II. Background
Pub. Util. Code §§ 381 and 890 direct the Commission to allocate about $275 million annually to EE programs. The allocation between collections for gas and electric is approximately $45 million for gas and $228 million for electric. The electric and gas utilities collect these revenues from customers for the purpose of funding EE programs.
The Commission has previously authorized funding for existing EE programs through the end of 2003 (Decision (D.) 03-04-055). The Commission also authorized funding for utility programs for a one-year period. It authorized a two-year funding cycle for third parties during 2002 and 2003.
The following table shows expected revenues by utility for 2004 and 2005:
Category |
SDG&E |
SoCalGas |
SCE |
PG&E |
Total |
| 2004 and 2005 EE PGC Collections | $75,000,000 | $53,990,000 |
$180,000,000 |
$240,956,000 |
$549,946,000 |
On July 3, 2003 the assigned Commissioner issued a ruling (herein referred to as "the Assigned Commissioner's Ruling" or "ACR") in this proceeding soliciting the parties' comments on a proposal for funding EE programs for the period 2004 and 2005, among other things. The ACR suggested funding programs for two-year intervals while the Commission is reviewing longer-term program administration. It proposed allowing the utilities to extend funding for existing programs for an additional two years and to permit third parties to extend existing local programs through June 2004. Further, the ACR proposed that the Commission consider a range of 15-20% of total Section 381 and 890 PGC funds for 2004 - 2005 to be reserved for third parties while the remainder would be used to fund utility programs. The ACR sought to retain existing criteria for selecting program proposals as adopted in D.01-11-066.
Many parties filed comments in response to the Assigned Commissioner Ruling: 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) (jointly, Sempra), the California Energy Commission (CEC), The Utility Reform Network (TURN), SESCO, Women's Energy Matters (WEM), the County of Los Angeles (LA), University of California and California State University (UC/CSU), the Geothermal Heat Pump Consortium (GHPC), Energy Solutions, Efficiency Partnership, California State University/Fresno (CSUF), San Diego Regional Energy Office (SDREO), the National Association of Energy Service Companies (NAESCO), American Synergy Corperation, the City and County of San Francisco (San Francisco), Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Quality Conservation Services (QCS), Proctor Engineering (Proctor), Sisson and Associates (Sisson) Steven Schiller and Douglas Mahone (Schiller & Mahone), Utility Consumers' Action Network, Rita Norton and Associates, Runyen Saltzman and Reinhom, Inc., California Urban Water Conservation Council (CUWCC), The California Building Performance Contractors' Association, Berilacqua-Knight, Inc., and Geopraxis, Inc., and Local Power.
This order addresses each issue raised by the ruling and solicits proposals for EE program funding for 2004-05.
