ALJ/BMD/avs DRAFT Agenda ID # 1744

Ratesetting

2/13/2003 CA 33

Decision __________________

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Compliance Application of Pacific Gas and Electric Company for Approval of Year 2001 Low Income Programs, in Compliance with Ordering Paragraph 4 of Decision 00-09-036. (U 39 M)	Application 00-11-009 (Filed November 6, 2000)
Application of Southern California Gas Company (U 904-G) for Authority to Continue Low Income Assistance programs and Funding Through 2001.	Application 00-11-011 (Filed November 6, 2000)
Application of San Diego Gas & Electric company (U 902-E) for Authority to Continue Low Income Assistance Programs and Funding Through 2001.	Application 00-11-012 (Filed November 6, 2000)
Southern California Edison Company Compliance Applicants for Approval of year 2001 Low Income Program Plans.	Application 00-11-020 (Filed November 6, 2000)

OPINION

This decision awards Greenlining Institute and Latino Issues Forum (Greenlining/LIF) $74,563.72 in compensation for its contribution to Decision (D.) 01-05-033 and D.01-06-010.

1. Background

These decisions address two low-income assistance programs, California Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE) and Low-Income Energy Efficiency (LIEE), in light of the 2001 energy crisis. The CARE and LIEE programs are administered by California investor-owned utilities, and are funded through ratepayers by a public purpose surcharge. Additional funding for these programs is provided by Senate BillX1 5 (SBX1 5) and Assembly BillX1 29 (AB1X 29). SBX1 5 and ABX1 29 also provide funding to the Department of Community Services and Development (DCSD), for use in its Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). LIHEAP provides services such as installation of high efficiency lighting and weatherization through community based organizations or LIHEAP providers.

Early in the proceeding, Greenlining/LIF filed a motion recommending several proposals to protect low-income ratepayers. These proposals included increasing the CARE discount and changing CARE eligibility criteria, exemption of CARE customers from any Tier 3 rate increases, media outreach programs, and fee authorization for enrolling CARE customers. Although the motion was denied as certain of these issues were already being addressed in other proceedings, the assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) requested comments on three related issues:

1. The applicability of the modified income eligibility requirements for CARE discounts adopted in D.01-03-082 to the gas customers of PG&E and customers of all other gas and electric jurisdictional utilities.

2. Whether income eligibility requirements for LIFE should be made consistent with the revised requirements for CARE.

3. Whether the CARE discount should be increased for both electric and gas customers of jurisdictional utilities, and if so, by how much.

Following comments by Greenlining/LIF, the utilities, and other interested parties, these issues were addressed in D.01-06-010.

D.01-06-010 adopted CARE eligibility requirements for gas customers consistent with requirements for electric customers to avoid providing an incentive for low-income customers to switch from gas heating to electric heating, and as a means to lower utility administrative costs. The Commission also adopted eligibility requirements for LIEE consistent with requirements for CARE to improve administration efficiency, and increased the CARE discount. The Commission stated that an increase in the CARE discount is needed to provide additional relief to low-income customers, noting that the increase would be partially offset by Senate Bill X 15 funds.

In D.01-05-033, the Commission identified the best methods to rapidly deploy LIEE and CARE services to qualifying ratepayers. The Commission stated that the needs of low-income customers were inadequately addressed because (1) the CARE assistance program reached only 60% of eligible customers, and (2) comprehensive weatherization services reached an even smaller percentage of qualifying customers. To address problems in delivery of these services to qualifying ratepayers, workshops were held on developing effective and efficient measures to accomplish this goal. Participants included the utilities, the Office of Ratepayer Advocates, Community Based Organizations Greenlining/LIF, private energy service providers and DCSD. Issues included identifying a rapid deployment strategy for LIEE, developing new energy efficiency measures, expanding the comprehensive nature of energy efficiency programs, and the number of contractors, and specifically reaching out to CARE customers.

In order to improve coordination between LIEE and LIHEAP, and to rapidly deploy available low-income services, the Commission directed utility program administrators to use LIEE funding to leverage DCSD energy programs. The Commission specified several approaches for combining LIEE and LIHEAP funds to provide comprehensive services, including memoranda of understanding between the utilities and LIHEAP providers and use of non-LIHEAP providers for weatherization services. To accomplish the Commission's goals, it provided considerable flexibility to utilities for developing rapid deployment strategies for LIEE programs.

In addition, the Commission authorized new efforts under the LIEE program, such as installation of LIEE equipment in rental units and measures to increase the number of customers included in the CARE program. In order to increase the number CARE customers, utilities were encouraged to contract with community based organizations and agencies, and provide compensation to these organizations and agencies for signing up eligible CARE customers ("capitation" fees). Other Commission actions included segregating CARE and LIEE funding, allowing dual-fuel utilities to shift funds between electric and gas programs, and adopting certain utility reporting requirements.

Greenlining/LIF filed its compensation claim on July 5, 2001, for $137,493.22. After a request for further information by the ALJ, Greenlining/LIF provided errata to its request on September 25, 2001, including additional computations and timesheets, and stating that the request would waive the time of Robert Gnaizda. Additional letters from Greenlining/LIF amended the compensation request to $95,203.91¹ and explained why some of the hours requested in A.00-11-009 are for work in R.98-07-037, although the latter proceeding is not mentioned in the original filing or errata.²