COM/MP1/tcg Date of Issuance 12/21/2007
Decision 07-12-048 December 20, 2007
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
OPINION MODIFYING RESOLUTION E-4079 and D.06-11-049
We modify Resolution E-4079 to define "hard-to-reach customers" for purposes of customer eligibility in the Business Energy Coalition demand response program as customers that (a) have never participated in a PG&E demand response program event and (b) have rejected participation in at least one PG&E demand response program other than the BEC. We also modify D.06-11-049 to clarify that we do not require PG&E to request extension of the BEC program by a stand-alone application, but merely require that PG&E seek any such extension as part of a formal application.
Background
The Business Energy Coalition (BEC) program is a demand response program aimed at organizing participants into a cooperative committed to a certain amount of load reduction when called either day-ahead or to meet short term emergencies. As initially proposed by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), the program pilot was limited to San Francisco customers in the office, hospitality, and high tech sectors, with a target load of 10 megawatts (MW) for 2005.1 The Commission approved the BEC program on the basis that it targets customers who had not participated in demand response programs up to that point. (D.05-01-056, pp. 34-35.) PG&E submitted Advice Letter 2681-E, which established the BEC program's Schedule E-BEC and limited eligibility to San Francisco customers "in the office, hospitality, and high-tech sectors."2
The Commission subsequently approved an increase of the program's target load in San Francisco to 15 MW and its expansion to a new customer area with a 10 MW target load, for a total program target load of 25 MW for 2007 and 2008. (D.06-03-024.) Accordingly, PG&E submitted Advice Letter 2804-E. In addition to accomplishing the advice letter's stated purpose of extending the term of the BEC program and expanding its geographic scope, the revised tariff sheet modified the eligibility language to reach customers "in sectors such as office, hospitality, and high-tech." (Emphasis added.)3
In July 2006, shortly after the issuance of D.06-03-024, the State of California experienced an unusually intense heat wave which at times strained the state's electrical system. In a swift effort to maximize existing opportunities to protect the state's electrical system from compromises to its reliability, the assigned Commissioner reopened the record of this proceeding to solicit proposals from the utilities to augment their demand response programs for 2007 and 2008. In response, PG&E requested authority to expand the BEC program's target load from 25 MW4 to 50 MW in 2007 and 2008, and to extend the program for seven years. (PG&E response regarding demand response enhancements, p. 21.) Describing the BEC program as "a project in San Francisco designed to subscribe hard-to-reach customers into demand response programs," the Commission authorized PG&E's proposal to increase the program's target load, but declined to authorize the seven-year extension, directing PG&E to file an application to seek approval of the extension once a new agreement has been signed. (D.06-11-049, pp. 56-57, emphasis added.) Accordingly, PG&E submitted Advice Letter 2953-E, which expanded the target load to 50 MW.
Seven weeks later, PG&E submitted Advice Letter 2980-E to expand the availability of the BEC program to PG&E's entire electric service territory and to expand its eligibility "to sectors beyond the current office, hospitality and high-tech." (Advice Letter 2980-E, p. 2.) Resolution E-4079 approved the proposed modifications, finding it reasonable to expand the program to include hard-to-reach customers across all sectors.
On July 19, 2007, EnerNOC, Inc., EnergyConnect, Inc., and Comverge, Inc. (Joint Petitioners) concurrently filed Application (A.) 07-07-022 to modify Resolution E-4079 and a petition to modify D.06-11-049. The Joint Petitioners contend that the tariff changes approved by Resolution E-4079 exceed the changes authorized by the Commission for the BEC program in any of its prior orders, including D.06-11-049. The Joint Petitioners maintain that D.06-11-049 and Resolution E-4079 should be modified to define the term "hard-to-reach customers" and to limit the program to those customers. Specifically, the Joint Petitioners petition to modify D.06-11-049 and Resolution E-4079 in two ways: First, to reinstate the program limitation to customers in the office building, hospitality and high-tech sectors, and, second, to limit eligibility to "hard- to-reach customers for demand response services" defined as "customers that (a) have never participated in a PG&E demand response program and (b) have rejected participation in at least one PG&E demand response program other than the BEC." The Joint Petitioners also request that D.06-11-049 be modified to eliminate its direction that PG&E request, by separate application, approval of a seven-year extension of the BEC program.
PG&E filed in protest of the petition and application, and The Utility Reform Network (TURN) and the Energy Curtailment Specialists, Inc. each filed in support. The Joint Petitioners filed a reply.
1 We take official notice of PG&E's October 15, 2004, proposal, January 18, 2005 comments on the draft decision, and November 16, 2004, reply comments, which were filed in Rulemaking 02-06-001. PG&E's proposal describes the pilot's focus as "the office, hospitality and high-tech sectors that in the past have shown a reluctance to participate in other demand response programs" (p. 41). PG&E's comments describe the focus more narrowly as "office-building customers, a largely untapped opportunity because of traditionally low participation in demand response programs" (p. 6). PG&E's reply comments describe the pilot's focus as "office buildings and the hospitality industry, segments that historically have not participated much in PG&E's demand response programs" (p. 8). Decision (D.) 05-01-056 defines the pilot as "limited to San Francisco office-building customers" (p. 34).
2 We take official notice of Advice Letters 2681-E, 2804-E, 2953-E, and 2980-E.
3 It appears that PG&E neglected to revise the tariff language limiting the maximum load to 10 MW.
4 PG&E's proposal appears to incorrectly characterize the previously approved total 2007 goal as 15 MW rather than 25 MW.
