4. LIAB's Recommendations For PY 2001 Programs

LIAB presents recommendations about the CARE and LIEE mission statements, program outreach, leveraging and coordination with other organizations and programs, standardizing weatherization programs, and 28 specific program recommendations. We present and discuss each of these recommendations in the following sections.

CARE and LIEE Mission Statements

LIAB proposes the following mission statements for low-income assistance programs:


The goal of the Commission concerning low-income gas and electric programs should be to assist low-income customers in securing access to affordable, essential energy services. To this end, low-income programs should provide for energy efficiency through the LIEE program, energy assistance through the CARE program, energy education, and a link with consumer protection programs in an economically efficient manner.


The fundamental purpose of the LIEE program is to help low-income customers manage their use of energy and to maximize the efficiency with which they use energy. Its goal is to reduce the usage and thus the energy hardship and bills of low-income customers.


The fundamental purpose of the CARE program is to make consumers' energy bills more affordable.


The fundamental purpose of energy education is to inform customers of the services available to them, and to educate them as to energy efficiency opportunities.


The fundamental purpose of low-income consumer protection is to ensure that: low-income ratepayers have the same opportunities and access to lower energy costs as other residential customers; provision of consumer education; and the continuation of existing consumer protections after restructuring.

SCE is concerned that the proposed mission statements may be setting policy in an area that has not had substantive public input. In particular, SCE is concerned over the use of the term "energy hardship," since this term has not been defined by the Commission. SCE is also unclear regarding the focus or purpose of low income consumer protection as a defined program or activity by the Commission. SCE views the existence of the current LIEE and CARE programs as an outgrowth of consumer protection and equity concerns. In any event, SCE believes that LIEE's proposed mission statements would not create the need to redesign programs in 2001. SDG&E/SoCal did not comment on this particular proposal.

We share SCE's concerns and also note that the proposed mission statement does not reflect our stated policy of balancing the equity goals of CARE and the low-income energy efficiency programs with the need to also consider cost-efficiency. We clearly articulated this policy in our consideration of PY 2000 program proposals:


"From our perspective, consideration of the issues in this case must focus on the interests of those being served by the program, low-income utility customers, and those paying for the program, non-participating ratepayers. With respect to low-income customers, we believe that their interest in the program is fundamentally the same as all customers participating in energy efficiency programs, namely, to improve the comfort of their homes and reduce energy bills. As we stated in D.97-02-014, `our goal is to provide low-income ratepayers with assistance in managing their energy bills.'


Because this segment of the population needs the bill savings the most, we should strive to maximize the participation of eligible participants and work to reduce their electric and gas bills as much as possible, within the constraint of limited funding. At the same time, to protect the interests of non-participating ratepayers that subsidize the costs of the program, we need to ensure that service delivery is as efficient as possible." (D.00-07-020, mimeo, p. 36.)

We believe that the goals and objectives for LIEE programs articulated in D.00-07-020 appropriately reflect the Commission's intent for these programs. Adopting LIAB's proposed mission statements may introduce ambiguity rather than clarification. For these reasons, we will not adopt them.

Outreach

LIAB presents the following recommendations regarding program outreach:


The energy utilities will be responsible for targeting, marketing and outreach to ensure that eligible populations gain an awareness and understanding of the CARE program and have access to applications and assistance (which should include multi-lingual notification and assistance). This effort should be in line with the LIAB's goal that the CARE program achieve a 100% participation rate of eligible customers and the Legislature's stated goal of maximizing participation of eligible households. Particular effort should be made to include hard-to-reach, limited English-speaking and vulnerable customers.


Outreach efforts could include possible partnerships or subcontracts with other agencies. All potential agents (e.g. CBOs, Community Action Agencies, non-profits, municipalities, independent contractors, etc.) should have the opportunity to compete for contracts as implementers of outreach and intake services.


The energy utilities should seek to encourage competition and creativity in the delivery of CARE services in the interest of increasing participation. This is especially the case given the geographic and cultural diversity within California. The energy utilities should provide and budget for a system of reimbursement and incentives for implementers of whatever nature, to encourage increased participation. Selection criteria for these implementers should include consideration of their ability to deliver quality services in a cost-effective manner. To begin working towards these objectives, the energy utilities have a CARE pilot program that begins on June 1, 2000.

We expect that the Outreach Pilot currently underway will yield useful information that will enhance future outreach efforts. Under this pilot, each utility is exploring up to seven new approaches for their outreach efforts, using independent contractors. The pilot began June 1, 2000 and will continue for one year.13

As SCE points out, the results of the pilot will be useful for developing future reimbursement or incentives mechanisms. Rather than articulate specific expectations about outreach program enhancements for PY 2001 at this juncture, we believe that it is more prudent to await the pilot results. As discussed further below, while it is desirable to increase CARE penetration, 100% penetration may not be practicable. For these reasons, we do not adopt LIAB's recommendations regarding program outreach for PY 2001.

We direct the utilities to include in their PY 2001 program applications a description of how they are tracking the results of the Outreach Pilot so that those results can be evaluated during the PY 2002 program planning cycle.

Leveraging and Coordination with other Organizations and Programs

LIAB recommends that all of the energy utilities share appropriate CARE subsidy information with the California Department of Community Services and Development (CSD) to ensure that the maximum Federal matching funds are obtained for California low-income energy programs. As part of this process, the utilities should enter into agreements with CSD to provide referrals. LIAB also recommends that, wherever possible, the energy utilities should seek to coordinate the outreach and intake processes for CARE and LIEE with other organizations assisting low-income customers.

As SCE points out, this recommendation reflects the Commission's policy direction recently articulated in D.00-07-020.14 It does not represent a high priority modification of policies or programs for our consideration.

Standardizing Weatherization Programs

LIAB recommends that the utilities continue to work towards standardizing their weatherization programs in terms of the types of measures installed, installation criteria, installation manuals, and inspection policies and procedures.

As SCE notes, the Commission already has significant standardization initiatives underway through the Weatherization Installation Standards manual, weatherization policies and procedures, and reporting requirements standardization projects that are addressing these issues.

Specific Program Recommendation 1

Under this recommendation, LIAB states that the objectives of the Commission pertaining to the design and delivery of low-income programs should be:

SDG&E/SoCal have no objections to LIAB's recommendation. SCE observes that the proposed goal to "assist or refer low-income customers with any consumer protection problems in the context of energy-related services" lacks clarity and would need to be refined to explicitly state the responsibilities of all parties prior to its adoption.

We agree with SCE's observations, and also note that last point concerning the training infrastructure seems to contradict the policy adopted in D.00-07-020, where we determined that alternative training approaches should be explored.15

As SCE points out, the remaining recommendations seem to reflect current overarching policies for these programs. These do not represent high priority modifications for the Commission's consideration for PY 2001.

Specific Program Recommendation 2

LIAB recommends that an objective of the Commission should be to maximize participation in the programs by eligible customers while minimizing use of the programs by ineligible customers. To that end, LIAB recommends that:

SDG&E/SoCal contends that there is a contradiction between LIAB's recommendation that "services and funds for energy assistance and LIEE should be distributed based on need" and "programs should be inclusive of all low-income customers." In particular, because LIAB is silent on the definition of "need," SDG&E/SoCal argues that its recommendation raises, but does not resolve, several questions. For example, does the LIAB intend that customers with the greatest financial need be given priority over other low-income customers? Or should customers residing under poor housing conditions be given priority over those with the greatest financial need? Should customers with the highest energy bills be given priority over those living in poorly maintained housing? What resources can be used by utilities to identify customers with the greatest need? Should services to those customers who are of lesser need, but who have requested program services, not be provided until those customers with the greatest need have received program services?

Without knowing the LIAB's definition of "needy" and how outreach and subsequent program changes and related costs would occur, SDG&E/SoCal argues that this recommendation should not be adopted.

SCE objects to a 100% participation goal for the CARE program. While fully supporting the goal of increasing program participation, SCE argues that as we move closer to 100% penetration of eligible customers, utilities will be faced with diminishing returns on their outreach efforts to customers. Given that some low income customers are highly mobile and that some customers may not enroll for personal reasons, it is SCE's view that 100% participation by eligible customers in CARE is unlikely.

We believe that SDG&E/SoCal's and SCE's concerns have merit and should be explored and addressed before considering LIAB's recommendation. We note that LIAB did not provide any discussion of alternate views on this recommendation in its May 19, 2000 filing, nor did LIAB respond to SDG&E/SoCal and SCE's concerns in its June 12, 2000 reply comments.

With regard to CARE participation goals, we expect to learn more from the CARE Outreach Pilot described above. In addition, our Needs Assessment Study will help to define the energy-related requirements of the low income population and whether or not the current utility programs are, or are not, meeting those needs. The study is being implemented in two phases. The purpose of the first phase is to assess and gather available information on relevant indicators of program performance and develop common methodologies across utilities. This phase is expected to be completed by mid-2001. Based on the framework resulting from the first phase, the needs assessment study will be conducted during the second phase.16 We believe that it is premature to adopt the significant change in policy recommended by LIAB with regard to "needs" prior to the completion of at least the initial findings of the first phase of the Needs Assessment Study.

None of the other components of Recommendation 2 appear to represent a change in program activity or policy for PY 2001.

Specific Program Recommendation 3

LIAB recommends that the Commission acknowledge the extensive and capable energy efficiency training resource within the utilities and that these resources be preserved to provide ongoing training to all LIEE program implementers.

SDG&E/SoCal and SCE support this recommendation. However, as the assigned ALJ noted in her May 24, 2000 ruling, this recommendation was presented by LIAB in A.99-07-002 et al. and was addressed in D.00-07-020. In that decision, we determined that the issue of whether utilities should continue to train LIEE contractors at utility facilities needs to be further examined from a cost-efficiency standpoint.17 Therefore, this recommendation has already been addressed by the Commission.

Specific Program Recommendation 4

LIAB recommends that the selection of energy efficiency measures and programs for low-income customers be based on a combination of quantifiable economic cost-effectiveness tests, non-quantifiable and non-economic factors, and administrative cost-efficiency. To this end, LIAB recommends that the Modified Participant Test, using a societal discount rate, be adopted for the measure of program cost-effectiveness.

SDG&E/SoCal and SCE argue that approving this recommendation at this time would pre-judge the work to be performed by the Reporting Requirements Manual Working Group (Working Group).

This established Working Group usually consists of the ORA, Energy Division and representatives of the major utilities but is open to the public. By ruling dated April 28, 2000, the Assigned Commissioner directed the Working Group to address proposals for evaluating program cost-effectiveness and present recommendations on unresolved issues to the Commission for resolution. The Working Group report will be submitted to the Commission on October 1, 2000 so that the Commission can address any outstanding nonconsensus issues in time for the utilities to incorporate new reporting requirements into their May 1, 2001 Annual Reports. As discussed in Section 6, LIAB's recommendations on these issues are available to the Working Group and LIAB may comment on the Working Group report, pursuant to the Assigned Commissioner's ruling.

We agree that LIAB's Recommendation 4 is premature and will defer consideration of this issue until we obtain the Working Group report.

Specific Program Recommendation 5

LIAB recommends that, for the year 2001 and beyond, the energy utilities provide the prescribed efficiency measures to low-income customers, including some or all of the "Big Six" as well as other measures that have been added to the list of prescriptive measures consistent with the revisions to the statewide weatherization installation manual.18 The Board recommends that the "Big Six" be subjected to the same selection criteria proposed for other measures in the year 2001 and beyond. Furthermore, the Board recommends that "Big Six" measures failing the selection criteria for specific climate zones not be installed in those zones.

SCE believes this recommendation is consistent with standardization efforts that currently are underway. In its June 9, 2000 comments on the joint Standardization Project report, LIAB states that this recommendation is now consistent with the joint proposal.

Specific Program Recommendation 6

LIAB recommends that the Commission establish a process for adding energy efficiency measures to, or removing them from, the prescriptive list of measures available to low-income customers for the year 2001 and beyond.

SCE concurs there should be a process that will facilitate public input for determining whether to add or delete measures. SCE believes that this process should be in place and well understood by all interested parties for the PY 2002 planning cycle. Until then, no measures should be added or deleted. SDG&E/SoCal believes that such a process already exists per D.99-03-056 and the March 26, 1999 Assigned Commissioner's ruling.

We concur with SDG&E/SoCal that a forum for determining whether to add or delete measures from the prescriptive list is already available. That forum is the planning cycle for program year recommendations submitted by the utilities, which is open to input by all interested parties (and the LIAB). This is reiterated in the Standardization Project Phase 1 report, with which LIAB is now in agreement.

Specific Program Recommendation 7

LIAB recommends that current efforts to standardize reporting, standards, policies and procedures involved in the delivery of CARE and LIEE programs continue. SCE argues that this recommendation is no longer necessary because the Commission already has initiated standardization efforts. LIAB now agrees with this assessment, but notes that standardization of the CARE program is not being addressed in this forum.

We note that there are efforts underway to standardize elements of the CARE program. As discussed above, we have directed a working group to standardize certain reporting requirements and utility administrative costs for our consideration, including those that relate to the CARE program. However, we acknowledge that the calculation of CARE penetration rates is not currently standardized across utilities, and this issue is not being addressed under the standardization project. We believe that outreach efforts for the CARE program in PY 2001 should be evaluated using consistent calculations of penetration rates. We understand that the Working Group is in the process of developing an interim proposal on the methodology for this calculation, and the consensus that emerges from this process should be presented by the utilities in their PY 2001 applications. Although a more durable methodology may be developed as part of the Needs Assessment Study, we note that the results of these efforts may not be available for use in program planning for several years. We intend to utilize a standardized approach to calculating penetration rates for the CARE program overall, as well as in our evaluation of the CARE Outreach Pilot.

Specific Program Recommendations 8, 9, 10 and 11

In recommendations 8-11, LIAB makes proposals related to assessing, auditing, and evaluating LIEE and CARE program performance. First, LIAB recommends that the Energy Division be required to "monitor and audit the utilities' compliance with Commission directives and perform an evaluation of outreach efforts," encompassing the following:

Second, LIAB recommends that the Commission initiate an independent audit, performed by a contractor authorized by the Commission, "to assess the entire LIEE and CARE delivery systems." With respect to LIEE, LIAB recommends that this assessment include "measurement of performance relative to the standards established for installation and measure selection criteria."

Third, LIAB recommends that the cost and energy impacts associated with appliance repair or replacement and home rehabilitation be excluded from cost-effectiveness evaluations of the energy efficiency programs.

Fourth, LIAB recommends that the Commission require an Independent Audit and Evaluation Service to audit and evaluate the CARE and LIEE programs after standardization has been achieved to achieve the following principal objectives:

More specifically, LIAB recommends that the Independent Audit and Evaluation Service be required to implement a system that, among other things: 1) includes audit and evaluation protocols to measure energy and cost impacts for the current LIEE program; 2) expands those protocols to include at least the CARE program and safety, comfort, hardship and other similar considerations; 3) includes process and impact evaluations for both the CARE and LIEE programs; 4) includes the collection of data necessary to evaluate program performance, especially those data needed to quantify performance incentive payments to the utilities; and 5) includes the evaluation of energy education and consumer protection activities. The Independent Audit and Evaluation Service would be an entity separate from the utilities and the Commission and would report to the Commission and the LIAB.

SCE and SDG&E/SoCal object to these recommendations. With regard to LIAB's proposed audit of the utilities' internal inspections, SCE contends that the utilities have extensive inspection procedures in place and, moreover, that the Commission is evaluating those procedures to improve standardization across utilities. In SCE's opinion, the programs have sufficient oversight to protect program participants and ratepayers without placing additional requirements on the Energy Division. SCE and SDG&E/SoCal point to the work already underway under by the Working Group and other Commission initiatives to improve program monitoring, evaluation and performance. In their view, LIAB's proposals are premature or duplicative of these efforts.

For the longer term, SCE suggests that the Commission consider mandating that the utilities undertake periodic process evaluations of the CARE and LIEE programs. Such evaluations are regularly undertaken by the utilities for energy efficiency programs, using independent consultants. After the Commission has provided its policy responses to the Needs Assessment Study, SCE believes that it would be logical to ask the utilities to contract with a consultant to conduct such process evaluations and to develop recommendations for changes consistent with the Commission's newly stated policies.

As SCE and SDG&E/SoCal point out, there are several efforts currently underway to assess and improve program performance for low-income assistance programs. With respect to the performance of LIEE installation contractors, LIAB acknowledged in its July 9, 2000 comments that we will be addressing inspection policies in Phase 2 of the Standardization Project. Phase 2 recommendations on inspection procedures will be available for comment and Commission consideration during the PY 2002 program planning cycle, if not sooner. In addition, the utilities have been directed to propose improvements to their current procedures for monitoring and reporting contractor performance in their PY 2002 applications for low-income assistance programs. (D.00-07-020, mimeo. pp. 87, 114.)

As discussed under Recommendation 4, the issue of how to consider and calculate program cost-effectiveness is currently under review by the Working Group. Adopting LIAB's recommendation on what to exclude from cost-effectiveness evaluations at this time would prejudice the outcome of that process.

As we have already noted, the Commission has directed the Energy Division to conduct a Needs Assessment Study so that the low-income assistance programs (CARE and LIEE) can be more effectively designed to meet the needs of low-income customers. Without completing such an assessment, we agree with SCE that an independent audit at this time will not provide useful information for future program direction.

In sum, LIAB's recommendations for improving program evaluation, information and oversight do not acknowledge current and developing reporting requirements for the utilities, the work of existing measurement and evaluation groups in this and other Commission proceedings, or the Standardization Project and Needs Assessment Study currently underway. Moreover, the specific independent auditing requirements proposed by LIAB need to be weighed against their cost in resources and manpower and compared with other approaches for improving program monitoring, such as the process evaluations described by SCE. We have no such information in the filings before us.

In order to obtain additional information, we direct the utilities to describe current procedures (audits, process evaluations, polls, etc.) undertaken to monitor program quality, cost efficiency and customer satisfaction for their low-income assistance programs. The utilities should present recommendations for improving these procedures or instituting alternative ones, along with the associated costs and manpower requirements. This information should be presented in the utility applications for PY 2001 low-income assistance programs.

Specific Program Recommendations 12, 13, 14 and 15

LIAB recommendations 12-15 contain proposals concerning the prescribed list of energy efficiency measures for LIEE programs and other issues that have been addressed in Phase 1 of the Standardization Project to LIAB's satisfaction, or will be addressed in Phase 2. In addition, LIAB recommends that utility proposals for standardization first be submit to LIAB for review and then to the Commission for approval.

We agree with SCE that recommendations 12-15 are either made moot at this time, or would prejudge Phase 2 efforts. We also see no reason to modify the process already underway for Phase 2, as established by the May 24, 2000 Assigned Commissioner's ruling.

Specific Program Recommendation 16

LIAB recommends that the Commission require all utilities to install attic ventilation as a stand-alone measure in areas with high cooling loads when the home has sufficient insulation but inadequate attic ventilation.

SCE and SDG&E/SoCal contend that it is premature to adopt this recommendation until the Attic Ventilation Pilots administered by PG&E and SDG&E are evaluated. Under these pilots, PG&E and SDG&E were directed to install attic ventilation for PY 2000 on a stand-alone basis, i.e., not in conjunction with attic insulation. They are required to track the costs, energy savings, number of call backs and complaints, and other items.19

LIAB's recommendation is premature. As anticipated in Res. E-3586, prior to mandating the program on a permanent basis, we will evaluate the cost-effectiveness of attic ventilation as a stand-alone measure based on the pilot results. PG&E and SDG&E are directed to include the pilot results in their PY 2001 applications.

Specific Program Recommendation 17

LIAB proposes that the utilities, with comments and recommendations from the LIAB, develop non-discriminatory and equitable strategies to select those who will receive LIEE benefits from among qualified low-income customers. LIAB proposes to review these strategies and make recommendations to the Commission for approval. LIAB recommends that the utilities apply those strategies no later than January 1, 2002.

SCE and SDG&E/SoCal argue that it is premature to adopt this recommendation. In their view, the Needs Assessment Study will offer useful information on the future direction and adequacy of program services. SCE contends that, until this study is completed, there is no evidence to suggest LIEE programs are inadequate for the existing need. SDG&E/SoCal suggest that LIEE's proposal violates equity principles of the program.

In its June 9, 2000 filing, LIAB acknowledges that "information gleaned in the needs assessment may be of use in reaching this goal." We agree, and believe that upon completion of the Needs Assessment Study, parties can work collaboratively to determine whether any equity issues exist and how they should be addressed.

Specific Program Recommendation 18

LIAB recommends that the utilities be required to analyze and assess methods to constructively enhance and integrate LIEE, CARE and other local, state and federal weatherization programs operating in California. The LIAB recommends that, wherever possible, the utilities should seek to coordinate the outreach and intake processes for CARE and LIEE and other programs that serve low-income customers.

In D.00-07-020, we directed the utilities to improve access to programs made available by community service providers and other weatherization programs operating in California by improving their referral systems. We also directed all utilities to follow PG&E's lead in satisfying certain prerequisites that would enable CSD to secure more Federal leveraging funding.20 In its June 9, 2000 filing, LIAB states that there is general agreement on this recommendation and that the utilities are moving in this direction. We don't believe than any further direction from the Commission is needed at this time to encourage the utilities to improve their referral and leveraging efforts. An initial report on these efforts is due on October 1, 2000 with an update report due by April 1, 2001 in this proceeding. We will take additional action on this issue, as needed, after obtaining comments on the reports.21

Program Specific Recommendation 19

LIAB recommends that utilities be "required to install all feasible measures from the prescribed set of measures in an eligible customer's home, if there are program funds available to serve that home." In addition, LIAB recommends that the utilities "coordinate their efforts with state and federal programs to ensure that all feasible measures are installed."

SCE argues that these recommendations are unnecessary because 1) Assembly Bill 1393 already mandates the installation of all feasible and approved measures and 2) the coordination aspect of this recommendation is addressed in LIAB's Recommendation 19.

We find that the first part of LIAB's recommendation is made superfluous by the longstanding Legislative policy to "provide as many of these measures as feasible for each eligible low-income dwelling unit."22 In its June 9, 2000 filing, LIAB states that the Commission has not articulated the manner in which it intends to accomplish this goal for PY 2001 and beyond. We disagree. Measure feasibility is dependent both on the measure selection criteria and other aspects of feasibility, such as specific conditions in the home that make installation infeasible. These issues have been addressed in prior program planning cycles and are presented on a standardized basis in the Phase 1 Standardization Report.

In addition, as SDG&E/SoCal points out, further discussions on cost-effectiveness tests and reporting requirements for low-income programs are underway in the Working Group. As discussed above, the Working Group report will be submitted and subject to comment in time for consideration during the PY 2002 planning cycle. LIAB's views have also been made known during the review process and LIAB has the opportunity to further comment on the report. (See Section 6.)

With regard to the coordination aspect of Recommendation 19, we believe that this issue has been addressed by the directives of D.00-07-020. As discussed above, the utilities have been directed to improve and report on their procedures for coordinating with community service providers and leveraging funds.

In sum, we find that Recommendation 19 does not add to or modify current Commission policies or implementation requirements for low-income assistance programs.

Specific Program Recommendation 20

LIAB recommends that the Commission require the utilities and service delivery implementers to inform property owners (including landlords) and tenants about existing conditions that prevent LIEE measures (including LIEE-funded home shell and furnace repairs) from being installed.

SCE observes that this recommendation may add costs to the program. SCE believes some service delivery providers, particularly administrative and educational service providers, may perform functions that do not require expertise on whether adverse building conditions exist. Also, SCE argues that it is often difficult to inform landlords about existing conditions because they are not on-site. SCE believes that Phase 2 efforts to standardize the Policies and Procedures Manual may provide additional information on whether this recommendation is desirable. Until then, SCE does not recommend its adoption. SDG&E/SoCal echos these concerns.

We find merit to the concerns voiced by SCE and SDG&E/SoCal. We note that LIAB did not respond to them in its June 12, 2000 reply comments. The utilities and interested parties should address this issue during Phase 2 of the Standardization Project.

Specific Program Recommendation 21

LIAB recommends that all measures included in the LIEE program be available at no direct up-front cost to the low-income participant where the home and/or equipment is owned by the participant.

SCE argues that this is a case where standardization for its own sake is not in the interest of customers and ratepayers. SCE agrees co-payments may not be appropriate for most measures. Applied narrowly, however, SCE believes co-payments have proven to be beneficial. SCE explains that it has been installing evaporative coolers for over 10 years. To continue operating properly, evaporative coolers require significant maintenance. SCE's experience suggests customers are willing to contribute the co-payment, thus extending program resources to more customers. Moreover, SCE believes the co-payment creates a sense of ownership for the customer, thus increasing the likelihood that the necessary maintenance will be performed to keep the evaporative cooler operating properly. SCE recommends that the Commission not adopt this recommendation, as it would limit the Commission's future latitude to approve co-payments for specified measures. SDG&E/SoCal state that this issue is being addressed in the Standardization Project.

LIAB did not respond to SCE's concerns in its June 12, 2000 response, other than acknowledging that there were "legitimate differences of opinion" on this issue.23 Based on SDG&E/SoCal's comments, it also appears that standardization on the issue of co-payments will be addressed during Phase 2 of the Standardization Project. We believe there needs to be further discussion and consideration of opinions on this issue, and will not adopt LIAB's recommendation for PY 2001.

Specific Program Recommendation 22

The LIAB recommends that the Commission adopt several guiding principles regarding the utilities' implementation of the LIEE and CARE programs, including:

LIAB further recommends that utilities develop and propose a customer bill of rights for the CARE and LIEE programs, in cooperation with LIAB and its Technical Committee, that includes these guiding principles. LIAB proposes that the customer bill of rights also describe the consumer complaint process and explain how a customer could initiate that process.

In its comments, SDG&E/SoCal raises the concern that allowing customers to reject cost-effective measures or those with the greatest savings potential may be contrary to the Commission's goal to provide customers with benefits as well as make the programs more cost-effective.

As SCE notes, most of LIAB's recommendations reflect existing practice and policies adopted by the Commission and implemented by the utilities, albeit not in a standardized format. We do find merit to the concept of developing specific policies and procedures related to the customers' "rights" in a standardized fashion. However, we share SDG&E/SoCal's concerns regarding the customers' discretion to pick and choose among any measures offered. There may be other principles that should be added to the list presented by LIAB. We believe that a standardized customer "bill of rights," including a description of the consumer complaint process, should be developed for the program. We anticipate that the specifics of this document may take some time to develop and may require coordination with Phase 2 of the Standardization Project on the LIEE side. The utilities should jointly develop such a proposal with public input, and present it for our consideration in their PY 2002 program applications, or sooner if possible.

Specific Program Recommendation 23

LIAB recommends that the Commission, for low-income programs starting in 2001, require "a uniform application form (or at least a similar application form for all of the utilities which reveals and requests the same data) and a system of self-certification of participants for the CARE program, and a system of regular post-enrollment monitoring, including uniform random sampling verification procedures and targeted verification."

SCE believes that uniform application forms would require the utilities to reprogram their data systems at unknown cost to facilitate data entry. Thus, while the utilities should strive to collect the same types of customer data, SCE argues that identical data collection forms are unnecessary and burdensome.

In SDG&E/SoCal's view, LIAB's recommendation for CARE self-certification and post-enrollment monitoring is moot because this was implemented in October, 1999. In addition, SDG&E/SoCal requests clarification of the term "targeted verification." SDG&E/SoCal believes that this term implies discriminatory monitoring of customer eligibility.

We find merit to the concerns raised by SCE and SDG&E/SoCal, and note that LIAB did not respond to them in its reply comments. However, there does seem to be general agreement on the need to work toward the development of a form that requests the same types and categories of data from all customers enrolling in CARE. This process will take some time, and we do not see the urgency in requiring a concentrated effort prior to the filing of PY 2001 applications. Therefore, we direct the utilities to jointly develop such forms with public input and present them in a jointly filed Advice Letter by February 1, 2000. This will enable the Commission to authorize the new forms in time for the June 1 implementation of new income levels that are developed each year.

Specific Program Recommendation 24

LIAB recommends that the utilities continue to implement the CARE programs serving sub-metered customers, group homes and agricultural housing as they are currently being implemented. LIAB recommends that the utilities study and make recommendations to improve these programs in collaboration with the Technical Committee and the LIAB.

SCE believes that the Commission does not need to adopt this recommendation to ensure SCE continues to perform its responsibilities and to work cooperatively with LIAB. Moreover, SDG&E/SoCal believe that this program should be studied as part of the Needs Assessment Study, rather than in the manner proposed by LIAB.

Ongoing implementation and assessment of this program appear to be underway and the Needs Assessment Study will shed more light on the need for program improvements. LIAB has not indicated how this represents a change in current program policies or program design, or why this is a high priority policy recommendation for PY 2001. We do not see the need for further Commission direction or policy modification regarding this program at this time.

Specific Program Recommendation 25

In order to reach the goal of increased participation in the CARE program, LIAB recommends that all potential agents (e.g. CBOs, Community Action Agencies, non-profits, municipal utilities, independent contractors, etc.) should have the opportunity to compete for contracts as implementers of outreach and intake services.

SDG&E/SoCal argues that this recommendation is premature and should await the outcome of the CARE Outreach Pilot. SCE states that it is enthusiastic about the statewide CARE Outreach Pilot and its potential for identifying new outreach practices that will enhance future outreach efforts and create new opportunities for partnerships. Nevertheless, SCE believes that, as a program administrator for CARE, it should have management discretion and latitude in determining the best way to engage in partnerships to promote CARE outreach within SCE's service territory. Therefore, SCE does not support this specific recommendation.

In its June 9, 2000 comments, LIAB states that there "is movement towards this goal" and recommends that "the Commission encourage this movement in any way possible."

We note that this specific program recommendation was also contained in LIAB's outreach recommendations, discussed above. We have encouraged the utilities to explore alternative approaches to outreach via the Outreach Pilot. Adopting LIAB's recommendation at this juncture, before the results of that pilot are available and evaluated, would be premature.

Specific Program Recommendation 26

LIAB proposes that it explore with the Commission the possibility of greater cross-program coordination of regulated low-income programs.

As SCE and SDG&E/SoCal note, this is not a program recommendation per say, but rather a statement of "intent to explore" that is quite vague. This recommendation does not present a clear program or policy modification and will not be considered without further refinement.

Specific Program Recommendation 27

LIAB recommends that all utilities implement in-home and other educational programs in coordination with other organizations. In particular, LIAB recommends that in-home efforts should occur as part of other aspects of the LIEE service delivery and that educational programs should also be offered in conjunction with other efforts such as those of the Commission's Consumer Services Division, the Electric Education Trust and community events at conveniently accessible locations.

SCE does not support this recommendation at this time. SCE believes it is uncertain whether there is sufficient long-term strategic benefit to efforts directed at coordinating activities with the Electric Education Trust.24 SCE believes energy education is a component of the LIEE program, and that current efforts by interested stakeholders will lead to improved coordination of program services.

SDG&E/SoCal notes that it currently provides in-home energy education and energy education workshops at low-income service agencies through their LIEE program, and is unclear as to how LIAB wishes to modify services.

We are unclear what specific program modifications are implied by LIAB's recommendation, and note that LIAB does not respond to the issues raised in the comments. We will not adopt this recommendation.

Specific Program Recommendation 28

LIAB recommends that LIEE measures be offered to low-income utility customers who either heat or air condition their home with a utility commodity. LIAB contends that the utilities currently restrict the installation of LIEE measures to customers who use the utilities' energy as a source of heat. In LIAB's view, this practice does not take the customer's comfort or hardships into consideration and therefore, ignores an important purpose of this legislatively mandated program.

SCE believes this blanket recommendation should not be adopted as it could result in ratepayers subsidizing the weatherization of homes that use non-utility energy sources. In SCE's view, the implications of this policy need careful consideration. SCE argues that there is no justification for SCE's ratepayers paying for the installation of showerheads in homes that do not use utility fuel for water heating. Moreover, SCE contends that LIAB's understanding of current utility practices is in error, because SCE does provide evaporative coolers and refrigerators to customers regardless of their heating source.

SDG&E/SoCal views this recommendation as changing qualification guidelines, and suggest it be considered as part of the efforts to coordinate regulated low-income programs, as suggested in Recommendation 26.

We have not had an opportunity to examine this issue in the context of how to standardize utility LIEE procedures and coordinate most effectively with other low-income energy efficiency programs. Apparently the state and federal programs provide funding for weatherization measures irrespective of the heating source, whereas the utilities either do not, or have applied a somewhat inconsistent approach in the past. The issue of whether ratepayer-funded programs should use the broader state and federal qualification guidelines was raised in the PY 2001 program planning cycle. (A.99-07-002.) In that proceeding, Contractors Coalition proposed that certain policies and procedures for the utility programs be standardized along the lines of CSD's current practices. We made our expectations clear that this issue, as well as other differences in policy and procedures, would be addressed in Phase 2 of the Standardization Project for consideration during the PY 2002 planning cycle, or sooner if possible.25

We reiterate this expectation. This issue should be addressed during Phase 2 of the Standardization Project and the utilities should present their recommendations in the PY 2002 program applications, or sooner. If the utilities are in opposition to broadening the qualification guidelines, they should describe in detail how they plan to coordinate with other programs so that the low-income customer does receive as many of the weatherization measures "as are feasible for each eligible low-income dwelling unit," as directed by Public Utilities Code Section 2790(b)(2).

13 See Res. E-3601, pp. 26-27. 14 See D.00-07-020, mimeo. p. 80, 84 15 Ibid. pp. 49-54. 16 See Res. E-3646, dated March 16, 2000, which directed the Energy Division to conduct, facilitate and manage this study. (Ordering Paragraph 1.a.) 17 Ibid., pp. 52-54. 18 The "Big Six" measures are: attic insulation, caulking, weatherstripping, low-flow shower heads, water heater insulating blankets and building envelope repairs which reduce air filtration. These are the weatherization measures specifically identified in Public Utilities Code Section 2790. 19 Res. E-3536, dated January 20, 1999, p. 27, Ordering Paragraph 1. 20 Ibid. p. 84. 21 Ibid. Ordering Paragraph 10. 22 Public Utilities Code Section 2790(b)(2). We note that this section was not amended by Assembly Bill 1393. 23 See LIAB's Reply Comments, p. 2. 24 The Electric Education Trust was created by D.97-03-069 for the purposing of helping customers understand changes to the electric industry, with particular focus on consumer groups and communities where direct access participation remained low or where the level of reported consumer abuses was high. In D.97-08-064, the Commission directed that the Trust would plan and manage a CBO-based education and outreach program. This program is currently mandated by legislation to continue until December 31, 2001. 25 D.00-07-020, mimeo. pp. 85-87.

Previous PageTop Of PageGo To First PageNext Page