6. Need for Expedited Consideration

Rule 77.7(f)(9) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure provides in relevant part that:

"...the Commission may reduce or waive the period for public review and comment under this rule regarding draft decision...for a decision where the Commission determines, on the motion of a party or on its own motion, that public necessity requires reduction or waiver of the 30-day period for public review and comment. For purposes of this subsection, `public necessity' refers to circumstances in which the public interest in the Commission adopting a decision before expiration of the 30-day review and comment period clearly outweighs the public interest in having the full30-day period for review and comment. `Public necessity' includes, without limitation, circumstances where failure to adopt a decision before expiration of the 30-day review and comment period... would cause significant harm to public health or welfare. When acting pursuant to this subsection, the Commission will provide such reduced period for public review and comment as is consistent with the public necessity requiring reduction or waiver."

The next energy efficiency program cycle covers the program years 2006 through 2008. The program design and selection process must be completed before the end of 2005. The updated avoided cost values considered in today's decision are necessary to update the current avoided cost forecasts used to evaluate potential energy efficiency programs. We balance the public interest in having available an updated avoided cost methodology and forecast values for the evaluation of energy efficiency program savings in time for the program year 2006-2008 planning process against the public interest in having a full 30-day comment cycle on the proposed methodology. We conclude that the former outweighs the latter. The updated avoided cost values adopted herein affect public health, safety and welfare by providing current, relevant avoided cost values for use in evaluating energy efficiency programs designed to assist in reducing per capita energy use and peak demand. Any delay in adopting these updated values would cause significant harm to public health and welfare by unreasonably and unnecessarily necessitating the use of outdated and inaccurate avoided cost values. We seek public review of, and comment on, our proposed changes, and find that a reduced period balances the need for that input with the need for timely action.