2. Procedural History

The SMJUs filed their applications in June and July 2008.² They asked for the following 2009-2011 budgets for LIEE and CARE:

TABLE 1
Summary CARE & LIEE 2009-2011
Utility	CARE		LIEE
	Proposed	Adopted	Proposed	Adopted
Alpine
2009	$14,775	$14,775	$24,400	$44,733
2010	$15,975	$15,975	$27,850	$40,847
2011	$16,800	$16,800	$29,800	$40,975
sub-total	$47,550	$47,550	$82,050	$126,555
Bear Valley
2009	$216,620	$172,420	$188,125	$229,625
2010	$223,320	$179,120	$188,125	$229,625
2011	$284,820	$240,620	$188,125	$229,625
sub-total	$724,760	$592,160	$564,375	$688,875
PacifiCorp
2009	$2,834,105	$2,834,105	$175,000	$795,455
2010	$2,898,962	$2,898,962	$200,000	$869,565
2011	$2,957,819	$2,957,819	$225,000	$937,500
sub-total	$8,690,886	$8,690,886	$600,000	$2,602,520
Sierra Pacific
2009	$562,000	$562,000	$121,000	$197,712
2010	$590,000	$590,000	$133,000	$194,444
2011	$618,000	$618,000	$147,000	$200,820
sub-total	$1,770,000	$1,770,000	$401,000	$592,976
SW Gas
2009	$8,741,319	$8,741,319	$1,255,000	$2,363,583
2010	$8,895,624	$8,895,624	$1,557,000	$2,779,533
2011	$9,073,624	$9,073,624	$1,859,000	$3,172,693
sub-total	$26,710,567	$26,710,567	$4,671,000	$8,315,809
WC Gas
2009	$7,060	$7,060
2010	$7,560	$7,560
2011	$8,060	$8,060
sub-total	$22,680	$22,680	$0	$0
Total	$37,966,443	$37,833,843	$6,318,425	$12,326,735

The Commission's Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) filed a protest on August 15, 2008.

As to the CARE program of each SMJU, DRA:

· States that Southwest's application, the largest SMJU with 177,000 California customers, is the "most problematic" because of low CARE participation rates (an estimated 81% for 2008, versus D.06-12-036's requirement of 93% in 2007 and 95% in 2008) and large number of customer drop-offs when Southwest recertifies their eligibility;

· Applauds the CARE program of PacifiCorp (which has 35,300 California residential customers);

· Voices concern that Sierra (with 46,000 customers) has not addressed prior Energy Division recommendations for its CARE program³;

· Raises concerns about Bear Valley's CARE outreach and penetration. Bear Valley has 23,000 customers, 7,000 of whom are full time residents, with the rest residing in seasonal homes; and

· Expresses satisfaction with the CARE applications of Alpine (1,150 customers) and West Coast (1,500 customers).

As to the SMJUs' LIEE programs, DRA:

· Advocates an increase in Southwest's penetration rate to bring it more in line with the Commission's Plan goal of having all eligible LIEE customers served by 2020;

· Notes that PacifiCorp's LIEE penetration did not meet projections in 2007-2008, and that PacifiCorp does not plan substantial increases for 2009-2011;

· Questions Sierra's contention that its LIEE program should be limited primarily to installing CFLs;

· Asks for further analysis of Bear Valley's request to raise LIEE income eligibility from 175% to 200% of the federal poverty level; and

· Advocates that Alpine serve additional LIEE customers and not receive additional overhead funding.⁴

Bear Valley filed a reply to DRA's protest on August 25, 2008 agreeing to most of DRA's recommendations for CARE and LIEE. It agreed to increase its LIEE customers served, further analyze the request to raise LIEE income eligibility, and enhance its CARE outreach. Sierra also filed a reply to DRA's protest on August 25, 2008, addressing its progress on CARE recertification but questioning some of DRA's assertions.

The Assigned Commissioner and ALJ held a prehearing conference on September 9, 2008, and in their September 26, 2008 scoping memo listed the issues in the proceeding as follows:

1. The extent to which the SMJUs' CARE penetration levels match the goals the Commission has set;

2. Whether to change the CARE income eligibility guideline for certain SMJUs⁵ from 175% to 200% of the federal poverty line;

3. Whether the LIEE program should fund education-only programs that do not result in immediate installation of energy efficiency measures;

4. Whether LIEE/CARE outreach and recertification materials are or should be "in-language" for limited English proficient customers;

5. The extent to which the SMJUs' lighting programs are preparing customers for legislative changes in Assembly Bill (AB) 1109 (Huffman) and at the federal level, and the extent to which the SMJUs' LIEE programs should focus on lighting;

6. Energy savings delivered by the SMJUs' LIEE programs;

7. The extent to which the SMJUs' LIEE programs follow or should follow the Commission's Plan, available at www.californiaenergyefficiency.com;

8. Whether and how to involve the SMJUs in the LIEE Statewide Marketing, Education and Outreach (ME&O) program the Plan anticipates;

9. The timing of SMJUs' CARE recertification efforts, and whether the companies are inappropriately dropping customers as a result of such efforts;

10. The extent to which SMJUs are leveraging their LIEE programs with other programs. Leveraging in this context is defined as follows:

A SMJU's effort to coordinate its LIEE programs with programs outside the SMJU 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;

11. How to fund Natural Gas Appliance Testing;

12. Whether the SMJUs should focus in their LIEE program on customers with high energy use, high energy burden, or high energy insecurity or other characteristics. Energy burden represents the portion of a household's total income that is spent on energy bills. Those customers spending a large portion of their total income on energy bills have a high energy burden. High energy insecurity refers to customers who have trouble paying their bills, late payments, and actual or threatened utility shutoffs;

13. Whether the Commission can assist SMJUs having difficulty hiring LIEE measure installation contractors through its Workforce Education and Training (WE&T) efforts, as addressed in the Plan;

14. The SMJUs' appropriate LIEE penetration levels; and

15. Whether the SMJUs are carrying inappropriately high surcharge over-collections on their books.

The scoping memo gave the parties the opportunity to brief each of the issues listed on or before October 7, 2008. DRA, Bear Valley, Southwest, PacifiCorp, and Sierra each filed briefs on October 7, 2008.

² An Assigned Commissioner's Ruling issued on May 2, 2008 gave the SMJUs guidance on what to include in their applications and required filing no later than July 1, 2008. Southwest filed its application on June 30, 2008, Sierra and PacifiCorp filed on July 1, 2008, Bear Valley filed late on July 2, 2008, Alpine filed late on July 8, 2008, and West Coast filed late on July 11, 2008. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) excused the late filing, but we caution the SMJUs not to assume they may file out of time in the future. Summaries of each SMJU application appear as Appendix A to this decision.

³ Sierra filed a response to DRA's protest in which it detailed its compliance with the foregoing recommendations. We are satisfied that it is substantially in compliance.

⁴ DRA did not comment on West Coast Gas's LIEE program.

⁵ The only company to which this issue applies is Bear Valley.