I. BACKGROUND
D.03-12-060 is an interim decision in R.01-08-028, a continuing proceeding examining and establishing rules for the Commission's future energy efficiency (EE) policies, administration and programs.1 During this proceeding we have adopted rules concerning EE programs and criteria that public utilities and non-public utility entities alike should use when submitting EE proposals and applying for funding of those proposals. (See D.01-11-066.) 2 In August 2003, we issued D.03-08-067, permitting public utilities and non-public utility entities to submit EE program proposals for the years 2004-2005. Those proposals were evaluated by our staff pursuant to the adopted criteria set forth in D.03-08-067.3 D.03-12-060 approves funding for those EE proposals we selected for the 2004-2005 portfolio, which include statewide and local public utility and non-public utility EE programs. (D.03-12-060, as modified by D.04-02-059 at 19-20.) Prior to D.03-12-060, selected non-public utility entity EE programs selected for inclusion in our EE portfolio received PGC funding for local programs and statewide marketing and outreach; statewide EE programs were, however, restricted to public utility proposals. D.03-08-067 solicited EE program proposals from non-public utility entities as well as from public utilities.
D.03-12-060, among other things, discusses the evaluation process used in selecting EE programs for the PY 2004-2005 EE portfolio. However, because we determined that the dicta in D.03-12-060 might inadvertently mischaracterize the evaluation process employed by our staff, we clarified the process actually employed in D.03-12-060. (D.04-02-059 at 6-10.)4 Attachment 3 to D.04-02-059 sets forth, with specificity, the allocation of the 2004-2005 PGC funds.5 Attachment 2 to D.04-02-059 describes the programs chosen for the 2004-2005 portfolio. Attachment 1 of that decision sets forth the 2004-2005 PGC funded program budgets and energy savings targets.
Timely applications for rehearing of D.03-12-060 were filed by Women's Energy Matters (WEM), Residential Energy Service Companies' United Effort (RESCUE), and a joint application was filed by Consortium for Energy Efficiency, Inc., Efficiency Partnership, The Energy Coalition, Coalition of Utility Employees, Latino Issues Forum, League of Women Voters, National Association of Energy Services Companies, Natural Resources Defense Council, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce, Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group, Southern California Edison Company, Southern California Gas Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, University of California, and California State University (hereinafter referred to as "Consortium et al.").6 The Consortium et al., is comprised of parties and non-parties to this proceeding.7 All of the applications for rehearing of D.03-12-060 were filed prior to the issuance of D.04-02-059.
We have reviewed each and every allegation of error presented by the applicants for rehearing and are of the opinion that good cause for granting rehearing has not been shown. Accordingly, we deny each of the applications for rehearing.
1 D.03-12-060 was modified in part by D.04-02-059, mailed on March 3, 2004, approximately 72 days after D.03-12-060 issued, on December 22, 2003. (D.04-02-059 at 19, Ordering Paragraph Nos. 3-5. 2 "Funding for electricity efficiency programs is secured from the Public Goods Charge ["PGC"], which is a separate rate component as provided for in Public Utilities Code sec. 381(a). These programs are further provided for by the Reliable Electric Service Investments Act, Public Utilities Code secs. 399-399.15, enacted in 2000. Section 399.4(a)(1) provides that `it is the policy of this state and the intent of the Legislature that the commission shall continue to administer cost-effective energy efficiency programs authorized pursuant to existing statutory authority,' in order to, inter alia, reduce customer demand, and contribute to the reliable and safe operation of the electric grid.... For ... electricity efficiency programs, the Commission is directed by Public Utilities Code sec. 399.8 to order SDG&E, SCE, and PG&E to collect [funding from] rates.... The Public Goods Charge for gas programs is secured by a surcharge levied on natural gas consumption as provided for in Public Utilities Code secs. 890-900." (D.02-04-063 at 1, fn 1.)3 D.03-08-067 at 22-27. D.03-08-067 concerns the solicitation of EE proposals from public utilities and non-public utility entities for local and statewide EE programs for the 2004 and 2005 period. D.03-08-067 also assigned numerical values to the criteria to be used in the evaluation process.
4 Among other things, D.04-02-059 also authorizes additional PGC funding for EE programs approved by that order and terminates "bridge funding" authorized by D.03-12-060. 5 Although the funds were allocated in D.03-12-060, Attachment 3 is a correction to that decision. (D.04-02-059, Attachment 3.) 6 Attorneys for the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) filed the joint application on behalf of the Consortium et al.7 Public Utilities Code section 1731 governs whom may apply for rehearing of a Commission decision or order. Section 1731(b) provides in pertinent part: "After any order or decision has been made by the commission, any party to the action or proceeding, or any stockholder or bondholder or other party pecuniarily interested in the public utility affected, may apply for a rehearing in respect to any matters determined in the action or proceeding and specified in the application for rehearing." The Consortium et al., have not stated that the non-parties are stockholders, bondholders or otherwise pecunarily interested for purposes of section 1731. Accordingly, the non-party members of the Consortium et al., have no standing to file an application for rehearing of D.03-12-060 and to that extent, the joint application is dismissed (with prejudice) as to those non-parties.
