7. Assignment of Proceeding

Carl W. Wood is the Assigned Commissioner, and Meg Gottstein is the assigned ALJ in this proceeding.

Findings of Fact

1. The Team followed the Commission-established guidelines in evaluating the cost-effectiveness of LIEE measures.

2. In the analysis underlying its final report, the Team used per measure savings estimates based on the PY2001 load impact evaluation. In contrast to the PY2000 LIEE load impact study, in which the primary focus was the estimation of overall program savings, the more recent PY2001 load impact evaluation focuses on isolating individual measure impacts. The PY2001 includes refinements for this purpose, as discussed in the Standardization Team's June 2, 2003 report on LIEE cost-effectiveness. The PY2001 load impact evaluation also underwent considerable public scrutiny, as described in Attachment 5.

3. Retaining the following measures in the LIEE program is consistent with the Commission's guidelines to offer measures that pass both the PCm and the UC tests of cost-effectiveness: (1) Ceiling insulation, (2) CFLs, (3) Faucet aerators, (4) Low-flow showerheads, (5) High efficiency refrigerators, (6) Water heater blankets and (7) Water heater pipe wrap.

4. Dropping the following measures from the program is consistent with the Commission's guidelines to discontinue measures that fail both the PCm and the UC tests of cost-effectiveness, and for which there are no other policy or program considerations that justify retaining the measure: (1) High efficiency central air conditioner replacements, (2) High efficiency water heater replacements, (3) Whole house fans, (4) Setback thermostats (except when required by code in conjunction with furnace replacements), (5) Furnace filters (installed alone), (6) Evaporative cooler maintenance and (7) Duct testing and sealing.

5. The cost-effectiveness results for high efficiency room (window/wall) air conditioner results, which indicate that this measure is only cost-effective for one utility serving zones 13 and 15, may not fully reflect the potential reduction in risks to customer health and safety associated with the availability of these units in extreme climate zones. Retaining this measure across all service territories for zones 11-15, which have the most extreme summer conditions, balances the strict application of cost-effectiveness results with other policy considerations, as provided for in the Commission's guidelines.

6. Although the cost-effectiveness results for outlet gaskets, caulking, evaporative cooler covers, weatherstripping doors and weatherstripping attic doors are not favorable, these infiltration-reduction measures lower draftiness and thereby provide significant non-energy benefits relating to comfort that may be understated in the analysis due to the manner in which these benefits are allocated (e.g., by energy savings). Eliminating these measures would significantly reduce the number of homes weatherized. In addition, these relatively low-cost measures may enhance the savings from other LIEE measures through thermodynamic interactions that are not reflected in the cost-effectiveness methodology. For the reasons discussed in the report, the savings for these measures are difficult to estimate, and their costs may be overstated due to the manner in which "windshield drive time costs" are allocated. Retaining these measures in the program takes into account the above considerations, as provided for under the Commission guidelines.

7. Reducing the number of climate zones in which evaporative coolers are offered, and limiting this measure to single family and mobile homes, is consistent with the cost-effectiveness results presented in the Team's report.

8. Limiting the offering of hard-wired compact fluorescent porch lights to single-family homes is consistent with the cost-effectiveness results presented in the Team's report.

9. Continuing to offer gas furnace repairs and replacements, which are cost-effective in some but not all zones, and for some but not all utilities, recognizes the shortcomings in assessing the non-energy benefits associated with this measure that are discussed in the report.

10. Retaining minor home repairs in the LIEE program, even though they do not pass both tests for all utilities and applications, recognizes that they are often necessary to accommodate the installation of other cost-effective measures offered through the program.

11. The Team's cost-effectiveness assessment does not obviate the need to periodically examine the utilities' current methods for estimating energy efficiency program and measure savings, or the types and frequencies of the utility's measurement studies.

12. The cost-effectiveness study results (Appendix B) indicate that there are sizable disparities across utilities in the cost for measures installed in the same climate zone.

13. It is premature to consider new measures (or reconsider those that have been dropped) until we have better information on measure costs, and the reasons for the disparity across utilities.

14. Adding new measures or re-evaluating current offerings should be considered in the context of the annual program planning cycle, and not intermittently, in order to avoid disruption or confusion in the field.

15. Several studies reviewed by the Team indicate that prolonged exposure to high levels of CO can have dire consequences on human health.

16. California data show that 39% of unintentional CO-related deaths over the 1979-1988 period, or a total of 177 deaths, were attributable to combustion appliances. CO exposure problems associated with combustion appliances stem from the spillage of combustion byproducts into the room, which is usually caused by inadequate drafting.

17. As discussed in this decision, on a priori grounds it is not clear if infiltration reduction measures would actually increase or decrease the levels of CO found in the home. Moreover, the empirical studies reviewed by the Team do not offer a strong evidence of a relationship between infiltration reduction and ambient CO.

18. There are no U.S. agency standards for CO levels in indoor residential environments.

19. The Team's use of the following CO room ambient standards in the NGAT study is consistent with the Minimum Standard for NGAT adopted by the Commission in D.01-12-020: (1) a 10 ppm "action" level to prompt more extensive investigation and analysis of the source of CO and (2) a 35 ppm threshold at which the home is ventilated, the occupants advised to evacuate, and the offending appliance made inoperable pending repair/replacement.

20. The results of the Team's NGAT survey indicate that, on average, 71 out of a population of 1000 homes before weatherization would have at least one ambient reading at or above 10 ppm and would require further investigation of CO sources in the home.

21. The results of the Team's NGAT survey indicate that, on average, 5 homes out of a population of 1000 homes before weatherization would have an ambient reading of 35 ppm or greater.

22. There is no empirical information available on the potential health effects associated with high flue CO levels. Members of the Team were divided on this issue: Some believe that flue CO, in itself, is not relevant to health and safety insofar as it is normally contained in the flue and does not affect the air the customer breathes. Others believe that flue CO should be assessed even in the absence of high ambient CO levels because it could constitute a potential future problem should drafting become impaired.

23. Smoke draft tests yield virtually identical results as those produced by instrumentation testing, at significantly less costs.

24. The NGAT study results reveals no clear evidence that weatherizing LIEE program homes significantly impacts the overall level of room ambient CO, or significantly affects appliance drafting. The data indicates that CO levels actually fell slightly (on average) between the pre-and post-weatherization periods for homes tested under this statewide survey. The observed positive changes in CO levels were lower in magnitude than observed negative changes, and were relatively low in absolute terms, i.e., 2 ppm or less, on average. Blower door tests on a sample of homes before and after weatherization also do not reveal a systematic relationship between infiltration-reduction measures and CO levels, i.e., that these measures increase CO levels in the home.

25. The results of the NGAT study may have been affected by confounding factors, such as the buildup of CO in seldom-used appliances. In addition, it is possible that the effect of building infiltration reduction on ambient CO levels may take a considerable amount of time to take effect and may be missed by spot tests, such as the ones used in the study.

26. The current Minimum Standard did not provide sufficient information to identify all of the instances in which a kitchen appliance, water heater or gas log appeared responsible for ambient CO readings at or above 10 ppm, for the homes surveyed.

27. The current Minimum Standard provided sufficient information to identify all of the homes in the survey for which space heating appliances were responsible for CO at or above the 10 ppm action level, for the homes surveyed.

28. The NGAT survey gave no evidence of any ambient CO associated with combustion dryers, and none of these appliances exceeded standards for as-measured flue CO.

29. Flue/exhaust CO levels tested under the NGAT survey vary widely across appliances and homes. The results indicate that the relationship between exhaust flue CO levels and room ambient CO levels is relatively weak, that is, detections of CO levels above manufacturer's standards for appliance flue/exhaust tests do not systematically translate to ambient air CO levels that exceed safety standards. The study indicates that many more homes fail the CO flue/exhaust tests for specific appliances than the number of homes in which room ambient CO levels exceed the 10 ppm action level.

30. Ten percent of CO alarms failed the tests conducted under the NGAT study to determine their sensitivity to a specific level of CO. The nuisance rate of the alarms was also relatively high (i.e., 15%). In light of these findings, it would be premature to use CO alarms in lieu of (or in addition to) combustion appliance testing.

31. The Team's recommended revisions to the Minimum Standard are designed to address the shortcomings of the Standard observed during the NGAT study, and eliminate procedures (e.g., testing for combustion dryers) that appear superfluous.

32. Even though there is no clear evidence that installing infiltration-reduction measures will increase CO levels in the home, some type of CO testing is warranted for the following reasons:

· Some homes covered by the NGAT survey were measured to have ambient CO levels above at least some of the current standards and thresholds.

· The LIEE Program is unique in that it entails the provision of a comprehensive set of energy-efficiency measures spanning both building envelope infiltration reduction and appliance repair and replacement. Given this comprehensive treatment, the potential for adversely affecting CO levels is greater than in other programs.

· Low-income households are generally less financially capable of maintaining their natural gas appliances, and may be less likely to know that gas appliance testing and services are available at no cost from their local gas utility.

33. Conducting CO tests both pre- and post-weatherization would be excessive, in light of the NGAT study findings. Requiring the utilities to conduct these tests post-weatherization is sufficient to guard against the possibility that infiltration-reduction measures do have some influence on drafting or longer-term concentrations of CO in the home.

34. CO testing should not be required in cases where weatherization is not provided, i.e., when the utilities go back to homes that already have been weatherized in order to install additional electric measures (e.g., replacement refrigerators), as provided for under rapid deployment.

35. Requiring the utilities to conduct preliminary combustion air ventilation evaluations as part of the initial home assessment can identify those instances where major work to add combustion air venting is required to pass inspection. In those instances, infiltration-reduction measures would not be installed under the LIEE program.

36. Under the Team's recommendation, the decision to conduct flue tests for space and water heating appliances in lieu of room ambient CO tests would be at the discretion of the utility. For the utility that conducts flue tests on space and water heating appliances as the standard practice, this means that many customers' appliances would be "red tagged" (disconnected) pending repair or replacement, even when CO levels in the room air are well within safety thresholds and all appliances pass the draft tests.

37. The NGAT study presents no empirical evidence or research results to indicate whether, and to what degree, CO levels in the flue or exhaust that exceed certain thresholds may present health problems sometime in the future.

38. NGAT procedures cannot guarantee against the future possibility of CO problems arising in the home if drafting becomes impaired. These procedures are designed to evaluate CO levels and test for adequate drafting at a particular point in time. These conditions may change over time due to a variety of unpredictable factors.

39. Based on the record in this proceeding, it is reasonable to require all utilities to conduct the room ambient CO tests recommended by the Team, in conjunction with the recommended olfactory tests, visual examinations and smoke draft tests. If CO levels in a particular room (or rooms) are at or above the 10 ppm action level, then the utility may (but is not required to) conduct flue tests as one diagnostic tool to identify the source(s) of the problem, as appropriate. This is the current manner in which SDG&E and SoCalGas utilize flue tests in combination with ambient tests in their current NGAT procedures, and should be adopted as a standardized practice across all utilities.

40. There is currently a wide disparity between the threshold that PG&E utilizes to test flue CO levels and the threshold utilized by SDG&E and SoCalGas for each combustion appliance.

41. Under the Team's recommendation regarding homes that use non-IOU combustion fuels, some number of customers in the utilities' service areas that are currently eligible for infiltration-reduction measures under the LIEE program would no longer be eligible for these measures. For PG&E, the data available to date indicates that the impact of the Team's recommendation would affect the services provided to 5-7% of all its customers over time, with a higher impact in rural counties.

42. An estimated 16.3% of LIEE participating customers in rural ZIP codes without PG&E gas accounts had propane appliances. PG&E estimates that over 20,000 customers in eleven of its rural counties would be affected by the Team's recommendation regarding homes that use non-IOU combustion fuels.

43. SoCalGas, SCE and SDG&E only provide estimates based on the entire population of customers, for which the impact of the Team's recommendation is estimated at approximately 1% or less.

44. The Team's recommendation represents a significant decrease in LIEE-funded services to homes that are currently receiving such services from the program and contribute to the costs of LIEE through the public goods charge on their electric bills. PG&E estimates the difference to be approximately 5 measures per home, on average. In effect, the Team's proposal would shift the costs of those measures to the LIHEAP program or non-IOU gas utility.

45. The NGAT report does not sufficiently explore alternative policies that would consider a more specific set of circumstances with respect to the type or location of non-IOU fueled combustion appliances in the home. Nor does it consider leveraging with LIEE funds the provision of infiltration-reduction measures to homes that use IOU fuels for space heating (but non-IOU fuels for one or more other end-uses), as discussed in this decision. The Team also dismisses the approach that the Southern California utilities have implemented for many years in conjunction with post-weatherization CO testing of these homes, without adequate consideration.

46. The Team's recommendation to authorize water heater replacements under the LIEE program recognizes that the continued operation of both space and water heating appliances are important to the well-being of low-income residents, and should not be treated differently now that they are both subject to CO testing. Consistent with the current treatment of gas furnaces, natural gas water heaters should be replaced, rather than shut off, by the natural gas utility if they are tested and found not to be functioning safely, and cannot be repaired.

47. Translating the NGAT policies and procedures adopted today into specific instructions and protocols will require some further work by the Team, as described in this decision.

48. The Team's recommendation on CO testing essentially decouples measure pre-approvals from CO testing, which is a major step in the direction of standardization. However, the pre-approval policies and procedures still differ significantly across utilities, particularly with respect to whether they conduct those procedures in-house or contract with third parties to provide these services. Other LIEE policies and procedures may differ as well.

49. The cost-effectiveness policies and NGAT procedures adopted today do not suggest that significant changes to current LIEE funding levels, as authorized by D.02-12-019, are warranted.

Conclusions of Law

1. The Team's recommendations regarding which LIEE measures to offer are reasonable and should be adopted for PY2004 and beyond until further order by the Commission.

2. As discussed in this decision, the Assigned Commissioner should initiate the examination of savings measurement issues at the earliest opportunity, as time and resources permit. Further examination of the utilities' estimating methods should be undertaken to explain the disparities in per measure costs, as discussed in this decision.

3. As part of the PY2006 program planning cycle, the Standardization Team should update the cost-effectiveness evaluation of existing and new measures for the LIEE program, and present recommendations.

4. Alternatives to the Team's proposal regarding the treatment of homes that contain a non-IOU fueled combustion appliance should be explored as a further task for Phase 4 of the Standardization Project with input from the LIOB, CBOs and other interested parties.

5. Further standardization of LIEE programs and policies, such as measure pre-approvals, should be considered by the Commission after receiving comments from interested parties.

6. The Team's recommended NGAT policies and procedures, as modified by this decision, are reasonable and should be adopted.

7. As discussed in this decision, the Team should submit a consistent set of CO flue thresholds, by combustion appliance, to be used by the utilities in conducting any flue CO tests for diagnostic purposes.

8. LIEE program funding, as authorized per D.02-12-019, should continue until the Commission addresses the utilities' PY2005 program applications, due on July 1, 2004.

9. In order to implement today's policies during 2004 as expeditiously as possible, this decision should be effective today.

INTERIM ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. For program year (PY) 2004 and until further order by the Commission, the following measures shall be retained/dropped from the Low-Income Energy Efficiency (LIEE) programs of Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company and Southern California Gas Company, collectively referred to as "the utilities" or "investor-owned utilities" (IOUs):

      Measure

      Adopted Action

    Non-Weather-Sensitive Measures

  

    Hard-wired CFL porch lights

    Retain in all climate zones for single family homes, but drop for multi-family and mobile homes

    Compact fluorescent lamps

    Retain in all climate zones and residence types

    Faucet aerators,

    Retain in all climate zones and residence types

    Low-flow showerheads,

    Retain in all climate zones and residence types

    High efficiency refrigerators

    Retain in all climate zones and residence types

    Water heater blankets

    Retain in all climate zones and residence types

    Water heater pipe wrap

    Retain in all climate zones and residence types

    High-efficiency water heaters

    Drop from Program

    Weather-Sensitive Measures

  

    Outlet gaskets

    Retain in all climate zones and residence types

    High efficiency central Acs

    Drop in all climate zones and residence types

    High efficiency room Acs

    Retain in Climate Zones 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15

    Caulking

    Retain in all climate zones and residence types

    Ceiling Insulation

    Retain in all climate zones and residence types

    Duct testing and sealing

    Drop in all climate zones and residence types

    Evaporative cooler covers

    Retain in all climate zones and residence types

    Evaporative cooler maintenance

    Drop in all climate zones and residence types

    Evaporative coolers

    Retain in Climate Zones 11 - 16 for single family and mobile homes; drop from Program for multi-family homes and in Climate Zones other than 11 - 16.

    Furnace filters

    Retain, but only as part of furnace repair or replacement

    Gas furnace repairs

    Retain in all climate zones and residence types

    Gas furnace replacements

    Retain in all climate zones and residence types

    Minor home repairs

    Retain in all climate zones and residence types

    Setback Thermostats

    Drop from Program except where required by code in conjunction with furnace repair or replacement

    Weatherstripping attic doors

    Retain in all climate zones and residence types

    Weatherstripping doors

    Retain in all climate zones and residence types

    Whole house fans

    Drop from Program

2. The LIEE funding authorizations adopted in Decision (D.) 02-12-019 shall remain in effect until further Commission order. Consistent with the direction in D.02-12-019, any unexpended LIEE PY2004 program funds shall be carried over and made available for funding LIEE program activities in PY2005 or subsequent years as an augmentation to the amounts authorized in D.02-12-019. In their PY2005 program applications, due on July 1, 2004, the utilities shall present estimates of PY2005 program costs based on the measures authorized today, along with year-to-date LIEE expenditures and estimates of any carryover funds, by budget category. The applications shall also include updated program data using the format provided in Attachments 1 and 2 of D.01-12-019.

3. As discussed in this decision, the Assigned Commissioner shall initiate the examination of savings measurement issues directed by Decision 02-08-034 at the earliest opportunity, and in coordination with the Annual Earnings Assessment Proceeding.

4. As discussed in this decision, the utilities shall submit a per LIEE measure cost break-down of materials, labor, administrative and travel (or "windshield time") costs, including an explanation of the reasons for cost disparities within the same climate zone and recommendations for further evaluation work and adjustments to the manner in which administrative costs and travel are allocated across measures, as appropriate. This information shall be submitted jointly by the utilities as part of their PY2005 low-income assistance program applications, due on July 1, 2004. The utilities may serve a redacted version of this information to the public, but shall provide a nonredacted version to the Commission and Commission staff subject to the provisions of Public Utilities Code Section 583. In presenting its redacted version, the utilities shall specifically address why public access should be denied under the provisions of under General Order 66-C, for each type of cost data that is redacted.

5. The Standardization Team's recommendations regarding Natural Gas Appliance Testing (NGAT) are adopted as proposed, with the following modifications:

The policies and procedures adopted in this Ordering Paragraph shall become effective upon approval of the Standardization Team's compliance filing, per Ordering Paragraph 7.

6. The utilities shall take the following actions when appliances fail one or more of the tests covered by the NGAT procedures:

a. In owner-occupied homes, natural gas space heaters failing one or more of the tests covered by the NGAT procedures shall be repaired or replaced.

b. In owner-occupied homes, natural gas water heaters failing one or more of the tests shall be repaired or replaced.

c. In owner-occupied homes, natural gas appliances other than water heaters or space heaters (e.g., gas oven) failing one or more of the tests shall be serviced. This entails providing services that are within the scope of the gas service department for customers in general, e.g., cleaning orifices, adjusting burners and taking other minor corrective actions. If these repairs do not correct the problem in question, the appliances in question shall be capped and reported to the owner.

d. In renter-occupied homes, appliances failing one or more of the tests shall be serviced. If servicing an appliance does not correct the problem in question, the appliance be shall be tagged, shut off, capped and reported to the tenant and the landlord.

7. Within 20 days from the effective date of this decision, the Standardization Team shall file CO testing protocols and revisions to the Policy and Procedures Manual to reflect today's decision, including procedures to implement the Standardization Team's recommendation that the utilities conduct preliminary combustion air ventilation evaluations as part of the initial home assessment. This document shall be submitted as a compliance filing. Protests or comments are due 10 days after the date of filing, and the Standardization Team shall respond to protests or comments within 5 working days thereafter.

8. As discussed in this decision, for now, the utilities may continue to use their current flue CO testing thresholds when they conduct flue tests as a diagnostic tool under today's adopted procedures. Within 90 days from the effective date of this decision, the Standardization Team shall submit a consistent set of CO flue thresholds, by combustion appliance, to be used by the utilities in conducting any flue CO tests for diagnostic purposes. This document shall be submitted as a compliance filing. Protests or comments are due 10 days after the date of filing, and the Standardization Team shall respond to protests or comments within 5 working days thereafter.

9. If there are no protests to the Standardization Team's compliance filings required under Ordering Paragraphs 7 and 8 of this decision, then the Assigned Commissioner or Administrative Law Judge, in consultation with Energy Division, may issue a ruling approving the CO testing protocols and manual revisions without further action by the Commission.

10. As discussed in this decision, the Standardization Team shall further explore alternatives for the provision of infiltration-reduction measures and combustion appliance testing in homes that use an IOU fuel for space heating and a non-IOU combustion fuel for one or more other end uses. This task shall be conducted under Phase 4 of the Standardization Project, and the Assigned Commissioner shall direct this task with respect to the scope of work, budget and schedule. Within 30 days from the effective date of this decision, the Standardization Team shall file and serve a proposed scope, budget and schedule for the Assigned Commissioner's consideration. Comments are due 10 days thereafter.

11. As soon as practicable, Energy Division shall schedule and notice a presentation by Standardization Team consultants to the LIOB on the provision of infiltration-reduction measures and combustion appliance testing in homes that use an IOU fuel for space heating and a non-IOU combustion fuel for one or more other end uses, and solicit the Board's comments and recommendations on these issues. The presentation shall describe current policies and procedures, the May 5, 2003 recommendations of the Standardization Team, and additional alternatives as described in this decision. The presentation shall be noticed to all parties in this proceeding, or its successor proceeding, and to all community-based organizations (CBOs) that currently participate in the LIEE programs. The presentation may occur at a regularly scheduled LIOB meeting, a workshop, or other public forum. It may involve a single meeting, or multiple meetings. The utilities shall provide the additional information discussed in this decision, as well as additional information that Energy Division deems appropriate.

12. Within 120 days from the effective date of this decision, the Standardization Team shall file a supplemental report on these Phase 4 issues, which shall include the following:

a. Summary of the comments and recommendations of the LIOB, CBOs and other interested parties;

b. Final recommendations of the Standardization Team;

c. Discussion of the pros and cons of each policy alternative; and

d. Estimated impact on services to low-income customers, relative to current policies (for each alternative).

The impact estimates required under (d) above shall be specific to low-income households within the utility's service territory. The report shall show the impacts on low-income households within the service territory as a whole, and also on low-income households located in rural areas. The data shall be presented in a consistent manner across utilities.

13. As discussed in this decision, the public discussion and supplemental Phase 4 report shall address the treatment of homes that use non-IOU combustion fuels in the context of the NGAT policies and procedures we adopt today, e.g., post-weatherization testing only, room ambient CO testing as the standard procedure, rather than fuel testing, etc. Further argument or proposed modifications on these issues will not be considered.

14. Comments on the supplemental Phase 4 Standardization Project report are due 30 days after the report is filed, and reply comments are due 15 days thereafter.

15. Within 90 days from the effective date of this decision, the utilities and interested parties shall comment on what additional areas of standardization in LIEE procedures or policies should be addressed under the Standardization Project in the future, if any. The comments shall discuss the reasons for (or against) further standardization. Reply comments are due 30 days thereafter. The Commission shall consider the comments and address the scope of any further standardization efforts by subsequent decision in this proceeding, or its successor proceeding.

16. As discussed in this decision, the PY2006 program planning cycle shall be the forum for considering the cost-effectiveness of existing and new LIEE measures, and proposed changes to the LIEE measures offered under the program. The Standardization Team shall conduct this cost-effectiveness evaluation and develop recommendations, with public input. The Team's report shall be filed with the utility applications for PY2006 program plans, currently due on July 1, 2005. By January 1, 2005, the Standardization Team shall file a proposed budget, schedule and scope for this effort. The Assigned Commisioner shall direct this project with respect to the scope of work, budget and schedule.

17. All filings and comments shall be filed at the Commission's Docket Office and served electronically on all appearances and the state service list in this proceeding, or its successor proceeding. Service by U.S. mail is optional, except that one hard copy shall be mailed to Judge Meg Gottstein at P.O. Box 210, Volcano, CA 95689. 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). Parties that prefer a hard copy or electronic file in original format in order to prepare analysis and filings in this proceeding may request service in that form as well. The current service list for this proceeding is available on the Commission's web page, www.cpuc.ca.gov.

18. For good cause, the Assigned Commissioner may modify the due dates set forth in this decision.

This order is effective today.

Dated November 13, 2003, at San Francisco, California.

ATTACHMENT 1

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

A. Application

ALJ Administrative Law Judge

ANSI American National Standards Institute

CBOs community-based organizations

CFLs compact fluorescent lamps

CO carbon monoxide

COHb carbon monoxide with hemoglobin

D. Decision

DEER Database for Energy Efficiency Resources

HVAC Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning

ICA Insulation Contractors Association

IOUs Joint Utilities or investor-owned utilities

LIEE Low-Income Energy Efficiency

LIHEAP Low-Income Energy Assistance Program

LIOB Low-Income Oversight Board

mimeo. mimeograph

NEBs non-energy benefits

NGAT Natural Gas Appliance Testing

ORA Office of Ratepayer Advocates

p. page

PCm Participant Cost

PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company

pp. pages

ppm parts per million

Pub. Util. Code Public Utilities Code

PY Program Year

RRM Reporting Requirements Manual

SCE Southern California Edison Company

SDG&E San Diego Gas & Electric Company

SoCalGas Southern California Gas Company

Standard NGAT standard

"the Team" Standardization Team

"the utilities" PG&E, SDG&E, SCE, and SoCalGas, collectively

UC Utility Cost

XENERGY XENERGY, Inc.

(END OF ATTACHMENT 1)

Attachments 2-7 to R0108027

Previous PageTop Of PageGo To First Page