Questions for Follow-Up to Workshop #1

The following questions seek to build on the information and insight provided by the workshop. I ask that responses emphasize practical ways the Commission may take advantage of an opportunity or resolve a problem. For example, the Commission may need to modify its Energy Efficiency Policy Manual, cost-effectiveness methodologies, or incentives. It may need to commit to a forum for coordinating program design or to publishing evaluation results. Responses should be as specific as possible so that the Commission may move quickly to adjust policy and program rules.

1. How can the Commission encourage innovation and emerging technologies while assuring the state is using its limited resources wisely to fund proven efficiency technologies and programs? Should emerging technologies program proposals be judged differently from other program proposals? Should the Commission set aside funding levels for emerging technologies? Should programs using emerging technologies be on a different schedule than other programs? How should emerging technologies be better integrated into "mainstream" programs and services?

2. In order to meet the minimum statewide goal of 1% reduction of energy use per capita as stated in the Energy Action Plan, what should the statewide target be for energy efficiency savings in terms of overall kWhs, MWs of peak demand, and therms of natural gas? What additional information should the Commission consider in funding programs that will most effectively reach these savings goals?

3. How, if at all, should the Commission's use of cost-effectiveness criteria and results be modified to promote more energy efficiency and the best program design, technology options, and overall program mix; such as consideration of peak and off-peak load reductions, natural gas versus electric measures, new construction versus retrofits, and customer classes and types?

4. Should the Commission modify its Policy Manual position with regard to "fuel switching" programs or activities?

5. How can state-funded programs motivate manufacturers to improve the design of products in ways that promote energy savings?

6. How, if at all, is existing rate design impeding the deployment of cost-effective energy efficiency measures? If so, how should the Commission overcome those impediments?

7. How, if at all, should the CEC and the Commission coordinate efforts to develop new technologies using Public Interest Energy Research (PIER) funding and then spur their deployment via public goods charge funding?

8. What formal and informal procedures and processes should the Commission, the CEC, the CPA and other state agencies put into place to improve coordination of efficiency measures and program delivery?

9. How should California energy efficiency programs better complement or improve upon Title 24 energy efficiency building standards?

10. What should the Commission do to improve public input on and access to studies and reports that analyze and assess energy efficiency in the state? While some of these reports and studies are supported by PGC funds, such as state funded energy efficiency studies and individual energy efficiency program reports, there are also independent reports and studies being undertaken. What is the proper way to ensure complete and open sharing of this information to further increase the energy efficiency knowledge base?

I ask the parties to file their responses to any and all of these questions no later than January 7, 2004. After that time, I will consider whether the Commission has enough information on the record of this proceeding to consider changes to rules, policies or practices.