in the year(s) a pilot is active, updates on each pilot that include the following information:
a. A narrative overview discussing activities undertaken in the pilot since its inception; description of pilot progress, problems encountered, ideas on solutions, and description of activities anticipated in the next quarter and the next year;
b. Status of Pilot Evaluation Plan (PEP);
73. At a bare minimum, the IOUs shall submit upon completion of any pilot and the subsequent evaluation, a Final Pilot Report that includes the following:
a. Overview of pilot;
b. Description of Pilot Evaluation Plan (PEP);
c. Budget spent vs. authorized budget;
d. Final results of pilot; including energy savings (for measure pilots and/or resources leveraged/saved (for non-measure pilots) and
e. Recommendations, including whether the pilot should be expanded to all eligible customers and/or expanded to other partners as well as reasons for or against this action; solutions to problems that were encountered, and changes proposed for expanding successful pilots to the larger LIEE program.
74. The final Process Evaluation report is due no later than the end of 2010.
75. Energy Division shall oversee the 2009 Process Evaluation. The IOUs shall pay for the contract, but otherwise shall involve the Energy Division at the earliest possible time in the RFP and bid evaluation process so that independence is assured. The Commission, not the IOUs, will choose the contractor, and the IOUs shall have no involvement in directing the contractor's work.
76. The next LIEE Impact Evaluation shall take place in 2009. The Energy Division shall oversee the Impact Evaluation, select the contractor and coordinate with the IOUs on all duties. The IOUs shall pay for the contract, but otherwise shall involve the Energy Division at the earliest possible time in the RFP and bid evaluation process so that independence is assured. The Commission, not the IOUs, will choose the contractor, and the IOUs shall have no involvement in directing the contractor's work.
77. We deny the IOUs' request for $600,000 to conduct the Impact Evaluation. Instead, the IOUs shall use the $600,000 authorized in D.06-12-038 for an Impact Evaluation that was not performed, and carry it forward to the 2009 program year.
78. Within 60 days of this decision's mailing, all IOUs shall submit Tier 2 compliance Advice Letters that expand upon each study's PIPs provided in the attachments to the IOUs' budget applications. The new materials shall consist of the following:
a. A timeline: Projected start and finish dates, reporting dates, and tentative final report date;
b. Projected breakdown of budgets: Categories displaying material costs, administration, data collection and analysis, reporting costs, contractor fees (when applicable), should be included along with a brief narrative paragraph explaining the breakdown; and
c. Specification of Contractor: For Programmatic M&E Studies - provide a brief narrative of selection process for the chosen contractor.
79. Within 60 days of the effective date of this decision, the IOUs shall submit the materials in the preceding ordering paragraph to the Energy Division in aggregate in a single Tier 2 Advice Letter.
80. The IOUs shall follow the guidelines contained in D.03-10-041 in contracting for and administration of the Process Evaluation ordered here.
81. The IOUs shall also comply with D.06-12-038 in carrying out any pilot or study approved in this decision: "SCE, PG&E, SoCalGas and SDG&E shall receive written approval from the Commission's Energy Division Director or his designee prior to issuing any request for proposal, awarding any contract to any consultant or issuing any report for LIEE or CARE programs.
82. For all studies we approve herein, the IOUs shall submit "budget used" against "budget authorized" calculations in their monthly reports. The utilities shall also submit in their annual reports, in the years a study is active, updates on the study that include the following information:
a. A narrative overview discussing activities undertaken in the study since its inception; description of study progress, problems encountered, ideas on solutions, and description of activities anticipated in the next quarter and the next year; and
b. Spent vs. total budget, broken down into categories as set forth in the compliance Advice Letter.
83. At a minimum, the IOUs shall submit, upon completion of the study and the subsequent evaluation, a Final Study Report that includes the following:
· Overview of study;
· Budget spent vs. authorized budget;
· Final results of study; and
· Recommendations, including whether the study has implications for all eligible customers, can be expanded to other partners as well as reasons for or against this action; solutions to problems that were encountered, and changes to the larger LIEE program that may come from the increased understanding delivered by the study.
84. The Commission grants the request of SDG&E and SoCalGas to distribute LIEE customer rewards on a pilot basis. SoCalGas and SDG&E shall monitor the effectiveness of the rewards program and provide in their annual reports due each May details of whether the program has (1) contributed to new customer enrollments or (2) enhanced program energy savings. Their report shall also contain a narrative section candidly explaining the results of the pilot. Once the results of the program are reviewed, the Commission will determine if the program results in the desired behavioral changes and sustained energy savings and will determine at that point whether such a program should be implemented beyond the pilot stage.
85. We grant and deny the IOUs' requests for fund shifting in the CARE and LIEE programs as follows:
· LIEE: Fund shifting from one year to another within 2009-11 cycle: Allowed up to 15% of total LIEE budget without Advice Letter subject to limitation below; Tier 2 Advice Letter pursuant to General Order 96-B required for larger amounts;
· LIEE: Fund shifting into future cycles ("carry forward" funding):
o Long term projects that require funding beyond the three year program cycle; commitment of funds from the next program cycle to fund programs that will not yield savings in the current cycle: Allowed under strict limitations described in the body of this decision;
o Carry over of remaining, unspent funds from program year to program year or budget cycle to budget cycle: The utilities may carry over funds from previous periods to the 2009-11 budget periods but may not allocate carry-over funds to administrative overheads, regulatory compliance costs, measurement and evaluation, or pilots and studies.
o Fund shifting between gas/electric programs: Tier 2 Advice Letter required;
· LIEE: Spending of next cycle funds in the current budget cycle ("carry back" funding): Allowed only once the next cycle portfolio has been approved to avoid interruptions of those programs continuing into the next cycle and for start-up costs of new programs. IOUs may borrow funding without Commission approval up to 15% of the current program cycle budget, subject to the limitation below. Beyond that amount, the utilities are required to seek approval by filing a Tier 2 Advice Letter;
· LIEE: Fund shifting among program categories. Allowed except that IOUs may not shift additional funds to administrative overhead costs, regulatory compliance costs, measurement and evaluation, or the costs of pilots and studies. In addition, moving funds into or out of the Education subcategory of the Energy Efficiency program category requires a Tier 2 Advice Letter. Transactions must be well-documented and reported on in monthly reports relevant to the period in which they took place. A Tier 2 Advice Letter is required if IOU wishes to transfer funds into or among the administrative overhead, regulatory compliance, measurement and evaluation, or pilots and studies categories.
· LIEE Limitation: IOUs must receive the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) written approval for how to allocate funds in the up-to-15% range if IOU proposes to allocate them to different program categories or to administrative overheads. IOUs may therefore shift up to 15% of LIEE funds among budget categories with the exception that allocations may be to program areas only, not administrative overhead, regulatory compliance, measurement and evaluation, or pilots and studies categories.
· The IOUs may shift CARE funds in the same manner as they did in the 2006-08 budget cycle, but shall report all such shifting.
86. We grant SoCalGas' request to partially fund the 2009 budget requirements of $53.599 million by using $13.0 million in unspent LIEE program funds from previous years.
87. We approve the IOUs' requested CARE administrative budgets for 2009-11, as set forth in Ordering Paragraph 1 above.
88. We deny DRA's request that all IOU service/customer representatives be required to inform all customers about CARE on every service call. However, such personnel shall provide information about CARE when it is likely a customer needs program assistance; for CARE when a customer contact occurs regarding LIEE, and vice versa; and at service initiation or at the time a service address change. Such service shall not be charged to the CARE administrative budget.
89. In the 2009-11 period, the IOUs shall strive for CARE penetration levels of 90 percent. The Commission may reconsider this penetration goal in future decisions, in case barriers to enrollment are removed that make the 100% penetration rate more feasible. The IOUs shall report their penetration levels in their annual reports.
90. With their first report due on or about December 31, 2008, IOUs shall begin reporting, with their monthly and annual reports, the number of customer complaints they receive (formal or informal, however and wherever received) about their CARE recertification efforts, and the nature of the complaints.
91. The Commission's Consumer Affairs Branch (CAB) shall begin tracking complaints from customers claiming they were dropped from CARE during recertification.
92. Energy Division shall consult with CAB periodically and notify us if the volume of complaints in the preceding ordering paragraph increases significantly; if it does, we will determine whether further action is warranted.
93. No requirement of reporting in this decision shall discontinue or alter any reporting requirement the Commission has already imposed on the IOUs, unless we specifically eliminate or change a requirement.
94. After the IOUs submit their 2009 annual report, which shall contain all new reporting and tracking we discuss in this decision, we will examine the submission closely to see how the IOUs are progressing. We direct Energy Division to review the annual reports when the IOUs submit them, and to notify the Commission if the IOUs are not meeting the directives and goals of this decision and of the LIEE aspects of the Plan.
95. We reserve the right to change the funding we allocate in this decision if we find that the IOUs are not meeting the requirements of this decision and the Plan.
96. Energy Division shall create a link or section on the Commission's website that contains all monthly, annual and other reporting the IOUs make, so that all stakeholders have easy access to the reports.
97. The IOUs shall coordinate with the Energy Division to incorporate all changes we make to the LIEE program in the LIEE P&P manual within 180 days of the effective date of this decision. The IOUs shall thereafter serve a link to the updated version of the Manual on the service list for this proceeding.
98. We adopt a One-E-App pilot to be carried out in two counties in PG&E's territory and allocate $167,000 to the pilot to cover the One-E-App portion of the pilot. We add this amount to PG&E's CARE budget.
99. We grant PG&E $136,000 for its portion of the One-E-App pilot.
100. PG&E may change the CARE recertification period for sub-metered customers from one year to two years.
101. To the extent this decision does not disapprove other aspects of the IOUs' LIEE and CARE applications, we approve them here.
102. We approve the IOUs' funding proposals for Cool Centers.
103. Where we delegate responsibility to the Commission's Energy Division, the IOUs shall cooperate with the Energy Division in carrying out its delegated responsibility.
104. We deny the motion of The Utility Reform Network to intervene in this proceeding.
105. We order the IOUs to update their tariffs in order to comply with the amendment to AB 2857 (Lieber) within 60 days of the effective date of this decision.
106. We delegate authority to the assigned Commissioner and Administrative Law Judge to make changes to the dates set forth in this decision at their discretion.
107. Within 30 days of the effective date of this decision, the IOUs shall consult with Energy Division on how to formal all reports this decision requires.
108. Application (A.) 08-05-022, A.08-05-024, A.08-05-025, and A.08-05-026 shall remain open so that we may examine the reports this decision requires the IOUs to file and take appropriate action if demonstrated results fall short of the requirements of this decision.
This order is effective today.
Dated November 6, 2008, at San Francisco, California.
MICHAEL R. PEEVEY
President
DIAN M. GRUENEICH
JOHN A. BOHN
RACHELLE B. CHONG
TIMOTHY ALAN SIMON
Commissioners
