4. Contributions of Other Parties

Section 1801.3(f) requires an intervenor to avoid participation that duplicates that of similar interests otherwise adequately represented by another party, or participation unnecessary for a fair determination of the proceeding. Section 1802.5, however, allows an intervenor to be eligible for full compensation where its participation materially supplements, complements, or contributes to the presentation of another party if that participation makes a substantial contribution to the Commission order. In this proceeding, more than 500 participants worked together over an eleven month period initiated by D.07-10-032 in October 2007 to develop a roadmap for energy efficiency through 2020 and beyond. Many of the parties had been involved in the planning process that led to D.07-10-032 which provided both substantive and scheduling guidance for long-term strategic planning. In the OIR, issued July 10, 2008, the parties were asked to comment on specific questions about the Plan, Commission's planning role, market transformation, low-income households, and other matters. Not unexpectedly, many parties had similar comments on particular issues especially as parties worked together to find common ground. Thus it was nearly impossible to completely avoid some duplication of work by other parties.

We agree that NRDC made an effort to coordinate with other parties, avoid duplication, and ensure that its work served to supplement, complement, or contribute to the comments of other active parties in the proceeding. For example, NRDC offered some recommendations which were not addressed by other parties, to enhance or clarify strategies and include additional participants throughout the various iterations of the Strategic Plan (both IOU and CPUC). NRDC also made unique arguments for the California Energy Commission to be a participant in the planning, for targeting commercial tenant renovations, for broader discussion of plug loads and loading order, and offered numerous energy efficiency ideas, incentives, and collaborations, most of which were not adopted nor even discussed in the decision. However, this is the type of participation the Commission sought when it ordered the rulemaking.

On some issues, NRDC's input echoed those of other participants. For example, NRDC joined DRA and TURN in calling for greater attention to lighting measures and market changes and an expanded discussion of these topics was added to the plan in both the Residential and Commercial sections. (NRDC 9/15/08 Comments on PD at 3-4; D.08-09-040 at 10.) NRDC also joined several parties in making comments on LIEE aspects of the plan which were addressed in the Plan. (D.08-09-040 at 11-12.)

Overall, NRDC analyzed comments by other parties and provided additional input that reflects analysis of those comments. NRDC also added its voice to other parties on some substantial issues and the combined effort yielded results in the decision. This process evolved over time and NRDC was able to provide useful input to the Commission in advancing the public discussion and contributing to its conclusions in D.08-09-040. We agree that NRDC made a contribution that was neither unnecessary nor duplicative of the work of another party.

CEC says it "took all reasonable steps to keep duplication to a minimum" but also worked closely with other parties, particularly discussing key ideas with DRA, TURN, and NRDC. (CEC's RFC at 19.) This is reflected by the few areas in which CEC made written comments that were not echoed by another party. For example, CEC joined NRDC, DRA, and others on the "whole house" approach and expanded discussion of market transformation. CEC took the common idea of encouraging local governments to enforce code compliance and expanded it to promote additional energy efficiency ordinances by local governments that go beyond basic building codes.

CEC was also out front on problems with application of the definition of "zero net energy" (ZNE) as it applied to some commercial buildings and seeking long-term planning in the lighting sector. CEC also led the focus on the IOU's pilot programs including a call for transparency, critiques of existing programs, and for expanding non-utility efficiency programs. CEC's comments were sometimes less substantive than those by other parties including DRA and TURN. Yet, we agree that CEC made a contribution which was, in part, unique and neither unnecessary nor redundant.

WEM states it "took all reasonable steps to keep duplication to a minimum, and to ensure that when it did happen, our work served to complement and assist the showings of the other parties." (WEM Request at 10.) WEM emphasizes the Commission's view that duplication may be unavoidable in a proceeding such as this where many stakeholder groups are encouraged to participate.

Most of WEM's comments were not duplicative, sometimes because they were beyond the scope of the proceeding or a proffer of accusations against the utilities. In the areas of moving statewide planning from IOUs to a Commission-sponsored proceeding with a formal record, linking integrated Demand-Side Management (DSM) with procurement, and expanding discussion of ways to address peak load caused by air conditioning we find that WEM's contribution was not duplicative of other participants.

Greenlining asserts it collaborated with other consumer protection groups "to ensure robust yet non-redundant advocacy" and is entitled to full compensation. (Greenlining Request at 2.) It also points out the Commission has awarded compensation even where a decision does not adopt an intervenor's recommendations. (Greenlining Request at 2, citing D.04-08-025.)

Greenlining's comments and issues focused on diverse participation and energy efficiency planning obstacles for low-income and minority households. The Commission itself sought diverse participation at the beginning stages of development of the strategic plan in R.06-04-010 which led to the large number of participants ultimately involved in that proceeding, the interim work on the IOU CEESP and this consolidated proceeding. However the issue was raised again in this proceeding by Greenlining, Latino Issues Forum, Community Action Agency of San Mateo County, and others related to involving more low-income participants. This is an important matter to the Commission and although Greenlining's efforts built on the groundwork laid by others, their voice added substantial input for under-reperesented communities.

Because the development of strategic planning had been underway since early 2007, the parties and the Commission had already determined that the plan should include discussion of low-income energy efficiency issues by the time Greenlining became involved in July 2008 with the Commission's Draft Plan. For example, DRA suggested separate discussion on low-income multi-family housing, and raised LIEE issues in Residential, Local Government, ME&O, and WE&T sections in its comments on the IOU Draft Plan. (Appendix C at 36-39.) Other parties including the Latino Issues Forum and Community Action Agency of San Mateo County discussed issues of energy efficiency education and outreach to low income and minority neighborhoods, especially large families and multi-family buildings. Additionally, D.08-09-040 identified several parties as raising LIEE issues but did not include Greenlining.

Nonetheless, as we stated before, Greenlining brought a uniquely focused viewpoint about how long term energy efficiency strategic planning would face some particular challenges regarding low-income, minority, and disadvantaged households. We find that Greenlining made a substantial contribution by its developed comments on financing, marketing, and strategies for engaging low-income communities in energy efficiency that were unique and not duplicative.

Previous PageTop Of PageNext PageGo To First Page