Program Administration Issues

In D.01-03-073, the Commission designated CCSE (formerly known as the San Diego Regional Energy Office) as program administrator for SGIP in the SDG&E territory. At that time, the Commission reasoned this would allow the Commission to explore non-utility program administration on a limited basis. (D.01-03-073, p. 17.) In D.04-12-045, the Commission directed SDG&E to extend its administrative contract with CCSE through 2007. (D.04-12-045, p. 19.) Although the Commission extended CCSE's role as administrator, the Commission discussed reevaluation of the SGIP administrative structure if funding continued past 2007. The decision notes an expected September 2006 comparative assessment report on program administration to aid in that reevaluation. (Id.) In D.08-01-049, the Commission directed SDG&E to extend CCSE's contract for SGIP administration through 2008.

The SGIP Program Administrator Comparative Assessment Report (Report) was filed in April 2007.⁶ The Report states that "the differences between program administrators are nuances of strengths and weaknesses rather than questions of capability or incapability." (Report, p. 2.) Our review of the Report indicates that CCSE's administration of SGIP compared favorably in many respects to that of its utility counterparts.⁷ We also note the report shows that CCSE outperformed its counterparts in certain marketing and outreach activities, such as promoting SGIP case studies, counseling prospective applicants on appropriate system sizing, and its website, which the report described as the most comprehensive of all the program administrators. (Id., p. 70.) The report also discusses improved coordination between CCSE and SDG&E, which has resulted in improved administrative efficiency since the first Comparative Assessment was filed in September 2003. (Id.)

In response to the ALJ's ruling, no party opposed CCSE's continued role as program administrator. CCSE expressed its willingness to continue in the role and highlights efforts it has made to be an efficient and effective administrator, using less than 60% of its potential administrative budget to promote installation of more than 37 MW of clean distributed generation. SDG&E stated that although it would prefer to be the program administrator in its territory, it appears reasonable to allow CCSE to continue as program administrator at this time. SDG&E states it looks forward to a continued partnership with CCSE to ensure customers are able to access and benefit from SGIP. NAESCO supports CCSE as program administrator, as long as the Commission continually monitors the performance of the administrators. SCE states it is not opposed to the extension of CCSE's contract.

From our review of the Comparative Assessment Report and the statements of the parties, we find it reasonable to allow CCSE to continue to administer SGIP in the SDG&E territory. Therefore, we direct SDG&E to extend its contract with CCSE for SGIP Program Administration in the SDG&E territory through December 31, 2011.

⁶ The Report, prepared by Summit Blue, can be found at: http://sdreo.org/uploads/SGIP_M&E_PA_Comparative_Assessment_Report_April_25_2007.pdf.

⁷ See the Report's discussion of administrative cost (pp. 42-43), application processing time (p. 40), and applicant experience (p. 59).