IV. Comments on Draft Decision
Rule 77.7 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure provides for public review and comment for draft decisions subject to Pub. Util. Code § 311(g). Rule 77.7(f) allows the Commission to reduce the period for public review and comment for alternates under various circumstances. Rule 77.7(f)(9) specifically provides for an exemption:
For a decision where the Commission determines, on the motion of a party or on its own motion, that public necessity requires reduction or waiver of the 30-day period for public review and comment. For purposes of this subsection, "public necessity" refers to circumstances in which the public interest of the Commission adopting a decision before expiration of the 30-day review and comment period clearly outweighs the public interest in having the full 30-day period for review and comment. "Public necessity" includes, without limitation, circumstances where failure to adopt a decision before expiration of the 30-day review and comment period would place the Commission or a Commission regulatee in violation of applicable law, or where such failure would cause significant harm to public health or welfare. When acting pursuant to this subsection, the Commission will provide such reduced period for public review and comment as is consistent with the public necessity requiring reduction or waiver.
Pursuant to Rule 77.7(f)(9), we determine that public necessity requires a reduced period for public review and comment. Given the current electric supply shortages and the need to collect information to guide future program planning and conservation efforts, time is of the essence in implementing these studies. Accordingly, comments shall be filed by June 5, 2001, and reply comments shall be filed by June 11, 2001. These comment periods provide notice and opportunity to be heard regarding the modification of these decisions.
1. Edison's, PG&E's, SDG&E's, and SoCalGas' new MA&E studies and budgets are reasonable.
2. Energy efficiency programs should not be providing incentives where the market is already saturated. Thus, energy efficiency saturation information is important and should be collected. SoCalGas should collect and report on saturation levels, consistent with the other utilities.
3. PG&E's request to include the study of measure use saturation in its newly-proposed "Technical and Market Potential for Energy Efficiency in the Nonresidential Sector" study is reasonable so long as PG&E ensures that commercial lighting saturation is covered in that study and demonstrates such inclusion in its study report.
4. It is reasonable to abandon quarterly reporting of changes in energy efficiency measure saturation. Edison, PG&E, SDG&E, and SoCalGas should report on energy efficiency saturation levels in their Annual Reports.
5. It is not in the public interest to eliminate all efforts to identify and target customers who are not being reached by current utility-administered programs. Edison, PG&E, SDG&E, and SoCalGas should perform analyses on "underserved" and "hard-to-reach" segments of residential and non-residential customers as contemplated by Ordering Paragraphs 35, 36, and 66 of D.00-07-017, although they may limit the scope of their studies commensurate with budgets and the need to produce useable results. The utilities should file the required information in their Annual Reports.
6. It is reasonable for SDG&E to include activities to track and assess hard-to-reach program access as part of their normal tracking of program participation and through surveys that are done on a statewide basis.
7. Performance indicators provide useful information for the design and implementation of future programs. Edison, PG&E, SDG&E, and SoCalGas should conduct studies to assess performance indicators related to some programs in accordance with the requirements of D.00-07-017, Ordering paragraph 76. Given the limited budgets and need to fund new studies, it is reasonable to allow the utilities to perform a scaled-back version of the studies, with reduced budgets.
8. Edison should be permitted to eliminate five studies related to five of its twelve performance indicators so long as these indicators are identified and addressed in the statewide studies and study reports.
9. PG&E and SoCalGas should include a summary of their proposed scaled-back performance indicator studies in their next Quarterly Reports.
10. Program participation information is essential for the operation of an efficient, effective, and equitable energy efficiency program and it is important that all the utilities continue to track participation as required by D.00-07-017, Ordering Paragraph 49. The utilities should track participation going forward and looking backward three years, focusing on sorting and presenting data already tracked to answer basic questions about repeat customer and ESCO participation, by subsector. The utilities are not required to recontact participants from years prior to the issuance of D.00-07-017 to obtain necessary data.
11. It is reasonable for SDG&E to track non-residential program participation as required by D.00-07-017, Ordering Paragraph 49, in its on-going information-gathering activities without special studies.
12. The studies proposed by the utilities to be administered by the CEC are reasonable and necessary to provide basic data particularly on customer characteristics, energy use, and energy-using technologies.
13. Because study budgets and scope may change as the studies progress, it is reasonable to authorize the utilities to shift funds up to 20% of authorized amounts, as necessary, with appropriate justification reported in the Quarterly Reports.
14. Given the current electric supply shortages and the need to collect information to guide future program planning and conservation efforts, time is of the essence in implementing these studies.
1. Public necessity requires that we reduce the period for public comment pursuant to Rule 77.7(f)(9) so that the proposed studies and budgets may be implemented as soon as possible.
2. The proposed studies and budgets to be administered by the CEC, as set forth on Attachment A, should be approved.
3. Edison's proposed utility-specific studies and budgets, as set forth on Attachment A, should be approved.
4. PG&E's proposed utility-specific studies and budgets, as set forth on Attachment A, should be approved.
5. SDG&E's proposed utility-specific studies and budgets, as set forth on Attachment A, should be approved.
6. SoCalGas' proposed utility-specific studies and budgets, as set forth on Attachment A, should be approved.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The public comment period is reduced so that we may consider this decision at our June 14, 2001 conference. Comments shall be filed by June 5, 2001, and reply comments shall be filed by June 11, 2001.
2. The utility-specific and California Energy Commission-administered Market Assessment and Evaluation (MA&E) plans, studies, and budgets, as proposed by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), Southern California Edison Company (Edison), San Diego Gas and Electric Company (SDG&E), and Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas), as modified herein, are approved.
3. PG&E, Edison, SDG&E, and SoCalGas shall attach copies of their MA&E plans, studies, and budgets, having first made the modifications adopted herein, to the Applications maintained in the Commission's central files.
4. Applications (A.) 00-11-037, A.00-11-043, A.00-11-044, and A.00-11-045 are closed.
This order is effective today.
Dated , at San Francisco, California.
ATTACHMENT A
Attachment A
Page 1 of 5
Edison's Approved MA&E Studies and Budgets:
Projects |
Approved PY 2001 Budget |
RESIDENTIAL |
$460,000 |
Residential Appliance Rebate Impact Evaluation |
$140,000* |
Residential Lighting Rebate Impact Evaluation |
$40,000* |
Study of Refrigerator Recycling Programs |
$45,000* |
Summer Initiative Savings and Demand Reduction Analysis |
$80,000* |
Analysis of Air Conditioner Recycling Programs |
$10,000* |
School-based Residential Pilot Program |
$60,000 |
Residential Audit Programs Evaluation |
$85,000 |
NONRESIDENTIAL |
$630,000 |
Nonresidential Incentive Program Impact Evaluation |
$330,000* |
Summer Initiative Pool Pump Program Evaluation |
$60,000* |
Summer Initiative Savings and Demand Reduction Analysis |
$80,000* |
Nonresidential Customer Classification Project |
$120,000 |
Pilot School Energy Efficiency Program Evaluation |
$40,000 |
NEW CONSTRUCTION |
$115,000 |
Thermostat Behavior Study |
$75,000* |
Energy Design Resource Usage Study |
$40,000* |
CROSS-SECTOR PROJECTS |
$460,000 |
Weather Data |
$120,000 |
Load and Consumption Data for Statewide Studies |
$100,000 |
Ad Hoc Analyses for Program Planning and Management |
$80,000 |
Third Party Initiative Project Analyses |
$80,000 |
2002 Program Planning Support |
$80,000 |
Hard-to-Reach Segment Analyses |
$140,000 |
TOTAL |
$1,805,000 |
* new studies |
Attachment A
Page 2 of 5
PG&E's Approved MA&E Studies and Budgets:
Projects |
Approved PY 2001 Budget |
Update of Customer Participation and Energy/Demand Savings Estimates Resulting from "1" No Cost Element of 1-2-3- Cash Back Program |
$75,000* |
Verification of Installation of "2" Do-It-Yourself Element of 1-2-3 Cash Back Program |
$150,000* |
Update Energy and Demand Savings Input Values for Estimates Resulting from "3" Measure Investments of 1-2-3 |
$300,000* |
Subtotal Residential |
$525,000 |
Technical and Market Potential for Energy Savings Opportunities in the Nonresidential Sector (must include lighting saturation study) |
$500,000* |
Market tracking database (D.00-07-017 OP 49) |
$150,000 |
Subtotal Nonresidential |
$650,000 |
Multifamily Water Heating, HVAC, and Window Survey |
$100,000* |
Thermostats for Single Zone Nonresidential AC Equipment |
$75,000* |
Office Task Lighting Field Study |
$75,000* |
M&V Supplemental Analyses of Energy and Demand Savings for Both Residential and Nonresidential New Construction Programs |
$250,000 |
Subtotal New Construction |
$500,000 |
Hard-to-Reach Segment Analysis |
$100,000 |
Retrofit and Renovation: TOSER Program |
$40,000* |
Compilation of Data for CEC |
$25,000 |
Performance Indicator Studies (OP76) |
$300,000 |
Subtotal Other Market Assessment and Planning |
$465,000 |
GRAND TOTAL |
$2,140,000 |
* new studies |
Attachment A
Page 3 of 5
SDG&E's Approved MA&E Studies and Budgets:
Projects |
Approved PY 2001 Budget |
Residential |
|
Evaluation of Residential Lighting Program |
$25,000 |
Evaluation of Residential Appliances Program |
$25,000 |
Non-residential |
|
Evaluation of Large Nonresidential Comprehensive Retrofit Program |
$150,000 |
New Construction |
|
Market Assessment Study for Residential New Construction- Single Family |
$75,000 |
Market Assessment Study Residential New Construction - Multi Family |
$75,000 |
Crossover |
|
Performance Indicators Studies |
$165,000 |
Summer Initiative |
$40,000* |
Schools Pilot Evaluation |
$50,000* |
Ridgehaven Building Case Study |
$10,000* |
Residential & Nonresidential Audit Evaluations |
$20,000* |
Review of Cost Effectiveness Assumptions |
$169,000* |
Total Budget |
$804,000 |
* new studies |
Attachment A
Page 4 of 5
SoCalGas' Approved MA&E Studies and Budgets:
Projects |
Approved PY 2001 Budget |
Residential Activities |
|
Residential Contractor Program Multi Family Impact Ass. |
$80,000 |
Residential Needs Assessment &"Hard-to-Reach" Tracking |
|
Residential Programs kW & kWh Impact Ass. |
$90,000* |
Residential Audit Program Ass. |
$50,000 |
Non-Residential Activities |
|
Nonresidential Needs Ass. & " Hard-to-Reach" Tracking |
|
Nonresidential Programs kW & kWh Impact Ass. |
$90,000* |
SIC Recoding & Corporate Parent Reporting Requirement |
$68,000 |
New Construction Activities |
|
Local Government Initiatives & Third Party Initiatives Ass. |
$140,000 |
Total |
$518,000 |
* new studies |
Attachment A
Page 5 of 5
Approved CEC-Administered Studies and Budgets:
Study Title |
Approved PY 2001 Budget |
DEER Update - SPC/Load Shape Data Collection and Analysis |
$400,000 |
Commercial End Use Survey (CEUS) |
$1,700,000 |
Residential Appliance Saturation Survey (RASS) |
|
Total |
$2,100,000 |
Each utility should allocate the following budget to fund the CEC-administered studies:
Utility |
Approved PY 2001 Budget |
SCE |
$680,000 |
PG&E |
$945,000 |
SDG&E |
$275,000 |
SoCalGas |
$200,000 |
Total |
$2,100,000 |
(END OF ATTACHMENT A)
