VII. Comments on Draft Decision

The draft decision of the ALJ in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Pub. Util. Code § 311(g)(1) and Rule 77.7 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure. Comments were filed on March 11, 2002, and reply comments were filed on March 15, 2002. We have made minor program changes throughout the decision in response to specific concerns raised. With regard to the more general issues, we have made the changes reflected below.

A. Shareholder Incentives

The IOUs claim the draft decision errs in eliminating shareholder incentives for energy efficiency programs. We have altered the language of the draft decision on this issue, but maintain the general conclusion that the IOUs will not recover shareholder incentives for 2002 programs. We already reached this conclusion in D.01-11-066, as TURN and ORA note in their comments on the draft alternate decision circulated in this proceeding:

The policy manual language was unambiguous: "The Commission will no longer make a special provision for shareholder earnings." [Page 28 of Attachment 1 (Energy Efficiency Policy Manual) of the Final Interim Opinion, D.01-11-066.]

The IOUs' challenge is not timely. Nor do we agree with their substantive argument that studies from the early 1990s documenting the need for incentives dictate the outcome in this case. Indeed, as Judge Walwyn recently ruled in the Annual Earnings Assessment Proceeding, examining IOU shareholder earnings claims for the later 1990s, there may even be a need to re-examine incentives in past years.⁴⁹

SDG&E contends that the Commission cannot eliminate incentives on a going forward basis, for newly authorized programs, without conducting hearings pursuant to Pub. Util. Code § 1708. No past decision is changed here. Our past decisions all have carefully specified that any incentive program is experimental, and incentives may be changed or eliminated at any time in the future. See, e.g., D.93-09-078, 51 CPUC2d 371, 386-87) (1993) ("Future events may . . . necessitate a reevaluation of shareholder incentives as a regulatory tool . . . . We will need to reassess today's decision as changed circumstances warrant.") All we do here is implement those past decisions.

PG&E contends that federal law prohibits the Commission from eliminating shareholder incentives, quoting the Energy Policy Act of 1992, § 111(d)(8). Section 111(a) of that Act, however, makes compliance with § (d)(8) optional, providing: "Nothing in this subsection prohibits any State regulatory authority or nonregulated electric utility from making any determination that it is not appropriate to implement any such standard [e.g., section (d)(8)], pursuant to its authority under otherwise applicable State law." Accordingly, we find PG&E's arguments without merit.

B. 15%/Final Quarterly Payment "Holdback"

We retain the draft decision's payment framework, with modification. As explained in the draft decision, it was D.01-11-066 that created the 15% holdback for programs promising energy savings and stressed the importance of quarterly reports to receipt of funding for information/training programs. Thus, once again, the criticisms of the holdback provisions are untimely.

Moreover, it would be irresponsible for the Commission to allow program providers to recover 100% of program funding without any evaluation of program effectiveness. Many parties complained when we first set up the framework for energy efficiency programs in D.01-11-066 that we were not ensuring enough accountability for program funds. It was not reasonable for potential funding recipients to assume they would receive an entire year's funding without any evaluation of whether they met program goals.

By the same token, it is important to give program providers some certainty about what is expected of them. Therefore, if providers incur reasonable expenditures during the program year, within the budget we are allotting to each of them, they can be assured of recovering them. What is reasonable will depend on the particular program and expenditure, but will be judged on an objective basis. Moreover, any deduction from the 15% final program payment will be proportional to the provider's unreasonable failure to meet targets.

Where the draft decision specifies precise percentage holdbacks related to hard-to-reach targets or other program goals, those holdbacks will occur where the failure to meet goals is unreasonable, and will be proportional to such failure.⁵⁰ If, on the other hand, the provider takes reasonable steps to meet goals, but nonetheless fails to do so, the Commission will not hold back the specified funding amount.

To minimize program disruption at the time providers reach 75% (for information programs) or 85% (for energy savings programs) of spending, the IOUs, DCA, and Univision will receive all program payments as they come due including the 15% holdback amount or the final quarterly payment, subject to refund if program evaluation finds program results unreasonably miss targets or expenditures are unreasonably high.

C. Program Implementation Plans

Several parties request that we give them more than 15 days to file Program Implementation Plans⁵¹ and clarify what purpose they will serve. We will change the filing deadline to 60 days from the effective date of this decision. The Plans are essential because we are approving different program details from those reflected in the IOUs' and third parties' proposals. Only the Plans will reflect the providers' revised program details, so they are essential.

However, no party shall delay program implementation or startup efforts to await preparation of or Commission action on the Plans. The 60-day period is also to be used to launch (or prepare to launch) programs this decision approves.

D. Marketing and Outreach Programs

DCA and PG&E object to certain rules we have put in place with regard to the Flex Your Power funding. Neither wants PG&E to administer the DCA contract. However, it is our current plan for the IOUs to oversee day-to-day administration of all third party contracts, whether the funding recipient is a government agency or a private business. Because DCA has worked closely with Edison in the past and PG&E objects to its own selection, we will change the IOU in this case to Edison. We do the same for Univision.

Despite this choice, Commission staff will remain involved in the PGC-funded portion of the Flex Your Power campaign. If issues arise, either the IOU or DCA is free to contact the Energy Division for guidance. We agree with DCA, however, that ultimate responsibility for the content of its message lies with DCA and not Edison, although that content must reflect the requirements of this decision and the input of Edison and the Energy Division.

We cannot grant DCA the entire year's funding up-front, but the DCA is eligible to request advance disbursements from Edison if it can document essential program expenditures before a quarterly payment is due. That is, if an essential Flex Your Power advertisement or campaign will not occur unless funds are released early, an advance may be allowed, provided DCA and Edison give five days advance notice to the Commission's Energy Division of such plan.

We are not prepared to change the requirement that the PGC-funded portions of the Flex Your Power campaign should be limited to an energy efficiency message. The Commission wholeheartedly supports conservation and applauds the DCA and all Californians for their exceptional conservation efforts in the last year. By the same token, we believe that as public perception of an "energy crisis" recedes, the need for permanent changes through energy efficiency installation grows. As shown in Attachment 3, the Flex Your Power campaign has received $48.7 million from other sources for its 2002 campaign, so it will have ample funding for its conservation message.

As for information about other local and statewide programs, we will require DCA to obtain information from program providers to place on the DCA website. The Commission's Energy Division will furnish DCA contact information. The DCA shall make two attempts to obtain such information from program providers during the year. It shall update information as program providers furnish such updates to the DCA.

SDG&E and SoCalGas also express concern that the Univision program we select, while meritorious, targets low-income consumers, and therefore should be funded with Low Income Energy Efficiency (LIEE) funds. Taken to its logical conclusion, SDG&E's argument would mean we could fund no Spanish-language outreach in this proceeding, a result we would not support. Because Univision proposes a mass media approach, it will reach Spanish speakers regardless of income, and this is a legitimate expenditure of non-LIEE PGC funds.

E. ORA's Role

In the draft decision, we asked ORA to assist the Commission in performing due diligence related to the funded programs. ORA has played this role successfully in the past, and we wish its past efforts to continue. We will inform ORA, by ruling or other publicly noticed method, when and how we desire its input, but it should also feel free to give input as quarterly reports are filed.

F. Local Programs

Each IOU requests that we select and fund their local programs at this time. We have decided that it makes most sense to compare IOU local programs side-by-side with third party local programs. In this way, we can avoid program duplication and fund a portfolio that most effectively serves local communities. To avoid service disruption, we extend certain local program funding for another two months, to May 31, 2002, as reflected in Attachment 8 to this decision. We expect to have a final decision on the new local program proposals by that time.

G. Other Comments

To the extent this decision does not request additional changes requested by the parties, it is because we have considered and rejected such changes.

Findings of Fact

1. Throughout their proposals, the IOUs offer inconsistent program details.

2. Throughout their proposals, the IOUs offer inadequate specificity on how they will serve hard-to-reach customers.

3. For purposes of this decision, hard-to-reach customers are those who do not have easy access to program information or generally do not participate in energy efficiency programs due to language, income, housing type, geographic, or home ownership (split incentives) barriers. These barriers are defined as (1) Language-primary language spoken is other than English, and/or (2) Income-those customers who fall into the moderate income level (income levels less than 400% of federal poverty guideline), and/or (3) Housing type-multi-family and mobile home tenants, and/or (4) Geographic-residents of areas other than the San Francisco Bay Area, San Diego, area, Los Angeles Basin or Sacramento, and/or (5) Homeownership-renters.

4. The IOUs propose to recycle too few appliances for too much money in their residential appliance recycling proposals.

5. In connection with the Commission's administration of SBX1 5, approximately 80,000 appliances will be recycled at a cost of approximately $15 million.

6. If one IOU administers appliance recycling programs statewide, administrative expenses will be reduced.

7. Edison administered appliance recycling programs for itself, SDG&E and PG&E in connection with the 2000 Summer Initiative and should continue to do so for 2002.

8. PG&E's budget for single-family unit rebates for energy efficient equipment is higher on a unit-cost basis than that of the other IOUs.

9. A distinct multi-family residential new construction program can better target builders of multi-family buildings than one that is combined with a single-family program.

10. D.01-11-066 de-emphasized first generation lighting retrofits in favor of more robust energy efficiency programs.

11. First Generation T-8 Lighting refers to the 700 Series lighting with color rendering index (CRI) > 70. Second Generation T-8 Lighting includes Premium T-8 Lamps with electronic ballasts, replacing existing T-12 lamps and magnetic ballasts. "Premium" means minimum rated life (at 3 hour start rating) of 24,000 hours with rapid-start ballasts or 18,000 hours with instant-start ballasts. Lamps must have a CRI > 85. Third Generation T-8 Lighting includes Premium T-8 plus the following characteristics: Lamps - initial (catalog) lumen output > 3100; ballasts - ballast factor < 0.77.

12. There is a free ridership problem in the area of first generation lighting retrofits in certain market sectors, including the large nonresidential customer sector.

13. Allowing consumers to reserve Express Efficiency rebates affords such customers needed certainty when making the decision to perform energy efficiency retrofits.

14. A whole-building approach to energy efficiency retrofits incorporates energy efficiency concepts into the design of an entire construction project, rather than encouraging the installation of a pre-determined menu of energy efficiency measures.

15. Codes and standards upgrades have in the past produced significant energy savings.

16. The marketing and outreach proposals submitted by the ADM, Global, CHEERS, Heath, Geothermal, and SBW do not fit into the category of statewide marketing and outreach programs because they target narrow audiences and do not target individual consumers with mass-market advertising.

17. Of the proposals that fit into the category of statewide marketing and outreach programs, the DCA and Univision statewide marketing and outreach proposals received the highest scores.

18. The IOUs included their marketing and outreach plans in connection with individual programs, and did not justify why they need separate funding in the statewide marketing and outreach category.

19. Information and training programs present special challenges when it comes to determining whether they are effective.

20. Past utility incentives for energy efficiency programs have allowed IOU shareholders to collect profits for IOU energy efficiency efforts.

21. Fulfillment of the Commission's energy efficiency program design requires that the IOUs spend allotted funding on selected programs. Excessive fund shifting will upset this careful balance.

Conclusions of Law

22. The Commission has the discretion to modify the IOUs' proposals.

23. Under D.01-11-066, energy efficiency program dollars may not be spent on load-shifting programs that rely only on temporary or impermanent behavioral change.

24. The IOUs should not be awarded statewide marketing and outreach funding beyond the funding already included for marketing and outreach purposes in their individual program budgets.

25. Providers of information and training programs should not receive their final quarterly payments unless the Commission "accepts" their final quarterly reports. "Acceptance" requires that the Commission or its representative indicate that it is satisfied that the provider has met program goals.

26. Providers will be eligible to recover reasonable program expenditures (within the allotted budget) during the funding cycle, subject to refund after a reasonableness review.

27. Utility incentives are not necessary to ensure delivery of successful energy efficiency programs.

28. The Commission's decision to eliminate IOU incentives does not violate the Federal Energy Policy Act.

29. The Commission was not required to hold a hearing before changing the utility incentive structure.

INTERIM ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that:

30. We approve the statewide energy efficiency programs for 2002 as set forth in Attachment 1 to this decision. Those programs apply to Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), Southern California Edison Company (Edison), San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E), and Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas). Those investor-owned utilities (IOU) and third parties chosen to receive funding shall be eligible for no more than the amounts awarded. Program payments shall be contingent on reasonable program performance.

31. All programs receiving funding shall file and serve, within 60 days from the date the Commission approves this decision, Program Implementation Plans (Plans) for each funded program. Each party shall also post their Plans on their websites in a prominent and easy-to-find location. At a minimum, the Plans shall contain the following information:

· Title of individual program

· Plans to implement this decision's changes to original proposals

· Revised energy and peak demand savings targets, as well as per-unit energy savings and unit-count projections, as applicable

· Revised cost-effectiveness calculations, as applicable

· For information-only proposals with no energy savings targets, other objective measures for evaluating program progress

· Hard-to-reach targets and goals. Where this decision does not specify such targets and goals, the program implementer should define them in its Plan. Where this decision specifies such targets and goals, they should be included in the Plan.

· Budget (in the format and following the guidelines set forth in the body of this decision).

No party shall delay program commencement or preparation pending submission of or Commission action on these plans.

32. Where third parties receive funding, Edison, the IOU administering the third party contracts, shall see to it that the funded party files and serves the required Program Implementation Plan. The third party will not be eligible to receive any funding without making such submission.

33. Edison shall execute third-party contracts with DCA and Univision, respectively, within 30 days of the effective date of this decision. DCA and Univision shall not receive program payments if they are not in compliance with their IOU contracts. If the parties cannot agree on contract language, they shall immediately contact the assigned Administrative Law Judge to seek a resolution.

34. At least 50% of the mailed statewide residential Home Energy Efficiency Surveys shall be sent to hard-to-reach customers. The IOUs shall develop and make available a Spanish-language version of the survey, and a version in the most prevalent Asian language in the IOU's territory, for both mailing and web-posting within two months of the launch of their survey programs.

35. To ensure that Public Goods Charge (PGC) funds are devoted to hard-to-reach customers served by the statewide residential new construction program, 20% of the direct implementation funds allocated to this program shall be reserved for units constructed for hard-to-reach customers as defined in this decision and in D.01-11-066.

36. At least 15% of the statewide Upstream Residential Lighting Program rebate dollars shall be reserved for rural areas, in order to enhance service to hard-to-reach customers.

37. The IOUs shall develop two separate budgets and program plans for single-family and multi-family residential new construction programs in their Program Implementation Plans. Edison and SDG&E shall include benchmarks for multi-family units with their Plans; PG&E and SoCalGas have already done so and need not do so in their Plans. At least 15% of all claimed installations of energy efficiency measures shall be verified with an inspection by a CHEERS or HERS-certified inspector.

38. The IOUs shall cooperate with third parties in carrying out nonresidential Standard Performance Contract (SPC) programs approved in this decision.

39. At least seventy percent (70%) of the IOUs' nonresidential SPC funds shall be reserved for non-lighting retrofits.

40. Large nonresidential customers carrying out first generation energy efficient lighting retrofits shall not receive financial incentives from PGC funds.

41. The IOUs shall make available a rebate reservation system in connection with their Express Efficiency programs.

42. The IOUs shall jointly develop standard nonresidential building operator certification and training curricula, testing and other certification standards, in consultation with the Energy Division. The IOUs should develop the standard training curricula, testing and other certification standards and submit them for the Commission's or assigned Commissioner's approval no later than 30 days after issuance of this decision. The IOUs should be able to roll out their programs within 30 days after the Commission or the assigned Commissioner approves these standards. The Commission will retain ownership of the curricula and other aspects of the training programs the IOUs develop in connection with Building Operator Certification and Training Programs.

43. The IOUs shall reserve 50% of their Savings by Design direct implementation funds for projects that use a whole-building approach.

44. Edison shall contract with the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) and PG&E shall contract with Univision Television Group (Univision) to carry out the statewide marketing and outreach programs we approve in this decision. The contracts shall ensure that third parties do not use PGC funding for conservation and/or load-shifting messages that rely only on temporary or impermanent behavioral change. Edison and PG&E shall not make payments to the DCA and/or Univision unless this requirement is met. DCA and Univision will have ultimate responsibility for advertising content as long as it is consistent with this decision.

45. DCA and Univision shall consult with IOU energy efficiency program managers to coordinate the timing of statewide and IOU messages and programs. The DCA shall use a portion of its funding to update its website to include information on all Commission-funded statewide and local energy efficiency programs. DCA shall be responsible to secure this information at least twice during the program year and to update its web information as it receives updates from program providers.

46. The IOUs shall work together to market their statewide programs. To the extent the IOUs offer the same programs, they shall advertise them together. The IOUs shall keep the Energy Division informed in their Program Implementation Plans and quarterly reports of what they are doing or will do to further this collaborative goal. They shall focus all PGC-funded marketing for programs in this decision on energy efficiency messages.

47. Providers of information and training programs shall not be entitled to retain their final quarterly payments unless the Commission or the assigned Commissioner accepts their final quarterly reports. "Acceptance" requires that the Commission, assigned Commissioner or ALJ indicate satisfaction that the provider has acted reasonably in attempting to meet program goals. This requirement is in addition to any other requirement of this decision. With their final quarterly reports, program providers shall submit sufficient documentation for the Commission to determine whether the program has met its goals. Program providers, including third parties, shall prominently post all quarterly reports on their respective websites.

48. All program providers shall submit claims, supported by detailed documentation, for the final 15% of funding for programs with energy savings targets. These providers shall be required to refund their 15% payments, or a portion thereof, if the Commission, assigned Commissioner or ALJ determines that the provider has unreasonably failed to meet program goals. The 15% payment is also contingent on other specific requirements identified in the decision. Program providers shall prominently post their 15% claims, and all quarterly reports, on their respective websites.

49. In addition to the requirements set forth in Decision 01-11-066 and the Energy Efficiency Policy Manual, the IOUs receiving funding for Emerging Technology programs shall state in their quarterly reports how PGC energy efficiency funding is helping to move new energy efficiency technologies to market.

50. The IOUs shall better identify hard-to-reach targets in their Program Implementation Plans. They also shall comply with the hard-to-reach requirements we impose in this decision as set forth in Ordering Paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 above. A portion of the final 15% of program funding will be contingent on meeting these hard-to-reach targets. In the case of information and training programs, all or a part of the final quarterly payments will be subject to refund for unreasonable failure to meet such targets, proportionately to such failure.

51. The IOUs shall not receive shareholder incentives in connection with their 2002 energy efficiency programs approved in this decision. They shall reallocate such incentives to direct program implementation costs.

52. We will not allow the IOUs to shift program funds across program categories except as set forth in this Ordering Paragraph. Within the following categories, the IOUs may shift no more than 10% of one program's funds into another program in the same category. The IOU may only make the shift if and when it appears that after substantial efforts the IOU will be unable to use the program funding for the intended purpose.

Categories:

· Statewide Residential Retrofit

· Statewide Residential New Construction

· Statewide Nonresidential Retrofit

· Statewide Nonresidential New Construction

· Statewide Cross-Cutting (except Codes and Standards Advocacy)

The IOUs shall prominently disclose any such program fund shifting in their quarterly reports. They may make a motion to the assigned ALJ, to whom we delegate authority to alter the 10% limitation, where proven necessary for program success or to avoid program failure.

53. In all cases, consistent with D.01-11-066, the Commission retains the right to withdraw, withhold or require refund of program funds in the event of complete or partial program failure, malfeasance and/or bankruptcy.

54. To avoid service disruption, we extend current program funding for local programs for another two months, to May 31, 2002, at the following levels:

Utility	Authorized funding
PG&E	$1,195,920
SCE	$905,300
SDG&E	$377,190
SCG	$271,590
Total	$2,750,000

This order is effective today.

Dated March 21, 2002, at San Francisco, California.

LORETTA M. LYNCH

President

CARL W. WOOD

GEOFFREY F. BROWN

MICHAEL R. PEEVEY

Commissioners

I dissent.

/s/ HENRY M. DUQUE

Commissioner

I will file a concurrence.

/s/ CARL W. WOOD
Commissioner

ATTACHMENT 1: PROGRAM BUDGETS AND ENERGY SAVINGS TARGETS

Table 1. Authorized Program Budgets and Funding Sources*

Statewide Programs	PG&E	SCE	SDG&E	SoCalGas	Total
Residential Retrofit Programs
Appliance Recycling	$1,680,000	$4,000,000	$1,000,000		$6,680,000
Single Family Energy Efficiency Rebates	$12,816,000	$5,850,000	$3,197,000	$2,598,000	$24,461,000
Muti Family Energy Efficiency Rebates	$3,304,000	$2,000,000	$1,500,000	$1,500,000	$8,304,000
Home Energy Efficiency Surveys	$900,000	$900,000	$200,000	$150,000	$2,150,000
Residential Retrofit Sub-Total	$18,700,000	$12,750,000	$5,897,000	$4,248,000	$41,595,000
Residential New Construction Programs
CA Energy Star New Homes Program	$6,520,000	$4,000,000	$2,058,000	$1,484,000	$14,062,000
Nonresidential Retrofit Programs
Standard Performance Contract	$7,800,000	$9,650,000	$2,700,000		$20,150,000
Express Efficiency	$11,607,000	$6,000,000	$3,104,000	$2,433,000	$23,144,000
Nonresidential Energy Audit	$2,650,000	$1,400,000	$700,000	$2,400,000	$7,150,000
Building Operator Certification and Training	$258,000	$500,000	$150,000	$150,000	$1,058,000
Emerging Technologies	$300,000	$650,000	$80,000	$150,000	$1,180,000
Savings By Design - Retrofit & Remodelling		$700,000	$400,000		$1,100,000
Nonresidential Retrofit Sub-Total	$22,615,000	$18,900,000	$7,134,000	$5,133,000	$53,782,000
Nonresidential New Construction Programs
Savings by Design - New Construction	$8,700,000	$6,974,000	$2,743,000	$1,973,000	$20,390,000
Statewide Crosscutting Programs
Education and Training	$1,069,000	$3,813,000	$1,100,000	$1,374,000	$7,356,000
Savings by Design (Info and Educ./EDR)	$1,007,000				$1,007,000
Codes & Standards Advocacy	$818,000	$887,500	$100,000	$150,000	$1,955,500
Upstream Residential Lighting	$5,803,000	$1,999,500	$1,543,000		$9,345,500
Emerging Technologies				$450,000	$450,000
Statewide Crosscutting Sub-Total	$8,697,000	$6,700,000	$2,743,000	$1,974,000	$20,114,000
Statewide Marketing and Outreach
Department of Consumer Affairs	$3,483,329	$2,683,797	$1,099,155	$790,719	$8,057,000
UnivisionTelevision Group	$864,671	$666,203	$272,845	$196,281	$2,000,000
Statewide Marketing Campaigns Sub-Total	$4,348,000	$3,350,000	$1,372,000	$987,000	$10,057,000
STATEWIDE PROGRAMS TOTAL	$69,580,000	$52,674,000	$21,947,000	$15,799,000	$160,000,000

* Excludes $10.5 million for statewide Market Assessment & Evaluation Studies shown in Table 2 of this attachment.

Table 2a. Energy Savings Targets and Budgets for PG&E Statewide Programs

	PG&E
	Energy Reduction Targets (kWh)	Demand Reduction Targets (kW)	Energy Reduction Targets (ths)	Program Budget	EM&V Budget*	Total Budget
Residential Retrofit Programs
Residential Appliance Recycling	20,620,800	3,168		$1,680,000	$141,000	$1,821,000
Single Family EE Rebates	16,767,505	18,910	1,426,372	$12,816,000	$269,000	$13,085,000
Multi Family EE Rebates	3,751,245	4,420	708,970	$3,304,000	$179,000	$3,483,000
Home Energy Efficiency Surveys				$900,000	$107,000	$1,007,000
Residential Retrofit Totals	48,724,712	27,003	2,369,827	$18,700,000	$696,000	$19,396,000
Residential New Construction Programs
CA Energy Star New Homes Program	3,914,428	4,204	259,580	$6,520,000	$285,000	$6,805,000
Residential New Construction Totals	3,914,428	4,204	259,580	$6,520,000	$285,000	$6,805,000
Nonresidential Retrofit Programs
Standard Perform. Contract	15,734,455	3,147	1,493,187	$7,800,000	$250,000	$8,050,000
Express Efficiency	155,382,003	29,288	8,761	$11,607,000	$320,000	$11,927,000
Energy Audit				$2,650,000	$228,000	$2,878,000
Building Operator Cert. and Training				$258,000	$35,000	$293,000
Emerging Technologies				$300,000	$43,000	$343,000
Nonresidential Retrofit Totals	171,116,458	32,435	1,501,948	$22,615,000	$876,000	$23,491,000
Nonresidential New Construction Programs
Savings by Design - New Construction	35,000,000	14,800	300,000	$9,707,000	$339,000	$10,046,000
Nonresidential New Construction Totals	35,000,000	14,800	300,000	$9,707,000	$339,000	$10,046,000
Statewide Crosscutting Programs
Education and Training				$1,069,000	$137,000	$1,206,000
Codes & Standards Advocacy				$818,000	$28,000	$846,000
Upstream Residential Lighting	322,000,000	50,000	0	$5,803,000	$185,000	$5,988,000
Statewide Crosscutting Total	322,000,000	50,000	0	$7,690,000	$350,000	$8,040,000
Total PG&E Statewide Programs	580,755,598	128,442	4,431,355	$65,232,000	$2,546,000	$67,778,000

* Excludes the budget for Additional Evaluation of Cross-cutting Programs as shown in Table 2, Attachment 1.

Table 2b. Energy Savings Targets and Budgets for SCE Statewide Programs

	Edison
	Energy Reduction Targets (kWh)	Demand Reduction Targets (kW)	Program Budget	EM&V Budget*	Total Budget
Residential Retrofit Programs
Residential Appliance Recycling	42,939,291	597	$4,000,000	$107,000	$4,107,000
Single Family EE Rebates	19,039,000	6,770	$5,850,000	$203,000	$6,053,000
Multi Family EE Rebates	8,850,000	1,090	$2,000,000	$136,000	$2,136,000
Home Energy Efficiency Surveys			$900,000	$81,000	$981,000
Residential Retrofit Totals	70,828,291	8,457	$12,750,000	$527,000	$13,277,000
Residential New Construction Programs
CA Energy Star New Homes Program	3,156,000	3,390	$4,000,000	$216,000	$4,216,000
Residential New Construction Totals	3,156,000	3,390	$4,000,000	$216,000	$4,216,000
Nonresidential Retrofit Programs
Standard Perform. Contract	41,719,000	8,620	$9,650,000	$189,000	$9,839,000
Express Efficiency	64,303,000	13,930	$6,000,000	$242,000	$6,242,000
Energy Audit			$1,400,000	$173,000	$1,573,000
Building Operator Cert. and Training			$500,000	$26,000	$526,000
Emerging Technologies			$650,000	$33,000	$683,000
Nonresidential Retrofit Totals	106,022,000	22,250	$18,200,000	$663,000	$18,863,000
Nonresidential New Construction Programs
Savings by Design - New Construction	33,256,000	7,780	$7,674,000	$256,000	$7,930,000
Nonresidential New Construction Totals	33,256,000	7,780	$7,674,000	$256,000	$7,930,000
Statewide Crosscutting Programs
Education and Training			$3,813,000	$104,000	$3,917,000
Codes & Standards Advocacy			$887,500	$21,000	$908,500
Upstream Residential Lighting	45,000,000	4,170	$1,999,500	$140,000	$2,139,500
Statewide Crosscutting Total	45,000,000	4,170	$6,700,000	$265,000	$6,965,000
Total Edison Statewide Programs	258,262,291	46,347	$49,324,000	$1,927,000	$51,251,000

* Excludes the budget for Additional Evaluation of Cross-cutting Programs as shown in Table 3a, Attachment 1.

Table 2c. Energy Savings Targets and Budgets for SDG&E Statewide Programs

	SDG&E
	Energy Reduction Targets (kWh)	Demand Reduction Targets (kW)	Energy Reduction Targets (ths)	Program Budget	EM&V Budget*	Total Budget
Residential Retrofit Programs
Residential Appliance Recycling	12,243,600	1,881	0	$1,000,000	$45,000	$1,045,000
Single Family EE Rebates	8,466,000	6,460	336,893	$3,197,000	$85,000	$3,282,000
Multi Family EE Rebates	2,440,484	840	279,599	$1,500,000	$57,000	$1,557,000
Home Energy Efficiency Surveys				$200,000	$34,000	$234,000
Residential Retrofit Totals	26,531,100	10,315	616,492	$5,897,000	$221,000	$6,118,000
Residential New Construction Programs
CA Energy Star New Homes Program	1,262,000	1,350	93,856	$2,058,000	$90,000	$2,148,000
Residential New Construction Totals	1,262,000	1,350	93,856	$2,058,000	$90,000	$2,148,000
Nonresidential Retrofit Programs
Standard Perform. Contract	8,568,000	1,070	186,089	$2,700,000	$79,000	$2,779,000
Express Efficiency	47,452,000	9,040	607,310	$3,104,000	$101,000	$3,205,000
Energy Audit				$700,000	$72,000	$772,000
Building Operator Cert. and Training				$150,000	$11,000	$161,000
Emerging Technologies				$80,000	$14,000	$94,000
Nonresidential Retrofit Totals	56,020,000	10,110	793,399	$6,734,000	$277,000	$7,011,000
Nonresidential New Construction Programs
Savings by Design - New Construction	10,832,000	2,090	141,784	$3,143,000	$107,000	$3,250,000
Nonresidential New Construction Totals	10,832,000	2,090	141,784	$3,143,000	$107,000	$3,250,000
Statewide Crosscutting Programs
Education and Training				$1,100,000	$43,000	$1,143,000
Codes & Standards Advocacy				$100,000	$9,000	$109,000
Upstream Residential Lighting	36,400,000	5,300	0	$1,543,000	$58,000	$1,601,000
Statewide Crosscutting Total	36,400,000	5,300	0	$2,743,000	$110,000	$2,853,000
Total SDG&E Statewide Programs	131,045,100	31,865	1,645,531	$20,575,000	$805,000	$21,380,000

* Excludes the budget for Additional Evaluation of Cross-cutting Programs as shown in Table 3a, Attachment 1.

Table 2d. Energy Savings Targets and Budgets for SoCalGas Statewide Programs

	SoCalGas
	Energy Reduction Targets (kWh)	Demand Reduction Targets (kW)	Energy Reduction Targets (ths)	Program Budget	EM&V Budget*	Total Budget
Residential Retrofit Programs
Residential Appliance Recycling					$32,000	$32,000
Single Family EE Rebates	2,586,000	1,380	925,000	$2,598,000	$61,000	$2,659,000
Multi Family EE Rebates	2,440,484	840	575,000	$1,500,000	$41,000	$1,541,000
Home Energy Efficiency Surveys				$150,000	$24,000	$174,000
Residential Retrofit Totals	7,600,800	2,980	1,500,000	$4,248,000	$158,000	$4,406,000
Residential New Construction Programs
CA Energy Star New Homes Program	521,000	4,000	86,000	$1,484,000	$65,000	$1,549,000
Residential New Construction Totals	521,000	4,000	86,000	$1,484,000	$65,000	$1,549,000
Nonresidential Retrofit Programs
Standard Perform. Contract					$57,000	$57,000
Express Efficiency	17,000	0	2,190,000	$2,433,000	$73,000	$2,506,000
Energy Audit				$2,400,000	$52,000	$2,452,000
Building Operator Cert. and Training				$150,000	$8,000	$158,000
Emerging Technologies				$600,000	$10,000	$610,000
Nonresidential Retrofit Totals	17,000	0	2,190,000	$5,583,000	$200,000	$5,783,000
Nonresidential New Construction Programs
Savings by Design - New Construction	8,486,000	4,630	49,000	$1,973,000	$77,000	$2,050,000
Nonresidential New Construction Totals	8,486,000	4,630	49,000	$1,973,000	$77,000	$2,050,000
Statewide Crosscutting Programs
Education and Training				$1,374,000	$31,000	$1,405,000
Codes & Standards Advocacy				$150,000	$6,000	$156,000
Upstream Residential Lighting	0	0	0		$42,000	$42,000
Statewide Crosscutting Total	0	0	0	$1,524,000	$79,000	$1,603,000
Total SoCalGas Statewide Programs	16,624,800	11,610	3,825,000	$14,812,000	$579,000	$15,391,000

* Excludes the budget for Additional Evaluation of Cross-cutting Programs as shown in Table 3a, Attachment 1.

(END OF ATTACHMENT 1)

ATTACHMENT 2: DATA REQUEST TO DCA

From: Drew, Tim

Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 12:36 PM

To: 'kathleen_hamilton@dca.ca.gov'

Cc: Kollman, Eli W.

Subject: R0108028 Flex Your Power proposal information request

Dear Ms. Hamilton,

Please find the attached information request regarding the DCA proposal to fund Flex Your Power through the public goods charge. I thank you in advance for your response. If you have any questions please contact me at 415-703-5618 or Eli Kollman at 415-703-5649.

Sincerely,

Tim Drew

Tim Drew

Policy Analyst - Energy Division

California Public Utilities Commission

(415) 703-5618

zap@cpuc.ca.gov

STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, Governor

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

505 VAN NESS AVENUE

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298

Friday, January 11, 2002

Kathleen Hamilton

Director

Department of Consumer Affairs

400 R Street, Suite 3000

Sacramento, CA 95814-6200

Re: R. 01-08-028 DCA Energy Efficiency Marketing and Outreach proposal for funding to continue the Flex Your Power statewide information campaign.

Dear Ms. Hamilton:

The Energy Division requires additional information to supplement the Department of Consumer Affairs' proposal for funding of energy efficiency marketing and outreach activities.

Please provide responses to the following questions by e-mail to zap@cpuc.ca.gov and ewk@cpuc.ca.gov no later than 5 PM Tuesday, January 15. If you or your staff require clarification please do not hesitate to call Tim Drew at (415)703-5618 or Eli Kollman at (415)703-5649.

Your prompt attention to this matter is appreciated.

Sincerely,

Tim Drew

Regulatory Analyst

Energy Division

Request 1

Please specify all funding for which the DCA has applied or is eligible for its 2002 Flex Your Power program (other than the $10,000,000 requested in your proposal filed with this Commission). Of that amount, please state the amount of funding already committed to the DCA by any source.

Request 2

Have Flex Your Power radio and television messages already been produced for 2002? If so, we would like to see written transcripts, audio recordings or video recordings. Electronic versions of transcripts are preferred in order to save time. Please send hard copies or recordings to:

Tim Drew

California Public Utilities Commission

Energy Division

505 Van Ness Avenue, Area 4A

San Francisco, CA 94102

Request 3

Can the Flex Your Power radio and television advertisements be tailored to stress California's 2002 statewide energy efficiency programs as well as, or in place of, basic conservation?

Request 4

Is the Department of Consumer Affairs open to working with a technical advisory committee, potentially composed of representatives from the CPUC, California Energy Commission and the four investor owned electric and gas utilities?

(END OF ATTACHMENT 2)

ATTACHMENT 3: DCA RESPONSE TO DATA REQUEST

From: Kollman, Eli W.

Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2002 9:30 AM

To: Drew, Tim

Cc:

Subject: FW: R018028 Flex Your Power proposal information request

-----Original Message-----

From: Laurie_Ramirez@dca.ca.gov [mailto:Laurie_Ramirez@dca.ca.gov]

Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2002 5:05 PM

To: ewk@cpuc.ca.gov

Subject: R018028 Flex Your Power proposal information request

Dear Mr. Kollman: Pursuant to your request please find additional

information regarding the Department's proposal. If you require any

further information, please do not hesitate to call me at 916/323-1455.

(See attached file: PUC supplement.doc)

Request 1

The Department of Consumer Affairs has not applied for any funding other than the Energy Efficiency Program Proposal filed with the Public Utilities Commission on December 15, 2001. The Department has received $47.7 million from the "Special Fund for Economic Uncertainties" and $1 million from the General Fund for a total of $48.7 for its 2002 Flex Your Power Campaign. Of this, $13.7 million is budgeted for the January/February 2002 winter advertising campaign; the balance of $35 million is targeted for the Summer of 2002. The 2001 Flex Your Power campaign had a total budget of $61.5 million. It is estimated that the current campaign will require approximately $65 million.

Request 2

The 2002 Flex Your Power campaign has produced, or is in the process of producing, 14 radio and television messages directed to General Market as well as Ethnic markets (Hispanic, Asian and African American). The Department has directed Grey Worldwide Advertising Agency to forward written transcripts for the winter campaign as well as VHS tapes.

Request 3

Future Flex Your Power radio and television messages could be developed to include information about statewide energy efficiency programs, in addition to basic conservation information, if adequate funding were available. The 2001 campaign did provide information on energy efficiency programs and products.

Should the Department develop a plan for informing the public about energy efficiency programs, we would utilize radio and print ads, rather than television spots. Radio and print are the best media for providing the public with the more complex information inherent in energy efficient programs and products. This is because of the longer format of radio (60 seconds, as opposed to television's 30 seconds) and the staying power of printed information.

Request 4

The Department of Consumer Affairs is certainly open to working with a technical advisory committee potentially composed of representatives from the CPUC, the California Energy Commission and the four investor-owned electric and gas utilities.

The Department frequently worked with these entities throughout the 2001 Flex Your Power campaign. As you may know, weekly communications and energy policy meetings currently transpire in Sacramento and include the CPUC, the California Energy Commission, the Department of Consumer Affairs, and occasionally others. During the development and promotion of last year's 20/20 utility rebate program, the Department of Consumer Affairs met regularly with representatives of the four investor-owned utilities. Additionally, when the Department introduced information this past fall on the installation of programmable thermostats, the utilities were consulted. And early in the 2001 campaign the Department sought out presentations from the utilities in order to be briefed on utility public education efforts. We would welcome the opportunity to continue that collaboration

(END OF ATTACHMENT 3)

Thomas, Sarah R.______________________________________________________

From: Drew, Tim

Sent: Monday, January 28, 2002 11:49 AM

To: 'staples'

Cc: Otteson, Sheila M.

Subject: RE: R01-08-028 Univision Prop. for Statewide Marketing &

Research

Mr. Staples:

The CPUC Energy Division has a few follow-up questions regarding the Univision Marketing and Outreach proposal. Please provide responses directly to me on or before 5 PM Thursday, Jan 31. Thanks in advance for your response.

Sincerely,

Tim Drew

(415)703-5618

zap@cpuc.ca.gov

1) Who will be providing technical advice to your group, and what is the process by which you will incorporate this advice into your advertising material?

2) Please revise your budget to show production costs and airtime costs. Please follow the format shown in Appendix B of the Energy Efficiency Policy Manual attached to CPUC Decision 01-11-066.

3) Will your group be available to participate in technical briefings with a committee potentially composed of representatives from CPUC, CEC, IOUs, Department of Consumer Affairs, and the California Power Authority? Meetings may take place in Sacramento.

4) The CPUC is interested in funding messages of energy efficiency (investment in energy saving products) rather than messages of conservation (turning off lights, turning down the heat). Please describe how this will change your proposal, if at all.

-----Original Message-----

From: staples [mailto:staples@staples-ad.com]

Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 1:24 PM

Subject: R01-08-028 Univision Prop. for Statewide Marketing & Research

To all,

Attached to this message is a copy of the Univision Television Group's

proposal for a Statewide Marketing and Outreach Program.

This proposal is 8 pages in length, in Microsoft Word format. If you

have trouble with any portion of this document please call or respond by

e-mail. We will fix the problem and promptly re-submit.

Respectfully yours,

Jim Staples

Office: 262-781-1890

Cel: 414-688-4796

(END OF ATTACHMENT 4)

ATTACHMENT 5: UNIVISION/STAPLES RESPONSE TO DATA REQUEST

From: staples [staples @staples-ad.com]

Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 2:49 PM

To: Drew, Tim

Cc:

Subject: RE: R01-08-028 Univision Prop. for Statewide Marketing &

Research

Mr. Drew:

Attached are...

1) A Word document with answers to questions 1,3, and 4; and 2) An Excel

spreadsheet which answers question 3.

If you have any other questions, or would like any more information,

please call or e-mail. Thanks.

Jim Staples

Ph. 262-781-1890

Fax 262-781-3160

2002 Energy Efficiency Program Selection Statewide Marketing & Outreach

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS

Question 1: Who will be providing technical advice to your group, and what is the process by which you will incorporate this advice into your advertising material?

Answer 1: Technical advice will be provided by Allen Lee, Ph.D., lead evaluator and technical analyst with Xenergy in Oakland. Over the past decade, Dr. Lee has focused on evaluating energy efficiency programs. Xenergy is an energy services and consulting company founded in 1975. A national company, it has offices in Oakland, Anaheim and San Diego.

Question 2: Please revised your budget to show production costs and airtime costs. Please follow the format shown in Appendix B of the Energy Efficiency Policy Manual attached to CPUC Decision 01-11-066.

Answer 2: Please see attached Revised Budget.

Question 3: Will your group be available to participate in technical briefings with a committee potentially composed of representatives from CPUC, CEC, IOUs, Department of Consumer Affairs, and the California Power Authority? Meetings may take place in Sacramento.

Answer 3: Univision will be available to participating in these briefings.

Question 4: The CPUC is interested in funding messages of energy efficiency (investment in energy savings products) rather than messages of conservation (turning off lights, turning down the heat). Please describe how this will change your prporsal, if at all.

Answer 4: The issue at hand is, in part, a matter of semantics. Airing messages regarding energy efficiency will in no way change our proposal. In the past, Univision has promoted the funding of whole-house energy efficient renovations and retrofits with a number of Energy Efficient Mortgage products. More recently, Univision promoted PG&E's 1-2-3 CashbackTM and Residential Contractor Program rebate programs. We anticipate coordinating with the IOUs and other appropriate organizations to help promote their future energy efficiency programs to the Hispanic community...whether they are similar to or different from the aforementioned programs. We here at Univision believe that we can be uniquely effective in overcoming several

2002 Energy Efficiency Program Selection Statewide Marketing & Outreach

barriers that exist among Spanish-speaking and low-income Hispanics. Studies indicate that

Hispanics prefer television to both radio and newspaper-television is a primary source for information. Univision broadcasts in Spanish and offers high quality translation services for converting English-language material to Spanish. Univision is also highly respected and trusted within the Hispanic community. We believe these qualities make Univision an important ally in reaching Spanish-speaking and low-income Hispanics with those energy efficiency messages that CPUC identifies as a priority.

* * *

		(Xenergy, Inc.)
		Administative	Utility Admin	Marketing	Production	Evaluation	Total
		Costs	Costs	Costs	Costs	Costs	Costs
Los Angeles	SCE	3000	23275	420115	8610	15000	$ 470,000
Los Angeles	SoCal Gas	900	6950	124580	2570	4500	$ 139,500
Palm Springs	SCE	240	1860	37070	830	1200	$ 41,200
Palm Springs	SoCal Gas	60	465	9265	210	300	$ 10,300
San Francisco	PG&E	1600	12400	216580	4420	8000	$ 243,000
Fresno	PG&E	1000	7750	133390	2860	5000	$ 150,000
Sacramento	PG&E	900	6975	132125	0	4500	$ 144,500
Monterey-Salinas	PG&E	300	2325	41595	780	1500	$ 46,500
Bakersfield	PG&E	300	2325	36595	780	1500	$ 41,500
Santa Barbara	PG&E	150	1163	23167	520	750	$ 25,750
Chico-Redding	PG&E	150	1162	18428	260	750	$ 20,750
San Diego	SDG&E	1100	8525	156995	3380	5500	$ 175,500
Yuma - El Centro	SDG&E	300	2325	36595	780	1500	$ 41,500
Statewide Total:		$ 10,000	$ 77,500	$1,386,500	$ 26,000	$ 50,000	$1,550,000
Marketing / Advertising / Outreach Costs:
				:10 Energy		Total	Total Avg
	Vignettes	Cost	Average	Reminders	Cost	Spots	Cost
Los Angeles	234	$ 544,695	$ 2,327.76	182	$ -	416	$ 1,309.36
Palm Springs	234	$ 46,335	$ 198.01	182	$ -	416	$ 111.38
San Francisco	234	$ 216,580	$ 925.56	182	$ -	416	$ 520.63
Fresno	234	$ 133,390	$ 570.04	182	$ -	416	$ 320.65
Sacramento	234	$ 132,125	$ 564.64	182	$ -	416	$ 317.61
Monterey-Salinas	234	$ 41,595	$ 177.76	182	$ -	416	$ 99.99
Bakersfield	234	$ 36,595	$ 156.39	182	$ -	416	$ 87.97
Santa Barbara	234	$ 23,167	$ 99.00	182	$ -	416	$ 55.69
Chico-Redding	234	$ 18,428	$ 78.75	182	$ -	416	$ 44.30
San Diego	234	$ 156,995	$ 670.92	182	$ -	416	$ 377.39
Yuma-El Centro	234	$ 36,595	$ 156.39	182	$ -	416	$ 87.97
Statewide Total:	2574	$ 1,386,500	$ 538.66	2002	$ -	4576	$ 302.99
Production / Distribution Costs:
	Hours	Cost/Hour	Total
Talent Fees	1	$ -	$ -
Video	1	$ 250	$ 250
Editing	3	$ 250	$ 750
Total:			$ 1,000
13 Week Total:			$ 13,000
(Univision will produce one spot a week for 13 weeks)
	Tapes	Cost	Total
Dubbing	10	$ 60	$ 600
Distribution	10	$ 40	$ 400
Total:			$ 1,000
13 Week Total:			$ 13,000
(All production will be done in Sacramento, so no
dubbing or distribution charges for this market)
Prepared by:	Univision Television Group
	1710 Arden Way
	Sacramento, California 95815
Prepared for:	California Public Utilties Commission
	Proposal for Statewide Marketing & Outreach
	2002 Energy Efficiency Selection Program
	R.01-08-028
Date:	30-Jan-01

Evaluation, Measurement and Verification Costs
Hispanic Consumer Awareness Survey (pre-campaign study)
	Cost
Booth rental	900
Equipment rental (tables, chairs, electricity)	200
Printed materials (500 survey forms @.15 each)	75
Survey materials (pencils, clipboards etc.)	50
Staffing (16 manhours :two people, 8 hour event)	320
Analysis (32 manhours: Two people, 2 days)	640
Total for pre-campaign study	2,185
Hispanic Consumer Awareness Survey (post-campaign study)
	Cost
Booth rental	900
Equipment rental (tables, chairs, electricity)	200
Printed materials (500 survey forms @.15 each)	75
Survey materials (pencils, clipboards etc.)	50
Staffing (16 manhours :two people, 8 hour event)	320
Analysis (32 manhours: Two people, 2 days)	640
Total for pre-campaign study	2,185
Hispanic Consumer Awareness Survey (post-campaign final analysis)
Analysis (8 manhours: one person, one day)	175.455
Summary:	Cost	# of markets	Total Cost
Pre-campaign study	2,185	11	24,035
Post-campaign study	2,185	11	24,035
Final Analysis	175.455	11	1,930
Total Cost for Evaluation, Measurement and Verification:			50,000

(END OF ATTACHMENT 5)

ATTACHMENT 6
BUDGET FORMAT FOR IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

Titles (i.e., Activity Type A) under Main Categories (i.e., Labor, etc.) may be changed and expanded or contracted in number, but itemization should be maintained to an equivalent degree, and Main Categories (i.e., Labor, as set out in Policy Manual) are to be included as are. If the Category cost is $5000 or less, further itemization is not required.

Program Budget

Item	$	Methodology for Allocation (Footnote if necessary)	Percentage of Total Program Budget
Administrative Costs
Labor
(Activity Type A) e.g., Program Planning
(Activity Type B) e.g., Program Design
(Activity Type C) e.g., Program Implementation
(Activity Type D) e.g., Incentive Processing
Subtotal Labor
Benefits (note if this amount is to be recovered elsewhere)
# of staff @ $xx
# of staff @ $yy
Subtotal Benefits
Overhead
Type A (e.g., Business Resources)
Type B (e.g., Corporate Services)
Type C (e.g., Security)
Type D (e.g., Transportation Services)
Type E (e.g., Information Technology)
Type F (e.g., Procurement and Material Management)
Type G (Shops Services and Instrumentation Division)
Subtotal Overhead
Travel costs
Type A (e.g., Mileage and Parking)
Type B (e.g., Meals)
Type C (e.g., Lodging)

Type D (e.g., Conference Activities)
Type E (e.g., Training Activities)
Subtotal Travel costs
Reporting costs
Report 1
Report 2
Subtotal Reporting costs
Materials & Handling
(e.g., Equipment Purchase)
(e.g., Equipment lease/maintenance)
(e.g., Postage)
(e.g., Organization Support)
Subtotal Materials & Handling
General and Administrative costs
Type 1 (e.g., Regulatory Support)
Type 2 (Mgmt/Admin support)
Type 3 (Communications)
Subtotal General and Administrative costs
Subcontractor Administrative costs (administrative only, report other subcontractor costs in the appropriate category)
Labor
Benefits
Overhead
Travel costs
Reporting costs
Materials & Handling
General and Administrative costs
Subtotal Subcontractor Administrative costs
Total Administrative Costs
Marketing/Advertising/Outreach Costs
Activity A (e.g., 6 brochures, 1000 copies, @ $10 each)
Activity B (e.g., # television spots @ $)
Activity C (e.g., vendor training)
Total Marketing/ Advertising/Outreach Costs
Direct Implementation Costs
Itemized financial incentives · E.g., 100 water heaters @ $75 each
Subtotal Financial Incentives
Itemized installation costs · E.g., 100 14 SEER Central AC units @ $2000 each (installed)
Subtotal Installation costs
Itemized activity costs · E.g., 100 walk-through audits @ $500 each
Subtotal Activity costs
Total Direct Implementation costs
Evaluation, Measurement and Verification Costs
Labor
(Activity Type A)
(Activity Type B)
Subtotal EM&V Labor
Overhead
Type A
Type B
Type C
Type D
Subtotal EM&V Overhead
Travel costs
Type A (e.g., Mileage and Parking)
Type B (e.g., Meals)
Type C (e.g., Lodging)
Reporting costs
Report 1
Report 2
Subtotal EM&V Reporting Costs
Materials & Handling
(e.g., Equipment Purchase)
(e.g., Equipment lease/maintenance)
(e.g., Postage)
Subtotal Materials & Handling
General and Administrative costs
Type 1
Type 2
Type 3
Subtotal General and Administrative costs
Total Evaluation, Measurement and Verification Costs
Other Costs
Itemized, may include: · Profit · Financing costs
Subtract Costs Not Charged to this Program (e.g., benefits recovered by alternate means, as noted above)
Budget Grand Total

(END OF ATTACHMENT 6)

ATTACHMENT 7

ELECTRONIC SERVICE PROTOCOLS

(Page 1)

Party Status in Commission Proceedings

These electronic service protocols are applicable to all "appearances." In accordance with Commission practice, by entering an appearance at a prehearing conference or by other appropriate means, an interested party or protestant gains "party" status. A party to a Commission proceeding has certain rights that non-parties (those in "state service" and "information only" service categories) do not have. For example, a party has the right to participate in evidentiary hearings, file comments on a proposed decision, and appeal a final decision. A party also has the ability to consent to waive or reduce a comment period, and to challenge the assignment of an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). Non-parties do not have these rights, even though they are included on the service list for the proceeding and receive copies of some or all documents.

Service of Documents by Electronic Mail

For the purposes of this proceeding, all appearances shall serve documents by electronic mail, and in turn, shall accept service by electronic mail.

Usual Commission practice requires appearances to serve documents not only on all other appearances but also on all non-parties in the state service category of the service list. For the purposes of this proceeding, appearances shall serve the information only category as well since electronic service minimizes the financial burden that broader service might otherwise entail.

Notice of Availability

If a document, including attachments, exceeds 75 pages, parties may serve a Notice of Availability in lieu of all or part of the document, in accordance with Rule 2.3(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure.

Attachment 7

ELECTRONIC SERVICE PROTOCOLS

(Page 2)

Filing of Documents

These electronic service protocols govern service of documents only, and do not change the rules regarding the tendering of documents for filing. Documents for filing must be tendered in paper form, as described in Rule 2, et seq., of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. Moreover, all filings shall be served in hard copy (as well as e-mail) on the assigned ALJ.

Electronic Service Standards

As an aid to review of documents served electronically, appearances should follow these procedures:

· Merge into a single electronic file the entire document to be served (e.g. title page, table of contents, text, attachments, service list).

· Attach the document file to an electronic note.

· In the subject line of the note, identify the proceeding number; the party sending the document; and the abbreviated title of the document.

· Within the body of the note, identify the word processing program used to create the document. (Commission experience indicates that most recipients can open readily documents sent in Microsoft Word or PDF formats

If the electronic mail is returned to the sender, or the recipient informs the sender of an inability to open the document, the sender shall immediately arrange for alternative service (paper mail shall be the default, unless another means is mutually agreed upon).

Attachment 7

ELECTRONIC SERVICE PROTOCOLS

(Page 3)

Obtaining Up-to-Date Electronic Mail Addresses

The current service lists for active proceedings are available on the Commission's web page, www.cpuc.ca.gov. To obtain an up-to-date service list of e-mail addresses:

Choose "Proceedings" then "Service Lists."

· Scroll through the "Index of Service Lists" to the number for this proceeding.

· To view and copy the electronic addresses for a service list, download the comma-delimited file, and copy the column containing the electronic addresses.

The Commission's Process Office periodically updates service lists to correct errors or to make changes at the request of parties and non-parties on the list. Appearances should copy the current service list from the web page (or obtain paper copy from the Process Office) before serving a document.

Pagination Discrepancies in Documents Served Electronically

Differences among word-processing software can cause pagination differences between documents served electronically and print outs of the original. (If documents are served electronically in PDF format, these differences do not occur.) For the purposes of reference and/or citation in cross-examination and briefing, all parties should use the pagination found in the original document.

(END OF ATTACHMENT 7)

Attachment 8

IOU Local Program Bridge Funding for April and May 2002

Program Areas	PG&E	SCE	SDGE	SCG	Total
Residential Programs	382,800	264,000	121,000	88,000	855,800
Nonresidential Programs	478,500	388,300	150,700	108,900	1,126,400
Cross-Cutting	334,620	253,000	105,490	74,690	767,800
PROGRAM TOTALS	1,195,920	905,300	377,190	271,590	2,750,000

(END OF ATTACHMENT 8)

Attachment 9

Data Requests to Edison re SPC/Express Efficiency Programs

-----Original Message-----

From: Hess, Tuukka D.

Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 5:23 PM

To: 'tory.weber@sce.com'

Subject: SPC/Express Efficiency Data Request

Tory,

The Energy Division requests the following information in excel format, by noon on Tuesday, March 19.

For past period years 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002, and for proposed period year 2002-2003, please provide:

· Measures offered by the SPC program, number of units installed per measure, and energy savings per measure.

· Measures offered by the Express Efficiency program, the number of units installed per measure, and energy savings per measure.

Measures shared by any of these period years should bear the same name. This spreadsheet should clearly detail changes in program mix of measures over time.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Thanks.

Tuukka Hess

Regulatory Analyst

California Public Utilities Commission

(415) 355-5505

tdh@cpuc.ca.gov

(END OF ATTACHMENT 9)

Attachment 10

Edison's Responses to Data Requests re SPC/Express Efficiency Programs

Original Message-----

From: Tory.Weber@sce.com [mailto:Tory.Weber@sce.com]

Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 12:13 PM

To: Hess, Tuukka D.

Subject: Re: SPC/Express Efficiency Data Request

Tuukka,

Here are the spreadsheets for the SPC and Express programs.

(See attached file: Express - All energy savings by measure.xls)(See

attached file: SCE SPC 99-02 TH.xls)

A few notes which apply to both spreadsheets:

Incentive amounts differ from year to year, which should be acknowledged

in any comparison between the years.

Program designs change from year to year, which should also be

acknowledged in any comparison between the years.

All savings amounts are in gross, as the net to gross ratio changes from

year to year.

Measure eligibility changes from year to year.

For SPC, measure drop out percentage information is included. Also, as we

discussed previously, the SPC information is aggregated at the end use

level, as this is the information which is tracked in the SPC tracking

system. The SPC information shows both large and small SPC.

On the Express, the measures are listed alphabetically. I didn't have time

to re-sort them back into end use. If you need this, I could do it with an

hour or two time. Also, the Express measures, the kW is the measure peak,

as that is what is in the tracking system. For most of these measures, the

measure peak is the on-peak reduction, except for the exterior lighting.

The Express numbers do not include the Large Express program results from

2001. For all of the express information, the information reflects the

current status of all projects (for example, the 1999 measures are the

complete 1999 information, not what we had as of 12/31/99, which was

reported in the annual report).

_____________________________________________________

Tory S. Weber

Internal - PAX: 28186 Fax: 26253

External - Ph: (626) 302-8186 Fax: (626) 302-6253

"Hess, Tuukka

D." To: "'tory.weber@sce.com'" <tory.weber@sce.com>

<tdh@cpuc.ca.gov cc:

> Subject: SPC/Express Efficiency Data Request

03/14/2002 05:22

PM

Tory,

The Energy Division requests the following information in excel format, by

noon on Tuesday, March 19.

For past period years 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002, and for proposed

period year 2002-2003, please provide:

· Measures offered by the SPC program, number of units

installed per measure, and energy savings per measure.

· Measures offered by the Express Efficiency program, the

number of units installed per measure, and energy savings per

measure.

Measures shared by any of these period years should bear the same name.

This spreadsheet should clearly detail changes in program mix of measures

over time.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Thanks.

Tuukka Hess

Regulatory Analyst

California Public Utilities Commission

(415) 355-5505

tdh@cpuc.ca.gov

(Please See CPUC Formal Files for
(1) Chart from Edison's Responses to Data Requests re Express Efficiency Program and
(2) Chart from Edison's Responses to Data Requests re SPC Program.)

(END OF ATTACHMENT 10)