Word Document PDF Document

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

I.D. # 11017

ENERGY DIVISION RESOLUTION E-4473

RESOLUTION

Resolution E-4473 Southern California Edison

PROPOSED OUTCOME: This Resolution approves funding shifting to augment SCE's On-Bill Financing energy efficiency program to enable SCE to serve non-residential customer demand for loans through the remainder of 2012. The funds come from two sources: pre-2010 unspent, uncommitted funds, and unspent, uncommitted funds from SCE's local government and institutional partnership program. This Resolution approves modifications to the program that affects local governments.

ESTIMATED COST: $16 million transferred from previously-authorized SCE pre-2010 unspent, uncommitted efficiency funds and up to $15 million from 2010-12 unspent, uncommitted efficiency funds from SCE's local government and institutional partnership program.

By Advice Letter 2628-E Filed on September 12, 2011

__________________________________________________________

SUMMARY

This Resolution addresses Southern California Edison (SCE) Advice Letter 2628-E which requests increased funding to expand its On Bill Financing (OBF) program in the face of high demand that used all originally-authorized funds in less six months. This Advice Letter is classified as a Tier 3 Advice Letter and was filed on September 12, 2011. This resolution approves two sources of funds to shift to the OBF program: $16 million from pre-2010 unspent, uncommitted funds, and up to $15 million from unspent, uncommitted funds from SCE's local government and institutional partnership program. This resolution also approves some minor modifications to the OBF program.

BACKGROUND

Financial Solutions, SCE's On Bill Financing energy efficiency program, was approved by the Commission (with some modifications) in Decision D.09-09-047, issued September 24, 2009, as part of SCE's 2010-2012 energy efficiency portfolio.

On Bill Financing (OBF) offers non-residential customers a way to arrange to pay for energy efficiency upgrades without incurring any up-front costs. Under this program the utility provides customers with unsecured loans that can cover 100% of the energy efficiency equipment and installation costs (net of rebates and other incentives). Customers then re-pay the loans through charges that are added on to their regular utility bills. Loan capital is raised through SCE's energy efficiency portfolio, with loan proceeds paid back into an energy efficiency balancing account. Any defaults reduce the size of the balancing account.

D.09-09-047 set the parameters for utilities' 2010-2012 OBF programs. Terms include:

D.09-09-047 laid the expectation that utilities could seek increased funding for OBF loan pools, should the loan pools prove insufficient in the face of potential customer demand, under fund-shifting or budget augmentation rules.

D.09-09-047 also removed the value of any revolving loan funds from the cost side of utilities' portfolio cost-effectiveness calculations, but specified that loan defaults should be included in the utilities' portfolio cost-effectiveness calculations.

On March 25, 2010, SCE filed Advice Letter 2456-E, requesting approval of its 2010-2012 OBF program design, including a $16 million loan pool. This filing included tariff sheets, the OBF loan agreement and other relevant information. Pursuant to the Energy Division's request, SCE filed supplemental Advice Letter 2456-E-A on June 29, 2010, which addressed program coordination with Southern California Gas Company, modifications to program eligibility and other minor modifications. The program was approved, effective July 8, 2010 and was launched August 2010. Due to high customer demand, the funding pool was fully committed by December 2010. As a result, SCE created a wait list in January 2011 and stopped taking new OBF applications for the waiting list in April 2011.

On July 14, 2011, the Commission issued D.11-07-030 which adopted mid-cycle changes to SCE's ex ante energy savings assumptions for key energy efficiency measures and a new process for customized energy efficiency projects for the 2010-2012 program cycle. These changes significantly reduced the total energy savings and demand reduction that SCE can expect to claim from many of its programs and reduced overall portfolio cost-effectiveness. D. 11-07-030 directed the IOUs to rebalance their portfolios to achieve savings goals and cost-effectiveness targets within 60 days.

Given both the fully committed OBF funding pool and the need to rebalance the overall energy efficiency portfolio, SCE examined its portfolio to determine the most effective way to utilize portfolio funds.

On September 12, 2011, SCE filed Advice Letter 2628-E which proposes to shift unspent, uncommitted funds from SCE's local government and institutional partnership programs to SCE's Financial Solutions Program (SCE's OBF program), but limited loans to government partner borrowers, therefore excluding all commercial, industrial and non-partner governmental/institutional customers, amounting to as much as 90 percent of their non-residential customers.

Advice Letter 2628-E additionally proposed that the funds be shifted on a partner-by partner basis at a time each partner agrees to utilize its program funds to finance a loan and would be used specifically to fund local government and institutional partnership loans. SCE proposed to give partners six months to utilize any unspent, uncommitted funds within their budgets, after which time, any remaining funds would be used for other governmental partners that are ready to commit to an OBF loan project.

Advice Letter 2628-E specified that SCE would not seek additional funding to support OBF loans for commercial, industrial and non-partner governmental and institutional customers, other than those on the current wait list, because:

As of the Advice Letter filing date, SCE forecasted there would be approximately $15 million of unspent, uncommitted funds in their local government and institutional partnerships.

Summary of who received the OBF loans: A data request response received by Energy Division on December 12, 2011 indicates that through November 30, 2011, SCE made approximately $3.4 million in loans to 88 distinct borrowers. Forty-seven of the 88 borrowers were small commercial customers (<200 kW). Eight percent of all customers who received loans, in terms of number of borrowers, were governmental and institutional customers. By loan value, governmental and institutional customers received 26% of the loans that were lent.

Summary of who received the OBF loans PLUS who reserved loans and who was on the wait list: Based on data request responses received by Energy Division on December 2 and December 12, 2011, the aggregate of loans made, plus reservations and wait list indicates the following in Table 1. (It should be noted that organizations with loan reservations or organizations on the wait list can decide to not take the loans or may or may not meet loan qualification criteria.)

Table 1

Types of SCE OBF Borrowers and Applicants

Aggregate: Loans made + Reservations + Wait List

Data through November 30, 2011

 

Loan total (in $ Millions)

Percent of Loan Value

Governmental and Institutional

$11.6

63%

Large Commercial/Industrial

$3.6

19%

Small Commercial / Industrial

$3.3

18%

     

TOTAL

$18.5

100%

Based on a data request response received by Energy Division on December 22, 2011, the governmental and institutional customers on SCE's OBF wait list fall into the following categories:

Table 2

Types of Governmental and Institutional Customers on SCE's OBF Wait List

Data through November 30, 2011

 

Number of Projects

Loan Amount

Percentage of Loan Value

Local Government Partner

5

$233,151

29%

Local Government Non-Partner

1

$107,431

13%

Institutional Non-Partner

24

$458,471

57%

       

TOTAL

30

$799,053

100%

NOTICE

Notice of AL 2628-E was made by publication in the Commission's Daily Calendar. SCE states that a copy of the Advice Letter was mailed and distributed in accordance with Section 3.14 of General Order 96-B.

PROTESTS

SCE AL 2828-E was timely protested by TURN and the Local Government Sustainable Energy Coalition (LGSEC) on October 3, 2011. Lighting Technology Services (LTS) submitted a late protest on October 4, 2011. SCE responded to the protests of TURN, LGSEC, and LTS on October 11, 2011.

TURN's protest included four questions:

TURN also submitted these questions to SCE in a data request.

In response to TURN's protest and data request, SCE:

LGSEC's protest proposed that the CPUC should approve Advice Letter 2628-E with three modifications:

In response to LGSEC's protest, SCE raised three points:

LTS's protested SCE's request to limit additional funding for only local government and institutional partners, and not all eligible customers. LTS is a vendor that has used the SCE OBF program with 47 customer projects. In summary, LTS argues:

SCE's response to LTS's protest:

DISCUSSION

The three protests can be summarized to three core issues:

In AL 2628-E SCE specifies that it will not seek additional funding for other customer segments, other than those on the current wait list, because customers can access statewide energy efficiency programs for customized and deemed measures, small commercial customers are eligible for the Direct Install program, non-partner customers in the 100-200kW category comprise a very small portion of OBF funding to date, and customers over 200kW have resources to obtain financing through traditional approaches.

TURN's protest questions SCE's rationale for deciding not to seek additional funding for other customer segments and LTS asserts that private sector customers have equal need for resources to obtain capital and financing to fund energy conservation projects. Additionally, LTS asserts that the demand and need for additional funding for private sector SCE customers is established by the existence of a substantial wait list of private sector companies.

We agree with LTS that SCE's request for additional funding for OBF is insufficient because it does not seek additional funding for commercial, industrial and governmental/institutional non-partners.

We conclude that SCE should move additional funding to OBF to ensure that sufficient funding is available to make loans available to all types of non-residential customers. However, none of the protestants provided a suggested amount by which to supplement the OBF loan funds. Energy Division recommends an amount of $16 million. This $16 million is based on: 1) the fact that between August 2010 and April 2011, customers applied for $18.5 million in OBF loans and a similar timeframe exists now to award OBF loans to interested customers (the 2012 funding period will come to a close at the end of the year), and 2) SCE's assertion that some small commercial customers that originally showed interest in OBF can have their needs covered by the Commercial Direct Install sub-program and thus will not need to take loans.

This $16 million should be earmarked for commercial, industrial and non-partner governmental and institutional customers. The governmental and institutional partner customers should utilize the unspent, uncommitted funds from SCE's local government and institutional partnership programs as laid out in AL 2628-E, with the modifications explained later in this resolution.

Energy Division requested SCE to recommend non-resource programs whose budgets it can reduce so that $16 million can be shifted to the OBF program. In a data response to Energy Division on December 22, 2011, SCE informed Energy Division that $14 million could be used from the Statewide Marketing, Education and Outreach program that is currently suspended per an October 13, 2011 Assigned Commissioner Ruling (ACR). SCE also informed Energy Division that $2 million could come from existing OBF funds. Upon further Energy Division direction to find other funding alternatives, SCE informed Energy Division that it has $16 million in pre-2010 unspent, uncommitted funds that could also be used to support its OBF program3. SCE reiterated that it does not support the use of any ratepayer funds to support OBF for customers outside of SCE's local government and institutional partners.

We conclude that the use of SCE's pre-2010 unspent, uncommitted funds for the OBF program is the best option at this time. SCE's portion of the joint utility budget for the Statewide Marketing, Education and Outreach program is undergoing Commission review; we will be making a determination on the future use of those funds in a separate process as outlined in the October 13, 2011 ACR. We therefore decline to use those funds at this time to support OBF. Directing SCE to find other alternatives, such as reducing existing programs in its portfolio, could be disruptive and will consume more time when there is a waiting list for loans that now is over eight months old. It is our desire to fund SCE's OBF program as expeditiously as possible given customer interest in this program and to do so while avoiding disruption to the existing portfolio.

Using SCE's pre-2010 unspent, uncommitted funds to support OBF enables us to achieve our objectives. The use of unspent, uncommitted funds to support existing energy efficiency programs is not novel. Per Commission decision D.11-10-014, we authorized the use of unspent energy efficiency funds from previous budget years to support existing energy efficiency programs that were in jeopardy due to the State's transfer of the utilities' gas public purpose program funds to the State General Fund in 2011. Our action here for OBF is similar to that decision.

The authorization of pre-2010 unspent, uncommitted funds to support the current OBF program is effectively a "mid-cycle augmentation". D. 07-10-032 authorizes mid-cycle augmentations of the IOUs' energy efficiency portfolio, although such actions are limited to extraordinary circumstances. The decision does not define `extraordinary circumstances'. The same decision also requires that costs and energy savings from mid-cycle funding additions for programs other than low income energy efficiency (LIEE) programs shall be counted when calculating portfolio cost-effectiveness and the performance earnings basis in applying the energy efficiency risk/return incentive mechanism.

We find that the circumstances concerning SCE's OBF program are extraordinary. As noted earlier, SCE's OBF program received funding that was anticipated to last for 3 years, yet the program's $16 million loan pool was fully committed after only 5 months of being available to customers. SCE's current wait list (created after the program was fully committed) reflects continued interest in the program. Furthermore, SCE's wait list has been closed since April 2011, so there could be even more demand for this program. D.09-09-047 determined that the OBF program would not have an impact on the IOUs cost-effectiveness calculations other than the costs to absorb any loan repayment defaults. Because the IOUs' default rate for the OBF programs is currently less than 1%, we anticipate any negative impact on portfolio cost-effectiveness to be negligible, and hence it is reasonable to not require any cost-effectiveness calculations prior to approving the mid-cycle augmentation. SCE should include the default rate for this program when it calculates its earnings in any potential future shareholder incentives.

LGSEC supported Advice Letter 2628-E, with some modifications. Specifically, LGSEC posited that local governments should be allowed to aggregate demand from multiple accounts toward the OBF program in order to meet the 10-year simple payback per meter rule in OBF program qualifications. LGSEC explained that some government entities operate as a "campus" and bill usage through a single meter. LGSEC argues that if SCE wants local governments to use energy efficiency funds that might otherwise go unspent, SCE should provide flexibility here. Additionally, there is precedent for netting energy use: local governments install renewable energy systems and then designate accounts throughout its jurisdiction whose usage will be credited against the renewable energy pilot.

SCE initially responded by indicating that its tariffs, accounting, and billing systems for the OBF program are implemented at the service account level. While it is possible to modify this, the cost, scope of work and resources required to do so would be extensive and require significant time.

In a data request response dated January 6, 2012, SCE revised its position stating: "After further analysis, SCE's OBF team has determined we can leverage the existing infrastructure and modify existing program processes to accommodate the aggregation of multiple projects into bundles without substantial cost. However, SCE has revisited the issue of bundling service accounts (which was considered earlier in the program cycle), and has identified the following existing barriers that would need to be addressed:"

We conclude that enabling governmental and institutional customers to aggregate multiple projects into bundles to qualify for OBF makes sense. In D. 09-09-047 the Commission directed a set of adjustments to IOUs' OBF loan terms to ensure greater uniformity across the four utilities. Directing SCE to modify its OBF tariff in this way seems consistent with this sentiment in D.09-09-047, as it is our understanding that PG&E and Sempra already allow governmental and institutional customers to bundle projects to qualify for OBF.

Given the dwindling time available in the 2010-2012 program cycle for loans to be made, we direct SCE to file the necessary tariff modifications via a Tier 2 advice letter within seven days of this resolution.

AL 2628-E suggests that six months is sufficient time for a local government to determine whether it will take advantage of an OBF opportunity after funds are redirected. LGSEC argues that eight months is more realistic.

In its response, SCE agrees that close collaboration with partners is needed to determine whether or not the partner will pursue an OBF project. SCE posits that this time requirement should begin as of the date of the approval of AL 2628-E.

We generally agree with LGSEC that the timeframe for local governments to determine whether to use their unspent, uncommitted funds for an OBF project should be eight months. Given that this resolution is likely to be finalized in February 2012 and that loans will be available through December 31, 2012, we conclude that SCE should give local governments until the end of the 2010-2012 program cycle to make their determination.

COMMENTS

Public Utilities Code section 311(g)(1) provides that this resolution must be served on all parties and subject to at least 30 days public review and comment prior to a vote of the Commission. Section 311(g)(2) provides that this 30-day period may be reduced or waived upon the stipulation of all parties in the proceeding.

The 30-day comment period for the draft of this resolution was neither waived nor reduced. Accordingly, this draft resolution was mailed to parties for comments, and will be placed on the Commission's agenda no earlier than 30 days from today.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

1. There is a continuing demand for OBF loans from non-governmental partners.

2. SCE's request for additional funding for OBF, as described in Advice Letter 2628-E, is insufficient because it does not seek additional funding to support loans for commercial, industrial and governmental and institutional non-partners.

3. In addition to the fund shifting proposed by SCE in Advice Letter 2628-E, SCE should move $16 million in funding to OBF to ensure that sufficient funding is available to make loans to all non-residential customers. The $16 million should be available to commercial, industrial and non-partner governmental and institutional customers.

4. SCE's pre-2010 unspent, uncommitted funds for the OBF program is the best source of the additional $16 million at this time.

5. The circumstances concerning SCE's OBF program funding are extraordinary.

6. Because the IOUs' default rate for the OBF programs is currently less than 1%, with the remainder of loan repayments flowing back to the OBF balancing account, we anticipate any negative impact on portfolio cost-effectiveness to be negligible, and hence it is reasonable to not require any cost-effectiveness calculations prior to approving the mid-cycle augmentation.

7. SCE's governmental and institutional partner customers should have the option to utilize the unspent, uncommitted funds from SCE's local government and institutional partnership programs for OBF loans.

8. Enabling governmental and institutional customers to bundle multiple service accounts into one customer OBF loan is desirable. SCE should file the necessary tariff modifications to enable governmental and institutional customers to bundle multiple service accounts into one customer OBF loan.

9. SCE should give local government partners until the end of the 2010-2012 program cycle to make their determination whether to use their unspent, uncommitted funds for an OBF project.

THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. SCE is authorized to shift unspent, uncommitted funds from SCE's local government and institutional partnership programs to its OBF program to fund loans for its local government partners.

2. SCE shall transfer $16 million in pre-2010 unspent, uncommitted energy efficiency funds to support additional OBF loans for commercial, industrial and government/institutional non-partners.

3. SCE shall file a Tier 2 advice letter within 7 days of the effective date of the resolution for the necessary tariff changes to enable government/institutional customers to bundle multiple service accounts into one customer OBF loan.  

4. SCE shall allow its local government partners until the end of the 2010-12 cycle to make their determinations whether to use their unspent, uncommitted funds for an OBF project.

This Resolution is effective today.

I certify that the foregoing resolution was duly introduced, passed and adopted at a conference of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California held on March 8, 2012; the following Commissioners voting favorably thereon:

STATE OF CALIFORNIA EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

505 VAN NESS AVENUE

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298

February 6, 2012 ID #:11017

TO: Parties to SCE Advice Letter 2628-E

: Service List for R.09-11-014

: SCE's GO96-B Service List

Enclosed is Draft Resolution E-4473 of the Energy Division. It will be on the agenda at the next Commission meeting that is at least 30 days from the date of this letter, which is expected to be March 8, 2012. The Commission may then vote on this Resolution or it may postpone a vote until later.

When the Commission votes on a Draft Resolution, it may adopt all or part of it as written, amend, modify or set it aside and prepare a different Resolution. Only when the Commission acts does the Resolution become binding on the parties.

Parties may submit comments on the Draft Resolution no later than Monday, February 27, 2012. Please ensure that both the Resolution number and a descriptive title of the content of the Resolution are included in the cover sheet or in the text of any electronic submission. An original and two copies of the comments, with a certificate of service, should be submitted to:

Honesto Gatchalian

Energy Division

California Public Utilities Commission

505 Van Ness Avenue

San Francisco, CA 94102

Fax: 415-703-2200

jnj@cpuc.ca.gov

A copy of the comments should be submitted in electronic format to:

Jennifer Finnigan

Energy Division

Email: JF5@cpuc.ca.gov

Bruce Kaneshiro

Energy Division

Email: BSK@cpuc.ca.gov

Those submitting comments must serve a copy of their comments on 1) the entire service list attached to the draft Resolution, 2) all Commissioners, 3) the General Counsel, and 4) the Director of the Energy Division, on the same date that the comments are submitted to the Energy Division.

Comments shall be limited to fifteen pages in length. Comments shall focus on factual, legal or technical errors in the draft Resolution. Comments that merely reargue positions taken in the advice letter or protests will be accorded no weight and are not to be submitted.

Replies to comments on the Draft Resolution may be filed (i.e., received by the Energy Division) by five days after the comments, or in this case March 5, 2012. Replies shall be limited to identifying misrepresentations of law or fact contained in the comments of other parties. Replies shall not exceed five pages in length, and shall be filed and served as set forth above for comments. Late submitted comments or replies will not be considered.

/s/ Bruce Kaneshiro

Bruce Kaneshiro

Project and Program Supervisor

Energy Division

Enclosures:

Certificate of Service

Service Lists

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that I have by mail this day served a true copy of Draft Resolution E-4473 on all parties in these filings or their attorneys as shown on the attached lists.

Dated February 6, 2012 at San Francisco, California.

/s/ Bruce Kaneshiro

Bruce Kaneshiro

NOTICE

Parties should notify the Energy Division, Public Utilities

Commission, 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 4002

San Francisco, CA 94102, of any change of address to

insure that they continue to receive documents. You

must indicate the Resolution number on the service list

on which your name appears.

Parties to SCE Advice Letter 2628-E

Akbar Jazayeri

Vice President of Regulatory Operations

Southern California Edison Company

2244 Walnut Grove Avenue

Rosemead, CA 91770

Facsimile: (626) 302-4829

Email: AdviceTariffManager@sce.com

Leslie E. Starck

Senior Vice President

c/o Karen Gansecki

Southern California Edison Company

601 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 2030

San Francisco, CA 94102

Facsimile: (415) 929-5540

E-mail: Karyn.Gansecki@sce.com

Marybelle Ang

Staff Attorney

The Utility Reform Network

115 Sansome Street, Suite 900

San Francisco, CA 94104

Email: mang@turn.org

Jody London

Local Government Sustainable Energy Coalition

PO Box 3629

Oakland, CA 94609

Email: jody_london_consulting@earthlink.net

Russell W. Royal

President

Lighting Technology Services, Inc.

2801 Catherine Way

Santa Ana, CA 92705

Fax: (949) 428-5044

Email: rroyal@ltsinc.net

R.09-11-014 Service List

achang@efficiencycouncil.org

dgilligan@naesco.org

gary@poolsolutionsgroup.com

jody_london_consulting@earthlink.net

lettenson@nrdc.org

mdavis@ieua.org

ndesnoo@ci.berkeley.ca.us

RAtwater@SoCalWater.org

tadolf@bpi.org

wboschman@semitropic.com

BMcNamara@peci.org

andrew.mcallister@energycenter.org

andy@efficiency20.com

michael.sachse@opower.com

staples@staplesmarketing.com

SteveShallenberger@gmail.com

SDPatrick@SempraUtilities.com

eliseg@westbasin.org

lpettis@calstate.edu

larry.cope@sce.com

nicole@environmentalhealth.org

sanchezf@irwd.com

eklebaner@adamsbroadwell.com

dil@cpuc.ca.gov

jeanne.sole@sfgov.org

bfinkelstein@turn.org

RNakasone@chpc.net

whb@a-klaw.com

edwardoneill@dwt.com

M1ke@pge.com

ssmyers@att.net

jerryl@abag.ca.gov

rknight@bki.com

jkeyes@keyesandfox.com

kat@greenforall.org

tia@EllaBakerCenter.org

gfitzgerald@oaklandnet.com

RXR@CommercialEnergy.net

drebello@quest-world.com

samuelk@greenlining.org

bruce@builditgreen.org

jwaen@marinenergyauthority.org

john@proctoreng.com

wem@igc.org

hankryan2003@yahoo.com

abhay@myenersave.com

maldridge@ecoact.org

tconlon@geopraxis.com

bdicapo@caiso.com

mgillette@enernoc.com

wylier@beutlercorp.com

lwhouse@innercite.com

eemblem@JCEEP.net

jennifers@car.org

blake@consumercal.org

blaising@braunlegal.com

HodgesJL@surewest.net

bruce.herzer@PulseEnergy.com

andrew_meiman@newcomb.cc

abesa@semprautilities.com

clamasbabbini@comverge.com

RegRelCPUCCases@pge.com

charlie.buck@energycenter.org

hammer_chris@hotmail.com

cwong@peci.org

dennis.guido@staplesenergy.com

liddell@energyattorney.com

efm2@pge.com

ellenavis@berkeley.edu

wolak@stanford.edu

gthomas@ecoact.org

ggoodhill@globalgreen.org

gwikler@enernoc.com

gfishman@ecoact.org

jeffrey.lyng@opower.com

jmclaughlin@nclc.org

jadams@ecoact.org

mbruce@ecoact.org

mkahn@ioe.ucla.edu

mistib@comcast.net

nlong@nrdc.org

pcook4@icfi.com

peter.hamilton@energycenter.org

rwalther@pacbell.net

sdibble@peci.org

smartinez@nrdc.org

stephaniec@greenlining.org

sschiller@efficiencycouncil.org

yhunter@ca-ilg.org

e-recipient@caiso.com

mrw@mrwassoc.com

PowerLegRegAffairs@sfwater.org

dwtcpucdockets@dwt.com

Cody.Taylor@ee.doe.gov

dan@energysmarthomes.net

pstoner@lgc.org

irene.stillings@energycenter.org

Jennifer.Barnes@Navigantconsulting.com

jesshf@berkeley.edu

judypau@dwt.com

mhorowitz@demandresearch.net

mokeefe@efficiencycouncil.org

mkoszalka@icfi.com

nadeem.sheikh@opower.com

nehemiah@benningfieldgroup.com

spauker@wsgr.com

siobhan.foley@energycenter.org

bkates@opiniondynamics.com

 

owein@nclcdc.org

rachel.gold@opower.com

rking@goodcompanyassociates.com

cbrooks@tendrilinc.com

Cynthiakmitchell@gmail.com

GHealy@SempraUtilities.com

Jazayeri@BlankRome.com

marilyn@sbesc.com

sbccog@southbaycities.org

susan.munves@smgov.net

mluevano@globalgreen.org

shivajid@westbasin.org

cyin@yinsight.net

mc@amandfm.com

Alyssa.Cherry@sce.com

kholmes@trane.com

case.admin@sce.com

gary.levingston@sce.com

Jennifer.Shigekawa@sce.com

jay@trealestate.net

rsperberg@onsitenergy.com

fortlieb@sandiego.gov

sfr@sandag.org

jbrock@semprautilities.com

RRubin@SempraUtilities.com

tblair@sandiego.gov

sephra.ninow@energycenter.org

CentralFiles@SempraUtilities.com

JYamagata@SempraUtilities.com

Sharyn.Barata@Itron.com

pauldonahue@ieee.org

cheryl.collart@ventura.org

Jeff.Hirsch@DOE2.com

mike@nrganswers.com

pcanessa@charter.net

mtierney-lloyd@enernoc.com

ckalashian@pesc.com

atencate@rsgrp.com

lcasentini@rsgrp.com

sue.mara@RTOadvisors.com

ann.kelly@sfgov.microsoftonline.com

cal.broomhead@sfgov.org

 

theresa.mueller@sfgov.org

bob.hinkle@metrusenergy.com

susan.preston@calcefangelfund.com

tburke@sfwater.org

hayley@turn.org

mang@turn.org

yxg4@pge.com

Josh.Alban@SCIenergy.com

filings@a-klaw.com

magq@pge.com

nes@a-klaw.com

rafi.hassan@sig.com

cem@newsdata.com

slda@pge.com

Christine.Tam@cityofpaloalto.org

dchia@solarcity.com

msutter@opiniondynamics.com

service@spurr.org

cadickerson@cadconsulting.biz

conrad@thecbpca.org

renee@gem-corp.com

cisco@renewfund.com

john.stoops@kema.com

tia@ellabakercenter.org

Valerie.Richardson@kema.com

ryany@greenlining.org

enriqueg@greenlining.org

craigtyler@comcast.net

ELVine@lbl.gov

ERasmussen@MarinEnergyAuthority.org

jerry.mix@wattstopper.com

demetra.mcbride@ceo.sccgov.org

marytuckerconsulting@mindspring.com

michael.foster@sanjoseca.gov

Shayna.Hirshfield@sanjoseca.gov

jshields@ssjid.com

brbarkovich@earthlink.net

mjberm@davisenergy.com

craig@sierraforestlegacy.org

lwhite@geiconsultants.com

 

CFerguson@rcrcnet.org

eric@theenerguy.com

jregnier@energy.state.ca.us

mlowder@rcrcnet.org

steveb@foresthealth.org

bhelft@energy.ca.gov

abb@eslawfirm.com

jjg@eslawfirm.com

lmh@eslawfirm.com

michael@rockwood-consulting.com

jim.jungwirth@gmail.com

lynnj@hayfork.net

nickg@hayfork.net

bhopewell@peci.org

9watts@gmail.com

zabin@berkeley.edu

anne@energysavvy.com

jmaclean@eefinance.net

peter.cavan@pulseenergy.com

ar4@cpuc.ca.gov

CBE@cpuc.ca.gov

JL2@cpuc.ca.gov

Mitchell.Shapson@cpuc.ca.gov

Rasmussen@evergreenecon.com

Mjaske@energy.state.ca.us

ppl@cpuc.ca.gov

wmorgan@calstate.edu

aeo@cpuc.ca.gov

brc@cpuc.ca.gov

los@cpuc.ca.gov

cf1@cpuc.ca.gov

cxc@cpuc.ca.gov

cu2@cpuc.ca.gov

cjt@cpuc.ca.gov

edf@cpuc.ca.gov

dsc@cpuc.ca.gov

dm1@cpuc.ca.gov

cln@cpuc.ca.gov

jf5@cpuc.ca.gov

jst@cpuc.ca.gov

jnc@cpuc.ca.gov

jym@cpuc.ca.gov

jf2@cpuc.ca.gov

kwz@cpuc.ca.gov

keh@cpuc.ca.gov

lp1@cpuc.ca.gov

zaf@cpuc.ca.gov

mc3@cpuc.ca.gov

mgb@cpuc.ca.gov

nil@cpuc.ca.gov

pcf@cpuc.ca.gov

srt@cpuc.ca.gov

seb@cpuc.ca.gov

sjg@cpuc.ca.gov

tdp@cpuc.ca.gov

zap@cpuc.ca.gov

vuk@cpuc.ca.gov

ztc@cpuc.ca.gov

cbarry@iwpnews.com

sbender@energy.state.ca.us

bjunker@energy.state.ca.us

dschultz@energy.state.ca.us

ckavalec@energy.state.ca.us

1 SCE subsequently revised its position in a data response to Energy Division. See the Discussion section for further detail.

2 This analysis included executed loans only. Staff recognizes that these percentages could change if the analysis included reserved loans and loans on the wait list, given the long decision process for governmental and institutional customers.

3 Provided via data request to Energy Division on January 9, 2012.

Top Of Page