5. Assignment of Proceeding
This proceeding is assigned to Commissioner Michel Peter Florio and ALJ David M. Gamson. ALJ Gamson is the Presiding Officer.
1. D.09-09-047 adopted energy efficiency portfolios for 2010 through 2012 for Southern California Edison Company, Southern California Gas Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company. That decision established, among other things, that DEER and non-DEER ex ante values for energy savings estimates should be frozen using best available information at the time the 2010-2012 energy efficiency portfolio cycle was starting.
2. D.09-09-047 and D.10-04-029 established that Energy Division would review and approve utility ex ante energy savings estimates.
3. The utilities and the Energy Division agree that workpapers submitted by the utilities by March 31, 2010 containing ex ante values for energy savings estimates for non-high impact energy efficiency measures not contained in the adopted DEER dataset should be accepted.
4. The utilities and the Energy Division have not been able to agree on how to freeze many non-DEER ex ante workpapers for high impact measures.
5. Energy Division final determinations for the non-DEER high impact measure workpapers in Attachment 1 of the CMS Report where there is no consensus are based on their review as provided for by the Commission in D.09-09-047, and consultation with parties after a workshop in January 2011.
6. It is important to establish clear frozen ex ante values for energy efficiency savings in order to ensure the utilities can fully implement the energy efficiency measures approved in D.09-09-047.
7. The 2010-2012 energy efficiency cycle began on January 1, 2010, even though ex ante values for energy efficiency measures could not have been finally established at that time.
8. D.10-12-054 modified D.09-09-047 to adopt frozen DEER values based on the 2008 DEER version 2.05.
9. Energy Division provided data to utilities and the public regarding net-to-gross values for energy efficiency measures in draft form in December 2009 and in final form in February 2010.
10. Net to gross ratio values for energy efficiency measures were contained in the 2008 DEER version 2.05 adopted in D.10-12-054.
11. The adopted 2008 DEER version 2.05 ex ante values were effective as of January 1, 2010.
12. There is analytical value in providing the installation rate for energy efficiency measures as a separate adjustment because it will then more accurately reflect the number of installations in this portfolio cycle.
13. Providing the installation rate for energy efficiency measures as a separate adjustment will reduce energy savings in this cycle, compared to the utility-proposed unadjusted figures.
14. The current Commission energy efficiency policy manual (Version 4, Page 8, Footnote 9) requires that a "dual baseline" be utilized for early retirement measures. This requirement was added to the policy manual in August 2008.
15. Consistent with a November 18, 2009 ALJ Ruling in this docket, Energy Division did not review all of the non-DEER energy efficiency measure workpapers for ex ante values submitted by the utilities to determine if they constituted high impact measures in Phase 1 of its review. Of the non-DEER workpapers reviewed by Energy Division in Phase 1, 70 were determined to be high impact measures.
16. It is important that adopted frozen DEER and non-DEER ex ante values be archived and available for public review.
17. Twenty eight of the 70 workpapers contained in Attachment 1 of the CMS Report are not in dispute.
18. A GRR adjustment factor for non-DEER custom energy efficiency projects attempts to take into account the likelihood that not all Commission-approved custom projects will come to fruition.
19. Per D.09-09-047, utilities were required to use individual utility E3 calculators, as modified by Energy Division, in compliance Advice Letters. These modified E3 calculators include a 0.80 GRR adjustment for custom energy efficiency measures. However, the record does not show the analytical basis for this value.
20. A 1.0 GRR value does not account for the likelihood that not all approved custom projects will come to fruition.
21. Revised Energy Division GRR values for non-DEER custom energy efficiency projects include more accurate data than anticipated by D.09-09-047, as these revised values take into account analyses of 2006-2008 energy efficiency results which was unavailable for consideration in D.09-09-047. However, this update was not finalized until February 2011.
22. After discussions with parties, Energy Division proposed a custom project ex ante review process in the CMS Report which takes into account concerns expressed by parties about earlier Energy Division proposals on this topic.
23. The Energy Division custom project review process in the CMS report is reasonable, except for clarifications regarding redundancy, timeliness, transparency and standard of review.
24. As required by an ALJ Ruling, consistent with D.09-09-047 and D.10-04-029, the utilities properly submitted their proposed non-DEER ex ante values for energy efficiency measures to Energy Division by March 31, 2010 for Energy Division review and approval.
25. It is consistent with D.09-09-047 for workpapers submitted by the utilities by March 31, 2010, containing ex ante values for energy savings estimates for non-high impact energy efficiency measures not contained in the adopted DEER dataset, to be frozen using the data in the workpapers submitted by the utilities.
26. Data regarding net-to-gross ratio values for energy efficiency measures provided by Energy Division in draft form in December 2009 and in final form in February 2010 should be considered the best available information for determining ex ante values at the time the 2010-2012 energy efficiency portfolio cycle was starting.
27. D.10-12-054 adopted 2008 DEER version 2.05, including net-to-gross ratio values. Therefore, the adopted net-to-gross ratio values in the 2008 DEER version 2.05 should be used for determining ex ante values for the 2010-2012 energy efficiency portfolios.
28. Consistent with the January 1, 2010 effective date for ex ante values in the DEER dataset, as adopted in D.10-12-054, non-DEER ex ante values for energy efficiency measures and custom projects should be effective as of January 1, 2010.
29. The installation rate for energy efficiency measures should be provided as a separate adjustment.
30. There is no valid rationale for changing the requirement in the current CPUC energy efficiency policy manual that a "dual baseline" be utilized for early retirement measures.
31. Consistent with the Commission's policy adopted in D.09-09-047 to freeze ex ante values for energy efficiency measures at the start of the portfolio cycle, no additional non-DEER workpapers contained in the set of those submitted by utilities for Energy Division review and approval by March 31, 2010 should be considered as high impact measures for the purpose of determining ex ante values.
32. Energy Division, in its Phase 2 review and approval process of utility non-DEER ex ante workpapers, should continue to review and approve mid-cycle workpapers for possible high-impact measure workpapers.
33. Adopted frozen DEER and non-DEER ex ante values should be archived such that all the frozen values are clearly available for public review.
34. The non-controversial ex ante values from the workpapers summarized in Attachment 1 of the CMS Report should be adopted. For those workpapers in dispute in the CMS Report, the Energy Division determinations should be adopted.
35. No new facts or circumstances have been raised here to justify changing the use of E3 calculators as modified by Energy Division, as anticipated by D.09-09-047, with regard to GRR values for determining ex ante values for non-DEER custom energy efficiency projects.
36. A GRR value of 0.90 should be adopted and used for determining ex ante values for non-DEER custom energy efficiency projects, in order to account for the difference between planned and realized energy savings for those custom projects unreviewed by Energy Division.
37. The Energy Division's custom project ex ante review process proposed in the CMS Report should be adopted with modifications to the GRR, to enhance transparency and timeliness, and to reduce redundancy.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Ordering Paragraph 48 of Decision 09-09-047 (as modified by Decision 10-12-054) is modified to read: "The ex ante (also known as estimated) energy savings values for energy efficiency measures established for use in planning and reporting accomplishments for 2010-2012 energy efficiency programs shall be frozen. This freeze of ex ante energy savings values shall apply both to energy efficiency measures contained in the Database for Energy Efficient Resources (DEER) and non-standard energy efficiency measures (non-DEER measures). The frozen version of DEER shall be 2008 DEER version 2.05, dated December 16, 2008, as currently posted at the DEER website ( http://www.deeresources.com) maintained by Energy Division. The frozen non-DEER ex ante values shall be based upon the values adopted in Attachment A to this decision. All non-DEER energy efficiency measures not referenced in Attachment A to this decision (except for custom measures) shall have ex ante energy savings values frozen based on workpapers submitted to Energy Division by March 31, 2010, pursuant to the Administrative Law Judge Ruling of November 19, 2009 in this proceeding. All non-DEER ex ante energy savings values shall be effective as of January 1, 2010."
2. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall provide all approved ex ante energy savings values not in the 2008 Database for Energy Efficient Resources, version 2.05, including the values based on Attachment A to this decision, to Energy Division within 14 days after the effective date of this decision.
3. Within 60 days of the effective date of this decision, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company may make any energy efficiency portfolio program design changes (e.g., database management system changes, appropriate rebate/measure changes, etc.) consistent with the adopted ex ante workpapers adopted in Ordering Paragraph 1 of this decision. Any such program design changes shall be consistent with the applicable Ordering Paragraphs of Decision 09-09-047 regarding fund shifting, program design and reporting requirements.
4. The only high impact energy efficiency measures used for determination of ex ante energy savings values for the 2010-2012 energy efficiency portfolios of Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company, are those identified in Appendix A of this decision, except for any new measures (i.e., measures not identified as of March 31, 2010) which are identified as high impact energy efficiency measures through the Phase 2 process in the Administrative Law Judge's Ruling of November 19, 2009 in this proceeding.
5. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall provide information to Energy Division identifying the installation rates for each non-Database for Energy Efficiency Resources energy efficiency measure in their 2010-2012 energy efficiency portfolios within 60 days after the effective date of this decision.
6. Energy Division shall compile all Commission-adopted frozen ex ante energy savings values into one website. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall cooperate with Energy Division in this effort. Energy Division shall identify the specified website in a filing in this proceeding within 10 days after the date of this decision. The filing of this report will not reopen this proceeding.
7. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall follow the custom project ex ante value review process set forth in Attachment B to this decision.
8. The Administrative Law Judge's grant by e-mail of the February 18, 2011 Motion of San Diego Gas & Electric Company seeking the right to file Case Management Statement Report is affirmed.
9. The June 9, 2011 Motion entitled "Request of the Division of Ratepayer Advocates for Official Notice and for Reopening the Record" is denied.
10. Applications (A.) 08-07-021, A.08-07-022, A.08-07-023, and A.08-07-031 are closed.
11. This order is effective today.
Dated July 14, 2011, at San Francisco, California.
MICHAEL R. PEEVEY
President
TIMOTHY ALAN SIMON
MICHEL PETER FLORIO
CATHERINE J.K. SANDOVAL
MARK J. FERRON
Commissioners
I will file a concurrence.
/s/ MICHEL PETER FLORIO
Commissioner
