5. Assignment of Proceeding
Loretta Lynch is the Assigned Commissioner, and Meg Gottstein is the assigned Administrative Law Judge in this proceeding.
1. Petitions to modify do not facilitate a careful consideration of new technologies for the self-generation program, or other program changes, because the information presented to the Commission is driven by the petitioners' submittal and the individual views of parties who elect to respond.
2. Energy Division recommends a process that formalizes the Working Group's current evaluation of proposed new technologies, and affords applicants, distributors, and manufacturers the opportunity to present new technologies for Commission consideration without filing a petition for modification. The process includes guidelines that will assist applicants with their proposals, establishes timeframes by which the applicant can expect the Energy Division/Working Group to submit recommendations to the Commission, and affords parties an opportunity to comment on those recommendations.
3. Energy Division's approach to handling the initial paperwork associated with a proposal would utilize program resources in a reasonable manner and avoid creating a paperwork bottleneck at the Commission.
4. Clarifying what should happen if the Working Group cannot reach a unanimous recommendation would improve Energy Division's proposal.
5. Additions to the proposed guidelines to applicants, as suggested in some of the comments, would provide information that is needed by the Working Group and Commission to evaluate the applicants' proposal.
6. Allowing the each applicant the opportunity to personally present its proposal to the Working Group and to respond in writing to the Working Group recommendations before they are forwarded to the Commission gives the applicant additional input into the process. The resulting delay in the timeline represents an acceptable trade-off for making this accommodation.
7. Today's adopted evaluation process lends itself equally well to other types of program changes, such as modifications to incentive levels or proposals to include ancillary technologies (e.g., absorption chillers and other waste heat devices) as an eligible cost.
8. None of the opening or reply comments suggest that the Working Group itself should not be able to propose program changes to the Commission, using the procedures described in today's decision.
9. The issues raised by Capstone in its February 14, 2003 Petition for Modification of D.01-03-073 are being addressed by a separate Commission decision in this proceeding.
10. Consistent with our directions in D.01-03-073, SDG&E has been and continues to be a member of the Working Group.
11. Solel's pending Petition for Modification of D.01-03-073 requests the Commission to include a new technology under the self-generation program, but does not contain sufficient information with which to evaluate the request.
12. Directing that all pending and future requests for program changes, such as Solel's and DGS's, be reviewed under today's adopted procedures will ensure that the Commission obtains sufficient information with which to conduct a careful review of such requests.
1. As discussed in this decision, Solel's Petition for Modification of D.01-03-073 and DGS's Petition for Modification of D.01-03-073 should be denied without prejudice.
2. Energy Division's proposal for the submittal and evaluation of additional technologies under the self-generation program, as clarified and modified by this decision, should be adopted.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The procedures and information guidelines presented in Attachment 2 are adopted for the evaluation of proposals to add new technologies and make other changes to the self-generation program.
2. The Petitions of Solel Solar Systems (Solel) and Department of General Services (DGS) for Modification of Decision 01-03-073, filed on October 28, 2002 and May 16, 2003 respectively, are denied without prejudice. Solel and DGS may resubmit their requests directly to the Self-Generation Working Group (Working Group) via the evaluation procedures and using the information guidelines we adopt today.
3. All filings and comments submitted under the evaluation procedures shall be filed at the Commission's Docket Office and served electronically on all appearances and the state service list in this proceeding. Service by U.S. mail is optional, except that one hard copy shall be mailed to the assigned
Administrative Law Judge. In addition, if there is no electronic mail address available, the electronic mail is returned to the sender, or the recipient informs the sender of an inability to open the document, the sender shall immediately arrange for alternate service (regular U.S. mail shall be the default, unless another means-such as overnight delivery-is mutually agreed upon). The current service list for this proceeding is available on the Commission's web page, www.cpuc.ca.gov.
This order is effective today.
Dated August 21, 2003, at San Francisco, California.
MICHAEL R. PEEVEY
President
CARL W. WOOD
LORETTA M. LYNCH
GEOFFREY F. BROWN
SUSAN P. KENNEDY
Commissioners
ATTACHMENT 1
Energy Division's Proposed Evaluation Process and Guidelines
for Working Group Consideration of Additional Eligible Technologies Under the Self-Generation Incentive Program
Steps To The Evaluation Process:
1. When an applicant contacts the program to add a technology to the program, the program administrator will provide the applicant with a set of guidelines (see below). The program administrator will notify the applicant in writing concerning any deficiencies in the proposal, based on the guidelines. The applicant will modify its proposal, as necessary, to supply the Working Group with the additional information requested under the guidelines. The guidelines will also be posted on the Commission and program administrator websites.
2. The program administrator will distribute copies of the applicant's proposal to the Working Group members. If the technology is introduced to all four program administrators simultaneously by an applicant, manufacturer, or distributor, the Working Group may designate one program administrator to sponsor the applicant's proposal.
3. The program administrator will introduce the proposal for discussion at the Working Group's next regularly scheduled meeting following the applicant's submittal of all information required by the guidelines. The Working Group may seek additional information from the applicant or other resources, as needed.
4. The Working Group will develop recommendations on whether the new technology should be eligible to participate in the program, and at what incentive level. The Energy Division will submit the recommendations to the Assigned Commissioner within 90 days after the new technology is presented at a Working Group meeting. This allows the Working Group two full meetings to evaluate the proposal, collect additional information, and develop recommendations.
5. As proposed by the Commission in D.03-01-006, the Energy Division/Working Group recommendations will be issued for comment via an Assigned Commissioner's Ruling (ACR). Energy Division suggests comments be due within 15 days of the ACR. Reply comments would be due within five working days after initial comments are filed. Energy Division's recommendations and parties' comments would subsequently be addressed by Commission decision.
Guidelines for Applicant's Submittal:
At a minimum, Applicant's submittal to the Working Group should respond to the following requests for information, with appropriate documentation:
1. What are the installed system costs (on a dollar per kilowatt basis), both average costs and with project examples included?
2. What is the market potential for the application of this technology to recovery waste heat for the production of electrical power, both in terms of customer classes and total potential in California? Describe how the technology is currently commercially available (including a list of vendors), and what warranty provisions are offered by those vendors (including warranty period and component coverage).
3. How would this application aid in peak load reduction and what is an average expected generation profile?
4. How would this application meet the waste heat recovery and reliability requirements for Level 3 incentives, assuming it was considered eligible for incentives under that category?
5. If applying for Level 1 incentives, how would the applicant provide assurance that this installation would continue to operate on renewable fuel and not engage in fuel switching? For solar technologies, how would solar thermal energy input be measured to calculate the percentage of non-renewable fuel use?
Applicants should promptly respond to any additional inquiries from members of the Working Group, including Energy Division, with respect to these and other issues related to the proposed new technology.
(END OF ATTACHMENT 1)
ATTACHMENT 2
Adopted Evaluation Process and Guidelines for Consideration of Additional Eligible Technologies Under the Self-Generation Incentive Program and Other Program Changes
Evaluation Process for Consideration of Proposed Program Changes: 5
1. When an applicant contacts the program to add a technology to the program, the program administrator contacted will provide the applicant with a set of guidelines (see below). The guidelines should be incorporated into future revisions of the program handbook. The program administrator will notify the applicant in writing concerning any deficiencies in the proposal, based on the guidelines. The applicant will modify its proposal, as necessary, to supply the Working Group with the additional information requested under the guidelines. The guidelines will also be posted on the Commission and program administrator websites.
2. The program administrator will distribute copies of the applicant's proposal to the Working Group members. If the technology is introduced to all four program administrators simultaneously by an applicant, manufacturer, or distributor, the Working Group may designate one program administrator to sponsor the applicant's proposal.
3. At the applicant's request, the applicant may introduce the proposal to add a new technology to the members of the Working Group. Otherwise, the sponsoring program administrator will introduce the proposal for discussion at the Working Group's next regularly scheduled meeting following the applicant's submittal of all information required by the guidelines, so long as the information arrives at least 10 business days before the next Working Group meeting. The Working Group may seek additional information from the applicant or other resources, as needed.
4. The Working Group will develop recommendations on whether the new technology should be eligible to participate in the program, and at what incentive level. In presenting its recommendations, the Working Group should clearly discuss what alternatives and issues were considered, and the rationale for reaching the consensus recommendation including responses to the applicants' arguments if the Working Group does not adopt the proposal in whole or in part. If the Working Group does not reach unanimous agreement, the Group should prepare a report listing the majority and minority recommendations and describing the pros and cons of each. The Energy Division will specifically indicate whether it supports the majority or minority opinion, and why.
5. Prior to submitting Working Group recommendations to the Assigned Commissioner, the Working Group shall provide the applicant with a copy of the proposed recommendations. The applicant will have 5 (five) days to respond in writing to the recommendations before they are finalized by the Working Group and forwarded to the Assigned Commissioner. The submittal to the Assigned Commissioner should include a copy of the applicant's comments and discuss the Working Group's response to those comments.
6. The Energy Division will submit the Working Group recommendations to the Assigned Commissioner within 90 days after the new technology is presented at a Working Group meeting. This allows the Working Group two full meetings to evaluate the proposal, collect additional information, develop recommendations and consider the applicant's comments on those recommendations before finalizing its submittal to the Assigned Commissioner.
7. As proposed by the Commission in D.03-01-006, the Energy Division/Working Group recommendations will be issued for comment via an Assigned Commissioner's Ruling (ACR). Comments will be due within 15 days of the ACR. Reply comments will be due within five working days after initial comments are filed. Energy Division's recommendations and parties' comments would subsequently be addressed by Commission decision.
Guidelines for Applicant's Submittal Regarding Consideration of Additional Eligible Technologies and Other Program Changes:
At a minimum, Applicant's submittal to the Working Group for consideration of additional eligible technologies should respond to the following requests for information, with appropriate documentation:
1. Provide a detailed system description of the proposed technology, listing all the required components necessary to generate electricity, relevant energy sources and a thermodynamic energy balance. Provide documentation on emissions characteristics and overall system efficiency.
2. What incentive level is being requested and on what basis? What are the installed system costs (on a dollar per kilowatt basis), both average costs and minimum and maximum and with specific project examples included?
3. What is the projected market potential (both number of sites/projects and output, both peak kW and energy kWh per year) for the application of this technology both in terms of customer classes and total potential in California? What is the potential of this technology for recovery waste heat applications?
4. Describe whether the technology is currently commercially available as defined in the program handbook (including a list of vendors), and what warranty provisions are offered by those vendors (including warranty period and component coverage).
5. Describe and include copies of any certifications or independent testimony done on the technology.
6. Can this technology meet the 30 kW minimum (if applying for Level 1) and 1.5 MW maximum project size requirement? In what sizes (kW) is it available?
6. How would this application aid in peak load reduction and what is an average expected generation profile?
7. Can this application meet the waste heat recovery and reliability requirements for Level 3 incentives, assuming it was considered eligible for incentives under that category?
8. If applying for Level 1 or Level 3-R incentives, how would the applicant provide assurance that this installation would continue to operate on renewable fuel and not engage in fuel switching? For solar technologies, how would solar thermal energy input be measured to calculate the percentage of non-renewable fuel use?
Applicants should promptly respond to any additional inquiries from members of the Working Group, including Energy Division, with respect to these and other issues related to the proposal. The evaluation process outlined above will also apply to all other proposed program modifications, including changes to incentive levels or proposals to include ancillary technologies (e.g., absorption chillers and other waste heat devices.) Applicants that propose such changes should submit all of the information contained in the guidelines that is relevant to the proposal, and any additional information requested by the Working Group. The Working Group may also propose changes to the program by developing recommendations (majority and minority if appropriate) and submitting them to the Assigned Commissioner for distribution and comment, as outlined above.
(END OF ATTACHMENT 2)
5 The self-generation program administrators, working with the Energy Division, comprise the Working Group. The California Energy Commission has also participated in Working Group meetings on program coordination issues. Although the self-generation program serving San Diego Gas & Electric Company's (SDG&E) customers is administered by the San Diego Regional Energy Office, SDG&E also participates as an active Working Group member consistent with the Commission's direction in D.01-03-073.
