3. Substantial Contribution

Initially, we note that CEC, NRDC and WEM all seek compensation here for work done in R.06-04-010, where all were found eligible for intervenor compensation primarily relating to Phases 1 and 2.6 This raises some challenges to our review and we note that factually they are situated somewhat differently. Both general and individualized discussions follow below based on our review of the record in both R.06-04-010 and this proceeding.

After the February 27, 2007 PHC in R.06-04-010 on Phases 3-5, the assigned Commissioner issued a Scoping Memo and Ruling that, inter alia, identified the deadline for filing an NOI related to these phases as March 29, 2007, 30 days after the PHC, and required RFCs to allocate hours to each specific issue.7 Thus, the assigned Commissioner contemplated that RFCs for work in Phases 3-5 would be filed in R.06-04-010, every claimant's activity would be clearly identified as to which Phase it applied, and the activity would be linked to the Decision issued on that Phase. Only NRDC filed a new NOI for these phases prior to March 29, 2007.

There is no dispute that activity in Phases 4 and 5 led to the IOU's CEESP submitted in A.08-06-004, the Commission Draft provided in R.08-07-011, and the final Plan approved in D.08-09-040. The CEESP was the foundation upon which the Commission crafted the Plan adopted in D.08-09-040 to extend energy efficiency strategic planning on a statewide basis.

Therefore, it is possible that some of the parties' work in the prior rulemaking may have substantially contributed to D.08-09-040 and that seeking compensation in this proceeding rather than the prior rulemaking might reasonably follow given the unusual evolution of the strategic planning process. The question is where to draw the line. We caution that seeking compensation for contribution to a decision in another proceeding that has not been consolidated is a rare exception warranted only by extraordinary circumstances. Parties should not assume it is appropriate, should procedurally protect their claims in the first proceeding, and should seek permission from the presiding officer of both proceedings to permit review of the linkage between the proceedings, provide notice to other parties, and to avoid an expiration of intervenor rights.

Even where a claim for compensation in this proceeding might be allowed for work in R.06-04-010, some challenges arise in determining which work should be included and the value of that work. Here, D.07-10-032 launched a series of post-decision meetings, workshops, and other activity aimed at developing an IOU strategic plan beginning after the decision was issued on October 18, 2007 and continuing until the IOUs filed A.08-06-004 on June 2, 2008. CEC and NRDC only assert claims for strategic planning activities after October 18, 2007. On the other hand, WEM requests compensation for activities beginning in March 2007, including some that led to D.07-10-032 and after that decision as the process evolved into D.08-09-040.

Another challenge arises because the work by parties, before and after D.07-10-032, was largely done in meetings and workshops outside the record of either R.06-04-010 or this consolidated proceeding. In addition, because both NRDC and CEC filed RFCs in R.06-04-010, we must review these awards to be sure there is no overlap or inconsistency between what was previously claimed and what is now claimed.

3.1. R.06-04-010

We begin with a review of compensation awarded to these parties in R.06-04-010. CEC filed requests for compensation for contributions to D.07-10-032 (Phase 5 - Goals and Programs 2009-2011), D.07-09-043 (Phase 1- shareholder risk/reward incentives), D.08-07-047 (Phase 4 - 2009-2011 savings goals 2012-2020), and for D.08-09-040 which was issued in this proceeding. In D.08-06-018, the Commission found CEC had not made a substantial contribution to D.07-09-043 but awarded compensation for its contribution to the strategic planning decision D.07-10-032. There has been no decision in R.06-04-010 as to the other pending requests which become moot upon adoption of this decision. CEC says it received permission from ALJ Gamson to make a combined request for compensation in this proceeding that included its efforts towards D.08-07-047.

Neither WEM nor NRDC asked for, or received permission to file combined compensation requests. WEM filed no RFCs in R.06-04-010. NRDC filed an RFC for its contributions to D.07-10-032, D.08-07-047 and also for D.08-09-040. In D.08-06-018, the Commission found NRDC's contribution to the strategic planning decision, D.07-10-032, was largely not substantial and reduced the compensation claim by 80% but allowed compensation for work related to Program Advisory and Peer Review Groups. There has been no decision in R.06-04-010 as to the other pending requests, however, the RFC related to D.08-09-040 becomes moot upon adoption of this decision.

In evaluating whether a customer made a substantial contribution to a proceeding we look at several things. First, we look at whether the Commission adopted one or more of the factual or legal contentions, or specific policy, or procedural recommendations put forward by the customer. (§ 1802(i).) Second, if the customer's contentions or recommendations paralleled those of another party, we look at whether the customer's participation unnecessarily duplicated or materially supplemented, complemented, or contributed to the presentation of the other party. (§§ 1801.3(f) and 1802.5.)

As described in § 1802(i), the assessment of whether the customer made a substantial contribution requires the exercise of judgment.

In assessing whether the customer meets this standard, the Commission typically reviews the record, composed in part of pleadings of the customer and, in litigated matters, the hearing transcripts, and compares it to the findings, conclusions, and orders in the decision to which the customer asserts it contributed. It is then a matter of judgment as to whether the customer's presentation substantially assisted the Commission.8

With this guidance in mind, we turn to the claimed contributions each intervenor made to the proceeding.

Formal participation by parties occurred in this consolidated application and rulemaking proceeding through filing of Opening Comments and Reply Comments on the Commission Draft, participation in the PHC and workshop held on July 18, 2008, and Comments and Reply Comments to the Proposed Decision. To the extent that compensation is claimed for work in R.06-04-010, we will examine the facts of each claim separately.

NRDC asserts the IOU's CEESP, the Commission's Plan, and D.08-09-040 all reflect its recommendations on various issues and seeks compensation for its participation and comments "throughout all related proceedings" leading to D.08-09-040. (NRDC's RFC at 3.) NRDC participated in the development of the IOU Draft Plan, and in this consolidated proceeding where the IOU's CEESP was submitted for approval, and R.08-07-011 which provided the Commission Draft statewide strategic plan, all leading up to D.08-09-040 which adopted the Plan on September 18, 2008.

NRDC claims it made a substantial contribution to D.08-09-040 in the particular areas described below, beginning after D.07-10-032 was issued.

1. Contribution to IOU's Draft Plan and CEESP

After D.07-10-032 was issued on October 18, 2007, NRDC continued its participation in the planning process initiated in R.06-10-040. During late 2007 and early 2008, NRDC actively participated in the development of the IOU Draft and the CEESP. NRDC attended the November 5, 2007 PHC ordered by the Commission in D.07-10-032, various workshops, and working groups for the four "vertical" market sectors which all contributed to the development of the IOU Draft Plan released in February 2008.

In March 2008, NRDC submitted recommendations to the IOUs regarding the IOU Draft and the 2009-2011 energy efficiency program portfolios and applications. NRDC states the CEESP released in June 2008 reflected modifications or additions to various components of the IOU Draft based on its input. As part of the CEESP submitted for Commission approval in A.08-06-004, the utilities provided a summary of recommendations received, IOU response, and the disposition of the issue in Appendix C. NRDC's accepted recommendations include:

· Commercial Section: a whole building approach (Application for Approval of CEESP, Appendix C (Appendix C) at 6); incorporate California Energy Commission as an essential participant (Appendix C at 8); target tenant move-ins for energy efficiency upgrades (Appendix C at 6);

· Local Government Section: work with local governments to increase code compliance (Appendix C at 26);

· Residential Section: explore programs to incorporate a single master switch in new construction (Appendix C at 33); expand efforts to promote energy efficiency improvements at early stages of building design (Appendix C at 36); design programs to encourage whole-house retrofits (Appendix C at 38).

NRDC made many other comments that were acknowledged, joined by other parties, or otherwise likely had some impact on the final result. We agree that NRDC's participation made a substantial contribution to the development of the CEESP submitted for approval in A.08-06-004.

2. Contribution to D.08-09-040 and the Final Plan

NRDC states it was extensively involved in the process that began with the release of the CEESP in June 2008 and ended with D.08-09-040 on September 18, 2008 in the consolidated proceeding. After the IOUs filed a Joint Application for approval of the CEESP in A.08-06-004, NRDC filed Response Comments on July 9, 2008 which included several recommendations for improvement.

After the Commission initiated R.08-07-011 to develop the Commission's own long-term energy efficiency strategic plan, a ruling was issued on July 14, 2008 that sought Comments on the Commission Draft. NRDC participated in the PHC and submitted Opening Comments on July 31, 2008 and Reply Comments on August 7, 2008. After the Commission issued a PD on August 19, 2008, NRDC submitted Reply Comments on the PD.

NRDC claims the decision and Plan adopted by the Commission include several modifications that resulted from NRDC's participation and are summarized in Appendices 1 and 2 of D.08-09-040. For example, based on party comments, including NRDC's, the Decision included an expanded discussion of the lighting market and emerging lighting technologies, as well as defined new strategies within the Residential and Commercial sections. (D.08-09-040 at 10; Plan at 3-40, 3-41.) The Plan also reflects NRDC's recommendation that it strengthen language related to plug loads and to use consistent language across market sectors. (NRDC 7/31/08 Comments at 4; Plan at 3-34.) Additionally, the Plan added a reference to the "loading order" to further emphasize that cost-effective energy efficiency is the state's top energy resource. (NRDC 7/31/08 Comments at 3; Plan at 1-1.)

As described above, we concur that NRDC's participation made a substantial contribution to the development of the Plan adopted in D.08-09-040, beginning (for purposes of this RFC) after D.07-10-032 was issued and we find NRDC has successfully shown the linkage between the post-D.07-10-032 work with the results in D.08-09-040. The Commission has awarded full compensation even where the intervenor's positions were not adopted in full, especially in proceedings with a broad scope. (D.98-04-028, 79 CPUC2d 570, 573-574.) Here, NRDC achieved a high level of success on the issues it raised in a wide-ranging and evolving proceeding. In the areas where we did not adopt NRDC's position in whole or in part, we benefited from NRDC's participation, analysis and discussion of all of the issues it raised.

CEC says its major goal is to wean the Central Coast region off fossil fuels by 2033, acting as a model for other parts of California and the country. CEC asserts it made a substantial contribution to the Plan and D.08-09-040 in this proceeding, and D.08-07-047 (issued July 31, 2008 in R.06-04-010) which adopted interim energy efficiency savings goals for 2012 through 2020. CEC obtained permission to request compensation in this proceeding for concurrent work related to D.08-07-047 due to the relationship between long-term savings goals and long-term strategic planning. CEC has already received compensation in the prior proceeding for work through October 15, 2007 related to D.07-10-032 which set the course for IOU development of the CEESP. (D.08-06-018.)

CEC states its participation in this and the prior proceeding was "substantial and extensive, including oral testimony at hearings, workshops, and pre-hearing conferences," in addition to Comments and Reply Comments filed on both proposed decisions before the Commission adopted the final versions. (CEC RFC at 1.) CEC acknowledges it was not successful on every point it made, but contends it prevailed on key issues and the final decisions reflect its advocacy. CEC claims it made a substantial contribution in the particular areas described below.

1. D.08-07-047 addressed two areas related to energy efficiency savings goals. First, it set interim energy efficiency savings goals for 2012 through 2020 for electricity and natural gas. Second, the decision clarified the Commission's currently adopted energy efficiency savings goals for 2009 through 2011 to assist the utilities in developing portfolios consistent with the long-term energy efficiency strategic plan developed as a result of D.07-10-032. The IOUs contracted with an outside consultant, Itron, to develop savings goals from both utility and non-utility efforts, rather than utility-only based goals used in the past. The Itron Report had two types of goals by service territory: (1) Total Market Gross (TMG) including market transformation programs such as the BBEES program initiatives identified in D.07-10-032, and (2) an updated IOU Program-Specific Goal. The Report presented three levels of potential savings scenarios identified as low-case, mid-case, and high-case to reflect additional savings from non-utility sources.

A portion of the Report was released in March 2008. The assigned Commissioner and ALJ issued a ruling on March 25, 2008 seeking comments on the Report and its draft goals, as well as Energy Division's recommendations for similar savings goals through 2020 achieved through a hybrid structure incorporating both TMG and utility program-specific goals. The decision adopted the 2012 through 2020 TMG mid-level goals on an interim basis consistent with the intention to adopt a statewide long-term energy efficiency strategic plan.

CEC filed Comments on April 25, 2008, Reply Comments on May 5, attended the PHC and concurrent workshop on May 14, participated in a workshop on June 2, filed Comments on the final Itron Report on June 11, and filed Comments on the PD on July 21.

CEC contends that D.08-07-047 reflects its comments and involvement on various issues, as described below.

· TMG goals adopted for ARB to use in draft Scoping Plan (D.08-07-047 at 17, 21).

· IOUs are required to use 100% of interim TMG goals in future long-term procurement proceedings (D.08-07-047 at 26, 33).

· Decision acknowledges concerns of CEC and others about whether the Report used the most recent data and recommends updating (CEC 4/25/08 Comments at 2; D.08-07-047 at 17, 21).

· Against use of "expansive net" goals recommended by Energy Division (CEC 4/25/08 Comments at 4-6; D.08-07-047 at 23).

· Although Commission adopted gross goals for 2009-2011 rather than continue use of net goals supported by CEC and others, Commission directed staff to review risk/reward incentive mechanism and other ratepayer impacts as CEC suggested (CEC 4/25/08 Comments at 4-6; D.08-07-047 at 27-28, 30-31.)

Based on the foregoing, we agree that CEC made a substantial contribution to D.08-07-047.

2. D.08-09-040 CEC states it was "very active in the process" that resulted in adoption of the Plan beginning with its early call for long-term planning in R.06-04-010, and recognized by the Commission when it granted intervenor compensation to CEC for D.07-10-032. (D.08-06-018.) In particular, between November 2007 and March 2008 CEC attended six workshops and several meetings on strategic planning, local government and energy efficiency, residential energy efficiency, Marketing, Education and Outreach, and Integrated Demand-Side Management. It also submitted Comments, as follows:

· On March 17, 2008 on Integrated Demand-Side Management some of which were identified in Appendix C to the IOU's Application in A.08-06-004 "Responses to Comments" ("Appendix C") and included (1) support for IOU Demand-Side Management but also non-utility efforts (Appendix C at 14); (2) proposed "one stop shop" or "whole house" option to combine various energy efficiency options for customers (Appendix C at 14); (3) opined that PG&E's ClimateSmart program should, not be considered a DSM program (Appendix C at 14); and (4) sought more transparency of the IOU internal selection process for pilot projects (Appendix C at 15);

· On March 24, 2008, on the IOU Draft included asking for market transformation details and metrics, early start-up of DSM pilot programs, inclusion of off-site renewable energy sources to meet "zero net energy" (ZNE) goals;

· On July 31, 2008, on the Commission Draft (see also, Appendix 1 to D.08-09-040 "Summary of Comments" at 4-5) that included (1) revision of definition of ZNE for some commercial buildings and inclusion of offsite renewable energy sources toward ZNE; (2) expanded discussion of market transformation; (3) Commission leadership in market transformation (D.08-09-040 at 10); and "one-stop shop" or "whole house" approach to DSM;

· September 8, 2008 Comments on the PD, some of which are mentioned in the decision, that (1) supported expanded lighting section; (2) supported new language on market transformation, but more is required (D.08-09-040 at 9); and (3) notes growing support for modifying definition of ZNE for certain commercial buildings, and (4) disputes Commission's view that it lacks authority to create a broad interagency energy efficiency alliance (D.08-09-040 at 10); and

· Submitted Reply Comments on PD (inadvertently omitted from Appendix 2 to D.08-09-040) that included responses to PD Comments about a cost-effectiveness analysis and IOU fears about market transformation and lighting programs.

CEC contends D.08-09-040 adopted many recommendations in either the decision or the Plan itself that reflect CEC input primarily:

· "Whole house" approach adopted to provide all integrated DSM services through one interfacing entity with homeowners (Plan at 2-18);

· Market transformation discussion expanded, definition added, affirmed as unifying objective of Plan, and acknowledged need for progress metrics (Plan at 1-4, 1-5; D.08-09-040 at 9, 10);

· Continuing and expanded commitment to local government partnerships for their own energy efficiency, regulatory authority, and leadership (Plan at 12-89); and

· Adopted "zero net energy" for all new buildings by 2030, only a slight change from "carbon neutral" proposed by CEC (Plan at 3-31).

In the areas where we did not adopt CEC's position in whole or in part, we benefited from its participation, analysis and discussion of all of the issues it raised. Based on the foregoing, we agree that CEC made a substantial contribution to D.08-09-040.

In the RFC, WEM states it made a substantial contribution to long term strategic planning by attending meetings, prehearing conferences, and workshops, submitting comments, and working with other parties to advance its procedural and substantive recommendations in both R.06-04-010 and this proceeding. The first matter is to clarify which work done in R.06-04-010 does WEM seek intervenor compensation for in this RFC. WEM filed an NOI in R.06-04-010 in June 2006 stating it intended to participate in all phases of the proceeding, including initiation of the 2009-2011 planning cycle. WEM was found eligible in a June 28, 2006 Ruling. The work claimed prior to issuance of D.07-10-032 on October 18, 2007 can be summarized as attendance at a BBEES workshop and four sets of filed Comments on the February 16, 2007 Scoping Memo, Phase 4 Energy Savings Goals, Phase 3 Refinements to Policy Rules and Reporting Requirements, and on the draft proposed decision which became D.07-10-032. WEM also seeks compensation for activities between November 5, 2007 and May 8, 2008, prior to commencement of A.08-06-004.

There is no dispute that WEM participated at all these steps of the energy efficiency planning process. The threshold question is over the propriety of seeking compensation in this proceeding. In order to claim compensation in another proceeding there must be extraordinary circumstances. As discussed previously, we agree the unusual evolution of the long-term energy efficiency strategic planning process yielded a post-decision period in which directed activities continued into the IOU application and the Commission's rulemaking. As we have stated above for NRDC and CEC, we will consider herein compensation for all strategic planning activities claimed for post-D.07-10-032 directed activities.

However, work done previous to that decision should be filed in R.06-04-010 because the assigned Commissioner's Scoping Memo and Ruling provided for the claims to be filed in that proceeding, WEM's NOIs indicated it would file separately in each proceeding, and, therefore, that is the record serving as notice to the public. Furthermore, WEM was on notice that NRDC and CEC had both claimed intervenor compensation for strategic planning activities in R.06-04-010 and a decision had been issued on June 12, 2008 partially granting those requests. Unlike NRDC and CEC, WEM has not filed an RFC in R.06-04-010 for the work leading to D.07-10-032 or work underlying other decisions in that proceeding. Rule 17.3 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure states, "Requests for an award of compensation shall be filed within 60 days of the issuance of the decision that resolves an issue on which the intervenor believes it made a substantial contribution or the decision closing the proceeding." WEM has not yet filed an RFC within 60 days of any decision in R.06-04-011. However, that proceeding is still open and WEM appears to have another opportunity to timely and properly file an RFC within 60 days of the issuance of a future decision that either "resolves an issue [WEM] believes it made a substantial contribution [to]" or closes the proceeding.

It is possible WEM may have become aware at some point that CEC got permission to submit a combined Request for Compensation in this proceeding for its contribution to D.08-07-047, issued July 31, 2008 in R.06-04-010. WEM may have independently concluded its own request would be similarly treated. Given this possibility, we examine WEM's request and find it distinguishable.

Setting aside the question of what WEM knew and when, WEM's request is distinguishable from CEC's. CEC's request was narrowly defined, with concurrent activities in R.06-04-010 that were specifically tied to a decision (D.08-07-047) involving long-term energy efficiency savings goals that CEC linked to the strategic planning in this consolidated proceeding. In contrast, WEM lumps together work in R.06-04-010 on several topics and phases into a "planning process" that purportedly evolved into the Plan adopted in D.08-09-040. This mischaracterizes the wide scope of R.06-04-010 because not every topic considered was part of the ultimate Commission Plan adopted in D.08-09-040.

The possibility that WEM made an erroneous assumption about its eligibility to file a claim in one proceeding for work related to decisions issued in another, underscores the need for any party that intends to seek intervenor compensation to do so in the original proceeding and link it to a particular decision, or seek permission from the presiding officers to file the request in another proceeding based on extraordinary circumstances.

We now turn to WEM's Request and note that SCE filed a Response and argued WEM made no substantial contribution to D.08-09-040, and instead duplicated others' work, wasted time admonishing the parties and the Commission, and raised issues outside the scope of the proceeding that resulted in unnecessary work by other parties and the ALJ.

D.08-09-040 affirms that the Commission will lead energy efficiency strategic planning for the state. WEM initially argued strategic planning was premature, IOU planning process violated state and federal law, IOU-run workshops violated due process, and IOU long-term planning was deficient because publicly-owned utilities and entities like Community Choice Aggregators (CCA) were not involved. (WEM's 3/24/08 Motion to Accept Comments at 1-2.) The IOUs contend the future role for CCAs is not within the scope of this proceeding. (Appendix C at 27.)

If long-term planning were to occur, WEM strongly advocated for Commission, rather than utility, leadership because it thought IOUs should not control the planning process, are motivated by shareholder rather than ratepayer concerns, and have no authority over non-utility stakeholders. Parts of this argument are viewed as unhelpful by SCE. After the IOUs filed a joint application for approval of the CEESP, the Commission decided to assume leadership and opened this rulemaking to take charge of the planning process and expand it into a statewide plan through 2020. (R.08-07-011.) Other parties suggested broader involvement and leadership, but WEM appears to have made a substantial contribution in pushing for Commission leadership early on, in part by pointing out the need to create a record to support the resulting plan.

WEM also identifies several recommendations it made during the development process in R.06-04-010 which were restated as the post-D.07-10-032 planning continued. (WEM's Late Comments filed in R.06-04-010 on March 24, 2008; Appendix C.) These are:

· Better integrate DSM, link energy efficiency to procurement to reduce peak demand9 (Appendix C at 15);

· Force IOUs to reveal where energy efficiency is located (Appendix C at 33);

· Expand Workforce Education and Training (WE&T) beyond utility-controlled programs due to identified problems (Appendix C at 40-41);

· Expand on-bill financing to all sectors (Appendix C at 10);

· Expand HVAC discussion to include impacts on peak load by air conditioning and examine other cooling measures (Appendix C at 19); and

· Commission should have controls on funds for Marketing, Education and Outreach (ME&O) to prevent misapplication by IOUs (Appendix C at 31).

The IOUs incorporated WEM's comments into the CEESP on disclosure of energy efficiency locations, on-bill financing, and impact of air conditioning on various sectors. They did not use the other WEM recommendations because they said adequate controls existed for ME&O funds, DSM is a base not a peak resource, and WEM comments were primarily opinion rather than constructive information, underscoring an objection raised by SCE.

D.08-09-040 itself does not mention WEM in the text. However, Appendix 1 identifies a few comments on the Commission's Draft plan submitted by WEM that echo its prior positions and add support of bridge funding for pilot programs and inquire how energy efficiency can participate in the Forward Capacity Market and qualify as peak resources. (Appendix 1 at 8.) WEM contends the Plan adopted in D.08-09-040 incorporated its views on expanding WE&T beyond the IOUs (Plan at 9-74), on-bill-financing, exploring air-cooling impacts on HVAC (Plan at 6-57 to 6-58), and Commission oversight of ME&O funds (D.08-09-040 at 10.)

SCE contends that D.08-09-040 does not mention WEM because its participation provided no substantial contribution and indeed, little benefit. For example, discussion of the Forward Capacity Market and bridge funding for 2009 programs were both clearly outside the scope of the Plan. To the extent that WEM raised issues about DSM and energy efficiency coordination, SCE says it merely echoed comments of other parties who raised the issue more substantively. Therefore, SCE argues that WEM should at best receive nominal compensation, mostly for participation in some workshops.

We agree with SCE that some of WEM's post-D.07-10-032 participation did not provide a substantial contribution to D.08-09-040. However, we disagree that all or nearly all of its effort should be disallowed. The Commission values the participation of a wide range of stakeholders in order to develop the best ideas and information from which to craft its decisions, and appreciates that WEM offers a unique view. However, the intervenor compensation process requires that participation alone is insufficient and a party must become a useful advocate of a unique position that substantially contributes to the resulting decision.

We benefited from WEM's participation, analysis and discussion which improved the dialogue in this proceeding, even if some of its input was unnecessary or outside the scope. We find that WEM's comments and recommendations did substantially contribute in the following areas: Commission-sponsored statewide planning, linking integrated DSM with procurement, and expanding discussion of ways to address peak load caused by air conditioning.

Greenlining does not request any compensation for time or activities prior to July 18, 2008. Greenlining's first claimed appearance in this proceeding was at the workshop held July 18, 2008 after the PHC.10 Greenlining states it filed Opening and Reply Comments on the Commission's Draft Plan and Comments on the PD all of which focused on a narrow set of issues relative to diverse participation and energy efficiency planning obstacles for low-income and minority households.11

Greenlining states it was the only group dedicated to representing the interests of low-income and minority ratepayers and was involved at every stage of this proceeding by attending the PHC, filing comments, performing research on the Plan's implications, communicating with Commission staff, and collaborating with other parties to avoid duplication. Greenlining asserts its advocacy on behalf of its constituencies addressed specific issues under consideration and provided a substantial contribution to D.08-09-040.

Specifically, Greenlining claims it made a substantial contribution to D.08-09-040 on all of the following issues which are discussed in their Reply Comments on the PD.

· get more diverse participation in a slower paced proceeding;

· strategies for multi-family households should not be deferred;

· existing homes and buildings should not be excluded from "ZNE" targets;

· do a rigorous cost-benefit analysis for energy efficiency programs;

· expand LIEE to include education, outreach and financing; and

· support goals that minority, low-income and disadvantaged communities get full access to training and education programs; Greenlining is identified as an important partner.

In the Plan, the Commission recognized there are large numbers of households in multi-family structures that qualify for low-income energy efficiency (LIEE) programs but don't get them. The Plan set a goal of reaching all LIEE households by 2020 using better marketing, better delivery, better savings, and more education and training in LIEE communities. (Plan at 2-25 to 2-29.) These goals and strategies meet many of the concerns expressed by Greenlining. However, some of these issues were raised prior to Greenlining's appearance in the proceeding and, notably, Greenlining was left out of a list of parties in D.08-09-004 that were concerned about LIEE issues. (D.08-09-040 at 11.)

Despite the omission of Greenlining as a source of input in the decision, Greenling has had the somewhat unique role of placing low-income issues front and center in Commission proceedings and did so again here. It successfully pushed for a separate analysis of the impact of energy efficiency efforts on low-income households, particularly multi-family buildings which is reflected in the Low Income Residential Segment of the Plan at 2-25 and offered specific suggestions for identifying new and existing low-income home buyers for marketing purposes. (Reply Comments at 5-6.)

Based on the foregoing, we find that Greenlining made a substantial contribution to D.08-09-040.

6 WEM and CEC were found eligible to claim intervenor compensation in a June 28, 2006 ruling and CEC and NRDC were both awarded intervenor compensation in D.08-06-018.

7 Assigned Commissioner's Scoping Memo and Ruling issued April 13, 2007 in R.06-04-010 at 10-11.

8 D.98-04-059, 79 CPUC2d 628 at 653.

9 WEM cited Comments it filed on July 31, 2008, however, no WEM Comments were filed on or near that date in either proceeding.

10 There is no evidence Greenlining participated in the long term strategic planning activities undertaken in R.06-04-010 before or after D.07-10-032. The July 14, 2008 Order Instituting Rulemaking (OIR) in this proceeding identified strategies for low income energy efficiency as an issue based on comments in the preceding IOU planning activities. (OIR at 4.)

11 Opening Comments on the Commission draft were due July 31, 2008. No Opening Comments on the Commission Draft from Greenlining are listed in the docket for A.08-06-004 or R.08-07-011. Greenlining initially filed a motion on August 6, 2008 seeking permission to file late Opening Comments. According to the Docket, Greenlining instead filed timely "Reply Comments" on August 7, 2008.

Previous PageTop Of PageNext PageGo To First Page