3. Procedural Background
In D.07-09-043, the Commission instituted the RRIM to provide both shareholder earnings and a return on ratepayers' investment in energy efficiency. RRIM awards for the 2006-2008 cycle were concluded in D.10-12-049 for each of the above-referenced utilities. The Commission also made provision in D.10-12-049 for the utilities each to request an incentive earnings award for achievements in energy efficiency for 2009 program activity.
The Commission directed the utilities to submit their respective applications for award of calendar-year 2009 RRIM earnings by June 30, 2011, to allow for consideration and disposition by December 31, 2011.1
On June 27, 2011, Southern California Edison Company (SCE) and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) each filed applications for approval of 2009 Energy Efficiency Incentive Funding Requests. On June 30, 2011, San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) and Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) filed similar applications for approval of their incentive claims.
By Chief Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) Ruling dated July 12, 2011, the four applications were consolidated since they raise similar issues. The Chief ALJ preliminarily categorized the applications as ratesetting as defined in Rule 1.3(e) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, with hearings necessary. No party disagreed with the categorization, which is hereby confirmed. The Commission's Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) filed the only protest to the consolidated applications on August 5, 2011. The applicants filed a consolidated response to DRA on August 15, 2011. No other responses to the protest were filed.
In the scoping memo dated September 12, 2011, the assigned Commissioner directed the Energy Division to review the calculation of 2009 incentive award claims proposed in the applications to ascertain that the awards are calculated in compliance with D.10‐12‐049 and to submit a report.
In response to this directive, Energy Division filed a compliance report on September 30, 2011. The joint utilities subsequently requested the detailed and technical documentation and work products, including Evaluation Reporting Template (ERT), and RRIM worksheets, that the Energy Division used to support its findings. The Energy Division response was provided on October 3, 2011. Energy Division hosted a conference call on October 13, 2011 to answer clarifying questions on the compact fluorescent light (CFL) component of its report. Comments in response to the Energy Division compliance report were filed on October 14, 2011, by the applicants, DRA, and Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).
The utilities and Energy Division participated in multiple conference calls and discussions regarding the calculation of the 2009 claim. The 2009 claims are using the Energy Division's 2009 ERT software tool using ex ante input assumptions adjusted by ex post installation rates.
Although Energy Division held informal meetings to confer with parties regarding the incentive calculations, no formal evidentiary hearings were conducted in this proceeding.2 The assigned ALJ issued a ruling on November 2, 2011, admitting into evidence the supporting testimony of applicant witnesses. Accordingly, this decision is based upon the written record of the consolidated applications and testimony in support of the 2009 claims, the DRA protest and responses thereto, and the Energy Division compliance report and responses thereto.
1 See D.10-12-049, Ordering Paragraph 4.
2 No party requested hearings to cross-examine utility witnesses. DRA states in its protest to the applications that: "... hearings may not be fruitful given DRA's fundamental disagreement with awarding incentives for energy efficiency portfolios, especially based solely on utility-reported savings for portfolios whose true cost-effectiveness is unknown." (DRA Protest at page 8).
