7. CE Council's Substantial Contribution

CE Council seeks compensation for work on D.07-09-043 and D.07-10-032, which are addressed separately below.

7.1. Contribution to D.07-09-043

CE Council attended the Phase 1 workshops, filed a proposal for a specific incentive mechanism and an opening brief, and filed opening comments on the proposed decision. Although CE Council was active in the work leading to D.07-09-043, we conclude that CE Council did not make a substantial contribution to D.07-09-043.

D.07-09-043 did not adopt any of the major elements of the incentive mechanism proposed by CE Council and specifically rejected CE Council's position and arguments on these and other design issues. The decision rejects CE Council's allegations that energy efficiency incentives have historically had little or no impact on related utility performance. We rejected CE Council's legal analysis that suggested we did not have authority to adopt incentive ratemaking and CE Council's proposal on the costs that should be included in measuring portfolio performance. Finally, D.07-09-043 rejected CE Council's proposal to adopt earnings rates that would vary according to the level of performance.

D.07-09-043 notes that several parties, including CE Council, proposed a hybrid approach for calculating whether a utility achieved minimum performance standards (MPS). While CE Council supported this approach to determining MPS, it did so with specific parameters that differed substantially from the MPS and minimum floor levels adopted in D.07-09-043. CE Council's support for one design feature of the adopted incentive mechanism does not constitute a substantial contribution absent analysis or evidence to support the approach.

CE Council also asserts that the adopted cap for earnings and penalties was influenced in part by CE Council's comments on the proposed decision.¹¹ However, CE Council's comments on the proposed decision refer to previous comments and the testimony presented by DRA and TURN to argue that low risks to the utilities justify a much lower opportunity to earn than the range suggested by a comparable earnings analysis.¹² CE Council's mere reference to the work of others does not constitute a substantial contribution.

CE Council's participation in Phase 1 of this proceeding did not contribute substantially to D.07-09-043. We therefore deny compensation for the requested hours of work on activities related to Phase 1. This represents 158 hours of Mr. Hunt's time during 2006 (including travel time) and 6.25 hours during 2007, for a total of 164.25 hours.

7.2. Contributions to D.07-10-032

CE Council states it participated extensively in the activities leading to D.07-10-032. It states it attended workshops, filed comments and prevailed on key issues, as follows:

· The requirement that the utilities develop an energy efficiency strategic plan that identifies program strategies through 2020.

· The adoption of three energy efficiency program initiatives that promote policies and practices with the following goals:

o All new residential construction will be "zero net energy" by 2020

o Half of new residential construction will incorporate solar technologies 2011

o All new commercial construction will be "zero net energy" by 2030

· The rejection of a program emphasis in the industrial sector.

CE Council states it was the first and only party to call for a state-wide strategic plan at a workshop on June 13, 2007. In comments submitted with TURN, CE Council elaborated on the format and purposes of the plan (also referred to as an "action plan").

Similarly, CE Council states it was the only party to raise the possibility of the Commission making the full name AIA 2030 Challenge its own, originally in a workshop and subsequently in written comments. The Commission adopted CE Council's recommendations on this and other considered programmatic initiatives. It also adopted CE Council's recommendation to adopt "zero net energy" as a building design and construction goal rather than "carbon neutrality."

Energy Division staff confirm that CE Council's involvement in the informal processes of this proceeding greatly assisted the Commission in its deliberations regarding the energy efficiency planning process and other issues addressed in D.07-09-032. We find that CE Council made a substantial contribution to that decision.

¹¹ Request of the Community Environmental Council for an Award of Compensation, November 13, 2007, p. 11.

¹² Community Environmental Council Comments on Proposed Interim Decision on Phase 1 Issues, August 29, 2007, pp. 5-7.