II. Background and Procedural History
The utilities currently implement two types of assistance to qualified low-income utility customers: rate assistance and energy efficiency services. Rate assistance is provided consistent with Public Utilities Code (Pub. Util. Code) §§ 739.1 and 739.2 under the California Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE) program. Under this program, eligible low-income households and group living facilities receive up to a 15% rate discount for their electric and gas consumption. Energy efficiency services are provided consistent with Pub. Util. Code §§ 327, 381.5 and 2790.
Direct assistance to low-income customers in the form of energy efficiency education and measures became a statutory requirement in 1990 with the passage of Senate Bill (SB) 845.2 This statute directed the Commission to require gas and electric corporations to perform home weatherization services for low-income households "if the commission determines that a significant need for those services exists in the corporation's service territory, taking both the cost effectiveness of the services and the policy of reducing low-income hardships into consideration." Weatherization measures include attic insulation, caulking, weatherstripping, low flow showerheads, water heater blankets and door and building envelope repairs which reduce infiltration. Relamping (i.e., replacing incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs) has also become a standard service for SCE and PG&E. In addition, all of the utilities provide in-home energy education as part of their direct assistance programs. We refer to these direct assistance services as Low Income Energy Efficiency (LIEE) programs.
The individual utilities' LIEE programs have evolved somewhat differently over the last several years. These differences range from fairly broad variations in policies and procedures to very specific technical differences in installation standards. The Standardization Project discussed herein was initiated to achieve overall consistency across LIEE programs. In addition to standardizing program policies and procedures, the Commission has also encouraged the standardization of reporting costs and program activities for low-income assistance programs, as described further below.
A. LIEE Standardization Project
The LIEE Standardization Project is being conducted in three phases. Phase 1, which has been completed, produced statewide weatherization installation standards, a set of common measure-specific policies and procedures, including standardized criteria for the installation of eligible measures in a specific home. The objective of Phase 2, which is addressed in today's decision, is to continue the development of consistency in program policies and procedures by addressing such issues as customer eligibility, policies for minor home repairs and furnace repairs/replacements, inspection procedures, insulation levels, the eligibility of master-metered units for the program, and gas appliance testing. Phase 3 will address remaining standardization issues, including the development of a statewide customer "bill of rights" and a statewide policy and procedures manual. The final Phase 3 report is due April 15, 2001.
The specific scope of the LIEE Standardization Project has been based on directives issued by the Commission, as summarized below:
· On December 29, 1999, the Assigned Commissioner issued a ruling directing the utilities to "work jointly with any interested participants to develop a joint proposal for standardizing the selection criteria and installation manuals for the utilities' low income weatherization programs . . . " The ruling also instructed the utilities to conduct workshops and/or other forums to solicit input from interested participants, and to submit a joint proposal to the Commission.
· On March 22, 2000, the Assigned Commissioner issued a second ruling clarifying and extending the scope of the standardization effort to "cover not only issues relating to installation standards, but also other policies and procedures that differ across programs." The ruling directed the utilities to also develop recommendations for standardizing inspection policies and procedures across programs.
· On May 8, the utilities filed a report on Phase 1 of the standardization project. That report provided recommendations on statewide weatherization installation standards, a set of common measure-specific policies and procedures, and recommendations relating to measure selection criteria. A follow-up filing with additional recommendations made in response to comments was submitted on July 5, 2000
· On September 7, 2000, the Commission issued D.00-09-036 adopting the Phase 1 report and July 5 follow-up recommendations. The Commission directed the utilities to develop a customer "bill of rights" and to further consider a set of recommendations on PY 2001 low-income programs made by the Low-Income Advisory Board (LIAB).
The Standardization Project Team (project team) consists of the utilities and the project consultants: Regional Economic Research, Inc. (RER) and Richard Heath & Associates (RHA). Energy Division assisted in coordinating the effort. Attachment 3 summarizes the steps taken by the project team to develop the Phase 2 standardization recommendations and lists the attendees to the public workshops.
The utilities filed an initial Phase 2 LIEE Standardization Project Report on September 15, 2000.3 Comments were filed by the Commission's Consumer Services Division (CSD) and by SESCO Inc.(SESCO).4 The utilities filed a joint reply on October 30, 2000. On October 26, 2000, the utilities submitted a follow-up Phase 2 report that presented recommendations on additional standardization issues. SESCO and RHA filed comments on the follow-up report.5 Insulation Contractors Association (ICA), the utilities (jointly), PG&E and ORA filed reply comments.
The policies and procedures adopted during Phase 1 of the LIEE Standardization Project, per D.00-09-036, are being implemented for program year (PY) 2001. Those adopted during Phase 2 and 3 of the project will apply to programs implemented in PY 2002. This decision addresses the standardization issues raised during Phase 2. In some instances, issues raised in the comments will be deferred until Phase 3.
B. Standardized Reporting Requirements
The RRM is the repository for the definitions, the formats and the methodologies for recording costs and effects of energy efficiency programs, including low-income assistance programs. The initial RRM resulted from the Commission's direction, provided in D.86-12-095, for Commission staff to develop a consistent and common framework for reporting on demand-side management activities for all major utilities. An ad hoc RRM Working Group (Working Group) was formed to assist in this task, and has convened periodically through the years to address reporting issues. This group usually consists of Commission staff and representatives from the utilities, but is open to all interested parties.
The RRM has been revised several times since 1986, with the most recent revision occurring in 1999. The sequence of activities leading to the modifications being considered today can be summarized as follows:
· By Resolution (Res.) E-3585, dated December 17, 1998, the Commission directed the utilities to submit a proposal for standardized reporting guidelines to the LIAB. In compliance with Res. E-3585, on May 1, 1999, the utilities submitted a proposal for standardized reporting guidelines.
· The LIAB held a public meeting on May 11, 1999 to discuss the utilities' proposal and submitted its recommendations concerning utility standardized reporting guidelines on June 1, 1999. Comments on LIAB's filings were submitted by PG&E and jointly by SDG&E and SoCal.
· By Res. E-3586, dated January 20, 1999, the Commission further directed that the utilities work with LIAB to standardize the calculation of utility administrative costs. On May 17, 1999, the utilities submitted a joint proposal for standardizing the treatment of administrative costs for low-income assistance programs. LIAB submitted comments on the joint proposal on June 30, 1999. The utilities and ORA responded to LIAB's comments.
· On February 11, 1999, the Assigned Commissioner directed the Energy Division to conduct a workshop with the utilities and interested parties to address reporting issues for both low-income assistance and energy efficiency programs. Energy Division submitted its workshop report with an addendum on June 1, 1999. Several unresolved issues remained outstanding.
· By ruling dated April 28, 2000, the Assigned Commissioner established a schedule for resolving remaining unresolved issues in time for the utilities to incorporate new reporting requirements into their May 1, 2001 Annual Reports for PY 2002 planning. Consistent with Energy Division recommendations, the Assigned Commissioner directed that the existing RRM Working Group solicit input from LIAB and interested parties in a workshop setting to address remaining unresolved issues.
From mid-July until mid-September, 2000, the RRM Working Group met eight times in northern and southern California locations to address unresolved reporting requirements issues related to low-income assistance programs. Representatives from the Energy Division, ORA, the utilities and LIAB attended all meetings. A member from the ICA also participated extensively as a member of the Working Group. Representatives from community-based organizations, LIEE service providers and the California State Department of Community Services Development also participated in the Working Group. (See Attachment 3.)
The RRM Working Group's Report for Low-Income Assistance Programs (RRM Report) was filed on October 2, 2000. Comments were filed by RHA and jointly by SESCO and ICA. The utilities also jointly filed comments that proposed due dates for CARE and LIEE program monthly reports and a joint reply to SESCO/ICA comments.
2 Some of the utilities, such as PG&E and SDG&E, provided weatherization services to low-income customer prior to the passage of SB 845. 3 Portions of this report were subsequently clarified in a November 16, 2000 response to questions by the assigned Administrative Law Judge. 4 We note that SESCO's comments were emailed to parties two days late, filed three days late and did not include a cover or signature page. We affirm the assigned Administrative Law Judge's decision to accept the comments late-filed, as the delay over a weekend did not unduly disadvantage any party in this instance. However, we put SESCO and other parties on notice that any future requests for extensions of time to file must be accompanied by a description of the extenuating circumstances that prohibited them from making a timely and accurate filing. Time extensions will not be routinely authorized for SESCO (or any other party) in this proceeding in the future. 5 RHA's comments briefly stated its support for the analysis and recommendations contained in the follow-up report, and are not discussed further in this decision.
