Word Document PDF Document

ALJ/KK2/amt Date of Issuance 3/27/2009

Decision 09-03-042 March 26, 2009

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Order Instituting Rulemaking Regarding Policies, Procedures and Rules for the Low Income Energy Efficiency Programs of California's Energy Utilities.

Rulemaking 07-01-042

(Filed January 25, 2007)

Southern California Edison Company's (U338E) Application for Approval of SCE's "Change A Light, Change The World," Compact Fluorescent Lamp Program.

Application 07-05-010

(Filed May 10, 2007)

DECISION GRANTING INTERVENOR COMPENSATION TO THE
DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES, GREENLINING INSTITUTE,
AND A WORLD INSTITUTE FOR SUSTAINABLE HUMANITY
FOR THEIR SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTIONS
TO DECISION 07-12-051

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Findings of Fact 5454

Conclusions of Law 5656

ORDER 5656

APPENDIX - Compensation Decision Summary Information

DECISION GRANTING INTERVENOR COMPENSATION TO THE
DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES, GREENLINING INSTITUTE,
AND A WORLD INSTITUTE FOR SUSTAINABLE HUMANITY
FOR THEIR SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTIONS
TO DECISION 07-12-051

This decision awards compensation for contributions to our Decision (D.) 07-12-051, as follows:

1. Disability Rights Advocates (DisabRA) is awarded $26,486.12 for its substantial contributions to D.07-12-051;

2. Greenlining Institute (Greenlining) is awarded $106,724.25 for its substantial contributions to D.07-12-051; and

3. A World Institute for a Sustainable Humanity (A W.I.S.H.) is awarded $118,691.14 for its substantial contributions to D.07-12-051.

The amount of awards for DisabRA, Greenlining and A W.I.S.H. are less than requested by respective parties. We explain the particular deductions and adjustments in detail in the body of this decision. These proceedings are closed.

1. Background

1.1. Decision (D.) 07-12-051

D.07-12-051 arose from the Order Instituting Rulemaking
(OIR or R.) 07-01-042 and Application (A.) 07-05-010. D.07-12-051 updated and expanded our policy direction for the Low-Income Energy Efficiency (LIEE) programs provided by the California's regulated energy utilities. It was also a companion decision to D.07-10-032, which set the stage for the next generation of energy efficiency in California.

It established a new course for low-income energy efficiency policy objectives, program goals, strategic planning, and the 2009-2011 program portfolio, and addressed renter access and Assembly Bill 2140 implementation. Recognizing the changes in energy markets and the environment, and the needs of low-income individuals and the larger community, the Commission concluded that our LIEE programs can only meet California's needs with a change in direction and emphasis. The Commission therefore, committed to changing the way we approach LIEE programs by adopting the following policies and program guidance:

· The complementary objectives of LIEE programs will be to provide an energy resource for California while concurrently providing low-income customers with ways to reduce their bills and improve their quality of life;

· LIEE programs should emphasize opportunities to save energy;

· LIEE programs should be designed to take advantage of all cost-effective energy efficiency opportunities;

· LIEE programs should include measures that may not be cost-effective but that may promote the quality of life of participating customers;

· LIEE programs should emphasize effective ways to inform customers of the benefits to themselves and their communities of conservation and energy efficiency measures, as well as the way energy efficiency promotes environmental values and reduces greenhouse gases;

· LIEE programs should be integrated with other energy efficiency programs to allow the utilities and customers to take advantage of the resources and experience of energy efficiency programs, promote economies of scale and scope, and improve program effectiveness; and

· LIEE programs should take advantage of other resources, such as federally funded programs, local efforts, the work of businesses and publicly-owned utilities.

The Commission also adopted a broadly-stated programmatic initiative as follows:

To provide all eligible customers the opportunity to participate in the LIEE programs and to offer those who wish to participate all cost-effective energy efficiency measures in their residences by 2020.

The Commission provided further guidance to utilities in their development of a comprehensive long-term statewide strategic plan as directed in D.07-10-032. The strategic plan was to assist utilities in achieving the programmatic initiative. The Commission directed the utilities to propose programs and budgets for their 2009-2011 LIEE applications that will help them move toward this programmatic initiative and the strategic plan.

The Commission also underscored on-going commitment to reducing greenhouse gases and improving the reliability of the state's energy infrastructure, and we reaffirmed that energy efficiency programs are the best way to meet our commitment to both of these goals.

Finally, in light of the Commission strategic direction for LIEE programs and energy efficiency programs generally, we stated our intent to initiate a dialogue regarding Southern California Edison Company's (SCE) proposal to spend $22 million on a program to distribute six compact fluorescent bulbs (CFLs) to each of 926,000 households. This dialogue between interested parties was intended as a way to hopefully resolve some of the concerns raised by the parties and help develop a program that is integral to other, more comprehensive programs to promote long term, enduring energy savings.

1.2. Procedural Background to D.07-12-051

The Commission adopted Rulemaking (R.) 07-01-042 in January 2007, for the purpose of revisiting and refining policies, programs, and practices of the utilities' LIEE programs and to implement legislation concerning California Alternative Rates for Energy (CARE).

This rulemaking evolved and built on the work we began in previous proceedings, including associated decisions, such as D.06-12-036 and D.06-12-038. This rulemaking addressed several issues raised in those decisions and also issues interrelated with our general energy efficiency rulemaking, R.06-04-010. The OIR described the following 12 issues to be addressed in this proceeding:

1. Policy Objectives - As California's energy needs and demographics change, and energy efficiency markets and technologies evolve, the Commission believe we should reconsider our policy objectives and priorities. For example, in the administration of LIEE programs, how important is equitable access by low-income communities to LIEE programs? Cost-effectiveness? LIEE programs as an energy resource? The safety and comfort of low-income customers? Technology development? The answers to these questions should guide the goals that are set and allocation of funds to program elements and technologies.

2. Goals-based Budgeting - D.06-12-038 stated the Commission's commitment to developing strategic goals for LIEE programs and then developing budgets accordingly. The Commission issued the "KEMA" needs assessment in late 2006 (commonly referred to as KEMA Report1), providing a foundation for this approach. Key issues we need to address include: How should the universe of LIEE participants be defined? Should criteria for program participation be changed or clarified? How should program priorities be set and defined in a given budget period? In developing program priorities, what should be the target populations? How should those priorities be translated into program goals and how should they be reflected in utility budgets?

3. Processes for Considering Program Improvements between Utility Budget Cycles - The Commission's intent is to move to a three-year program funding cycle beginning in 2009. Currently, the utilities are required to meet with interested parties about program elements between budget cycles, as set forth in D.06-12-038. Is this an adequate way for the utilities to become informed about program issues and make program changes that are responsive to Commission objectives? If not, what type of forum or group is appropriate for this purpose and what type of authority or discretion should it have, if any?

4. Cost-benefit Models - What models are the utilities using now in their impact studies? Should those models be changed? How should cost-benefit analyses of low-income programs be applied? Should they be used to prioritize program elements? Improve them? Eliminate some? Are impacts on greenhouse gasses appropriately reflected in the assessment of program benefits and, if not, how should they be reflected?

5. California Solar Initiative (CSI) Program - The Commission is conducting a rulemaking to implement its CSI, which provides various incentives for customers and businesses to install solar technologies. The Commission has determined that 10% of CSI funds should be set aside for low-income customers and projects. Since the issuance of that order, the California Legislature enacted AB 2723, which defines the low-income component of the CSI with more specificity. To what extent should LIEE be coordinated with the low-income portion of the CSI?

6. Evaluation, Measurement and Verification (EM&V) - What should EM&V study and measure? How often should such studies be conducted and used? How does the Commission's inclusion of LIEE results in energy efficiency goals affect program evaluation?

7. Integration of the LIEE program with Energy Efficiency Programs - The Commission has traditionally considered LIEE programs separately from other energy efficiency programs. Recently, the Commission included LIEE as part of the performance goals of the utilities and stated the Commission's intent to treat LIEE more as a resource program, which conceptually makes LIEE more like energy efficiency programs than a subsidy program. How, if at all, should the two programs be merged from the standpoint of budget and program review and management, procurement and for the purpose of strategic development?

8. Gas Furnace Programs and NGAT - What policies and practices should apply to gas furnace repairs and installations for low-income customers? What are the effects of Natural Gas Appliance Testing (NGAT) on program participation and how can the Commission balance safety and program participation objectives?

9. AB 2140 - AB 2140 requires the Commission to adopt, no later than January 1, 2008, a process for improving electric and gas utility CARE applications and outreach to tenants at master-metered properties, such as mobile home parks and apartment buildings. In this proceeding, the Commission will adopt the process required under AB 2140. What should the utilities do to implement this statute?

10. Renter Access - Some parties have raised concerns that some LIEE programs may not be adequately marketed or provided to tenants. What problems exist for renters in both single and multi-family dwellings and what steps should be taken?

11. Water Conservation Programs - In R.06-04-010, the Commission has begun a review of how water conservation programs can be developed to increase energy efficiency savings. Programs are needed that target low-income customers. What types of programs for low-income customers should be developed? What kinds of energy savings are possible from programs that target low-income water customers?

12. Program Management and Administration - Can any improvements be made in the current administration of LIEE programs? Should community-based organizations be more involved? How much involvement should the Commission have in ongoing program oversight? Can the Commission or the utilities do more to include input from low-income customers in program development and administration?2

Following a prehearing conference (PHC) held in this proceeding on March 7, 2007, the assigned Commissioner issued a scoping ruling that set proceeding priorities and scheduled the review of issues relating to LIEE programs' objectives and priorities, renter access to LIEE programs, and the implementation of AB 2140 in the utilities' CARE programs (Items 1, 9 and 10 above).3 The assigned Commissioner subsequently solicited comments on NGAT issues (Item 8) and the programmatic implications of a recently-issued report titled "Final Report on Phase II Low Income Needs Assessment" which had been administered by the Commission and conducted by KEMA (commonly referred to as KEMA Report).4

On March 23, 2007, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) conducted a workshop to seek suggestions on ways to revise policy objectives and program goals. At the workshop, the parties explored how the Commission should define broad policy objectives, and how it should articulate and prioritize those objectives. They also responded to a broad goal proposed informally by the ALJ and discussed in some detail how that proposed goal might influence program design and funding. Subsequently, the parties filed comments in response to the following questions regarding LIEE policy objectives and program goals:5

1. Discuss whether these are the appropriate broad policy objectives for LIEE and, if they are not, propose others:

· Affordability of energy services for low-income customers;

· Reducing the burdens of energy bills of low-income customers;

· Equity for low-income customers;

· Safety and comfort of low-income customers;

· Energy system reliability and cost-effectiveness (LIEE as an energy resource); and

· Environmental quality and reduction of greenhouse gasses.

2. Given the broad policy objectives for LIEE and assuming there are multiple objectives that are potentially competing, how should the Commission articulate those objectives and prioritize them?

3. Comment on whether the following broad goal statement is a reasonable one from the standpoint of law, Commission policy and community needs:

    To assure that the residence of every low-income customer in California is energy efficient by 2015.

4. How should the Commission define the elements of the proposed goal statement to assure that it is clear, efficacious, and reasonable? (That is, how should the Commission define "energy efficiency" for the purpose of meeting its LIEE program goals?)

5. Should the broad program goal be applied to all program elements or should the Commission treat some program elements separately from the goal statement?

6. Are there other broad program goals the Commission should consider? For example, should the Commission set a goal in terms of energy savings?

7. What questions must the Commission address in order to implement programs toward the broadly stated goal? For example, questions might include: (1) how should utilities' current LIEE programs be modified to recognize the goal? (2) What types of strategies would be required to meet the goal? and (3) should the Commission apply the goal to only a subset of measures?

8. What kind of criteria should the Commission consider in determining strategies for meeting the goal, and how generally should those criteria be ranked? For example, the Commission may need to consider cost-effectiveness, the health and safety of low-income customers and the efficacy of the strategy for meeting the goal.6

In addition to workshops, there were three separate rounds of comments leading to D.07-12-051. The decision ultimately addressed the foregoing issues as well as SCE's application (A.07-05-010) for increased funding for CFL distribution, and was consolidated with R.07-01-042. With the aide of the foregoing exchange with the parties, we were able to arrive at D.07-12-051 which, (1) addressed and clarified LIEE policy objectives; (2) addressed program goals in light of adopted policy objectives and how they should be defined for purposes of program design, development and delivery; and (3) adopted strategies for meeting our policy objectives and program goals and the criteria for selecting program elements.

1 The report, titled "final Report on Phase II Low Income Needs Assessment" was published on September 7, 2007.

http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/consumers/liee.htm

2 R.07-01-042, January 25, 2007.

3 Scoping Memo and Ruling issued March 28, 2007, R.07-01-042.

4 The report, titled "Final Report on Phase II Low Income Needs Assessment" was published on September 7, 2007. http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/consumers/liee.htm

5 The following parties filed comments on the issues raised in this portion of this proceeding: PG&E, SCE, SDG&E/SoCalGas, Southwest Gas Company (SWGas), Disability Rights Advocates (DisabRA), Latino Issues Forum (LIF), Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA), The Utility Reform Network (TURN), Association of California Community and Energy Services (ACCES), Greenlining Institute (Greenlining), A World Institute for Sustainable Humanity (A W.I.S.H.), Bo Enterprises (Bo).

6 These questions were posed in the assigned Commissioner's ruling and scoping memo issued March 28, 2007.

Top Of PageNext PageGo To First Page