28. Comments on Proposed Decision

The proposed decision of the ALJ in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Section 311 of the Public Utilities Code and comments were allowed under Rule 14.3 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. PG&E, SDG&E, SoCalGas, SCE, DRA, Energy Efficiency Council, DisabRA, Greenlining, A W.I.S.H. and ACCES/Telacu et al. filed comments, and PG&E, SDG&E, SoCalGas, SCE, DRA and Greenlining filed reply comments.¹⁶⁶ Pursuant to Rule 14.3(d), we reduced the reply comment period by one day to ensure that reply comments would be considered in the Commission's decision. Reply comments were due on October 10, 2008.

The key assertions in comments, and our responses, are as follows, in no particular order:

· Cost Effectiveness Threshold (0.25). Several commenters are concerned that by setting the LIEE measure threshold at 0.25, we have eliminated certain LIEE measures that are essential to low income customers' quality of life. We add back cooling measures in the climate zones in which they were allowed in the 2007-08 program, heating measures in all zones, and water heater repair and replacement in all zones. However, we do not allow heating or water heating measures in units where landlords are required pursuant to the warranty of habitability to maintain adequate heat and hot water heating. The measures we add back fall below a 0.25 cost effectiveness threshold. To determine how these measures will affect our 100% by 2020 goal in the Plan, we require additional IOU reporting to show the cost, energy savings impacts, and related metrics. It remains our goal that the LIEE program deliver significant cost-effective energy savings, consistent with the Plan.

· Budgets. The IOUs ask for several budget adjustments to account for changes the proposed decision made to their program applications. We make several minor changes, but none of the changes have major impacts on the overall budgets we approve in this decision. We have budgeted ample funding for the IOUs' to meet the decision's goals. We decline PG&E's request for $55 million in additional funding, approximately $49 million of which is related to the Whole Neighborhood/all feasible measures approach. We have given PG&E ample funding to meet our mandates: (1) we gave it funding that did not discount its per household request to account for the 0.25 cost effectiveness threshold, (2) we did not discount its funding to account for cost savings that will result from the Whole Neighborhood Approach, (3) we gave PG&E more funding on a per-home basis than any of the other IOUs, even though PG&E, with its large size, should have economies of scale that smaller IOUs do not have, and (4) the budget amount we gave PG&E is, on a per home basis, higher than what it spent for 2007 and 2008 to date, when PG&E was required to install all feasible measures. By way of illustration, PG&E spent $1,021.54 per home in 2007, and $1,052.87 per home in 2008 to date. We give it an average of $1,109.59 for 2009-11.167 Further, PG&E, as all IOUs, has ample fund shifting flexibility if it needs more funding.

· Single Statewide ME&O program. We provide clarifying language to address the IOUs' concerns that they will not have adequate funding to conduct marketing related to new requirements the decision imposes.

· Post Decision Action. We deny DRA's request that we require the IOUs to prove compliance with various orders in this decision through Advice Letter filings. Our order, and the enhanced reporting requirements the proposed decision imposes, are sufficient to require compliance by the IOUs. Further, the proposed decision requires the Energy Division to examine the IOUs' 2009 annual reports and bring problems - including any lack of compliance with this decision's requirements - to Commission attention for further action.

· Risk-Reward Incentive Mechanism. We deny DRA's request that we tie the energy savings figures in this decision to the Energy Efficiency risk-reward incentive mechanism. The mechanism is outside the scope of this proceeding. We may examine the issue in a proceeding related to Energy Efficiency incentives, but this proceeding has not touched on those incentive mechanisms.

· Disabled Customers. In response to the urging of DisabRA, we find that the IOUs should not ask customers if they are disabled, even if asked of all customers as part of a standard enrollment procedure. Rather, IOUs may count customers as disabled if they voluntarily self-identify as disabled, if they come to the IOU through disability rights groups, the DDTP, the medical baseline program; if they have an observed disability such as a mobility, vision or hearing disability; or if they use TTY/TDD or request accessible formats of written materials (i.e., large print and/or Braille). Finally, IOUs should make sure that customers they enroll in LIEE are also enrolled in CARE where eligible.

· Lighting. We deny SCE's request for additional funding to cover the cost of installing lightbulbs. The budgets in the proposed decision already give SCE the full installed-bulb cost.

· LIEE Eligible Population. We do not change the LIEE eligible population despite DRA's assertion that the number in the decision is incorrect. The number in the proposed decision was provided to us by many sources, including LIHEAP, and DCSD has not confirmed an alternate number.

· Categorical Eligibility for LIEE and CARE. We require the IOUs to implement immediately the requirement adding several public benefits programs to the list of programs that render customers categorically eligible for LIEE and CARE. Because this change will make categorical eligibility for LIEE/CARE the same as for LifeLine, the IOUs may contact Energy Division for information that will enable them to learn more about the relevant benefits programs from Commission staff and others responsible for LifeLine eligibility determinations. The IOUs shall also independently investigate the eligibility requirements of each of the benefits programs. We reject the IOUs' request for a workshop before they are required to implement categorical eligibility. However, if the IOUs find that certain listed programs have eligibility requirements that differ from the requirements applicable to LIEE and CARE, they may renew their request for a workshop, listing the programs that present problems, the problems at issue, and their proposed response. If Energy Division finds the workshop request has merit, it will schedule a workshop at that time, but it is not obligated to do so if it determines another means of resolving the IOUs' concerns.

· Pilots and Studies. We correct the budget for the 2009 Process Evaluation and grant the IOUs leave to carry out their proposed Non Energy Benefits study. We also require the IOUs to file pre-study Advice Letters within 60 days so there are clear deadlines for such material.

· Leveraging with LIHEAP. We change language requiring 100% coordination with LIHEAP pending development of a database both programs can use. Several parties point out in comments that there is no LIHEAP database in place that allows LIEE providers to know whether a house has received LIHEAP measures or what those measures are. We cannot require the IOUs to gather information that does not exist. However, we expect the IOUs to enter into an MOU with DCSD and, along with the Commission, to work toward development of such a database. The IOUs shall fully cooperate with efforts to remedy the situation, and shall use whatever means currently available to them to learn which homes have already received LIHEAP service, and what measures are already in those homes.

· CARE Penetration. We leave the penetration goal at 90%, despite IOU requests to lower the percentage, but make clear that 90% penetration is a goal rather than a hard and fast requirement. IOU progress to increase their CARE enrollment in the past gives us confidence that they will take the 90% goal seriously and strive to meet it. Further, two provisions of this decision should garner significant new enrollments: (1) The use of One-E-App for automatic enrollment in CARE and (2) the requirement that any customer receiving one of the menu of benefits qualifying customers for LifeLine will also qualify customers for CARE. These changes should also make compliance with the 90% goal less costly on a per-customer basis.

· One-E-App Budget. We add funding to the budget to cover PG&E's costs, but grant PG&E an amount somewhat lower than it requests in recognition that some of the work PG&E proposes to do will be done by the One-E-App proponents themselves.

· NGAT. We again deny PG&E's request to fund NGAT from its LIEE budget. PG&E and the other IOUs should be doing this vital safety testing using funding from general rates, as we have held many times in the past. PG&E shall not reduce the number of LIEE customers it serves on account of this holding.

· Energy Efficiency Education. We do not reverse our decision to deny funding for energy efficiency education that does not link those who receive it to the LIEE program for installation of measures in their homes. In the last budget cycle, the IOUs spent virtually none of the money we allocated for this purpose, so the change we make here does not harm customers. We clarify that the education that occurs as part of LIEE enrollment, audit and household visits to install measures may continue as in the past. Our basic holding is that the IOUs' energy efficiency education - in which the IOUs inform and teach low income customers about the benefits of energy efficiency - should occur close in time to installation of measures, rather than in a vacuum. We allow IOUs to fund facilitated education, including workshops, provided such workshops target low income persons eligible or likely to be eligible for LIEE and take steps to enroll customers in LIEE.

· Cool Centers. We explicitly grant the IOUs' requests to fund Cool Centers, where customers can get out of the heat during hot spells.

· CARE Fund Shifting Authority. We grant the IOUs the same flexibility for fund shifting in the CARE program as we allowed them in the last budget cycle.

· Other Issues. We make several small changes to the decision for the purpose of clarity. Where we make no change in response to comments, we reject the proposed change.

¹⁶⁶ The Utility Reform Network (TURN), which did not participate in the proceeding, filed reply comments along with a motion to intervene. We deny the motion, because TURN did not participate earlier in the proceeding, and addresses issues amply covered by other commenters.

¹⁶⁷ These numbers do not include amounts from the Training Center, Inspections, Marketing/Outreach, M&E, Regulatory Compliance, other Administrative, and CPUC Energy Division cost categories.