APPENDICES A-N Kim
Word Document PDF Document

1. Summary

1.1. Adopted Budgets for 2012-2014 Energy Savings Assistance and California Alternate Rates for Energy Programs

1.2. Key Highlights of 2012-2014 Energy Savings Assistance Program

The IOUs are directed to begin immediate coordination with the Energy Division to convene and begin discussions, on as-needed frequency, with California Department of Community Services and Development (CSD) to develop and implement an effective leveraging plan between the ESA Program and CSD and shall continue their current efforts of utilizing dual providers for ESA and CSD in program delivery, where feasible. For this 2012-2014 cycle, the IOUs shall focus their leveraging effort with CSD in refining the data sharing activities with CSD's Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)/Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) and to devise a CSD leveraging plan.

    Marketing, Education & Outreach (ME&O): We encourage the IOUs to use ESA and CARE Programs' ME&O strategies that embrace and recognize the importance of community, local, regional, ethnic as well as ethnically-owned media as ways of effectively reaching and penetrating some of the most difficult to reach pockets of the low income communities. The IOUs should track and report on the progress of these outreach efforts in their annual report, and the reporting should indicate specific activities and contracts, actual expense, as well as qualitative and quantitative attributes of resulting enrollment from each effort, to illustrate which efforts result in effective outreach and penetration of the most difficult to reach pockets of the low income communities.

We direct the IOUs to continue to conduct their current overall ESA and CARE Programs' ME&O efforts as directed in this decision but to anticipate and make some ME&O mid-cycle adjustments to participate in and align with the overall statewide ME&O activities resulting from
D.12-05-015, the recently issued guidance decision in the general energy efficiency docket, Rulemaking
(R.) 09-11-014. We direct the IOUs to file their statewide ME&O applications incorporating low income programs' ME&O issues by August 3, 2012 as ordered in D.12-05-015.

    Program Delivery and Design: Without overhauling the ESA Program delivery model, we direct the IOUs to implement the delivery enhancements we approve in this decision based upon lessons learned to date and the recommendations from the 2009 Process Evaluation Report, including review and update of the property owner waiver and co-pay forms. The property owner waiver and co-pay forms should be simplified, made uniform among the IOUs and made available in languages other than English, if there is sufficient need justifying such expenditure. Once fully implemented, SCE should report to the other IOUs on the effectiveness of its integrated schedule manager and routing tool for possible statewide adoption. These process and delivery enhancements should help the ESA Program (1) move towards paperless operations, and (2) provide outreach and assessment contractors with more information before getting into a home to better prepare and enable them to understand that household and tailor measures to the household, while also reducing visits, wherever feasible, to complete installations in a single visit.

    The IOUs are directed to integrate their Home Energy Efficiency Surveys programs and the California Integrated Customer Energy Audit Tool into the ESA Program so that ESA contractors can use this information for easier enrollments and assessments.

    Working Groups (ESA Program WE&T Working Group and Mid-Cycle Working Group): Within 60 days of the effective date of this decision, the Energy Division is directed to form an ESA Program WE&T Working Group and a Mid-Cycle Working Group to review those components of the Commission's ESA and CARE Programs to make recommendations for refinements to improve, wherever possible, the design, administration, delivery and ultimate success of these programs. Final Report and Recommendation by the ESA Program WE&T Working Group and Mid-Cycle Working Group are due July 15, 2013.

    Cost-effectiveness Working Group: Within 60 days of the effective date of this decision, the Energy Division is directed to form an ESA Program Cost-effectiveness (CE) Working Group. By February 15, 2013, the Energy Division must issue a white paper on the subjects of the ESA Program's cost-effectiveness methodology as well as framework.

By March 15, 2013, the CE Working Group shall convene a minimum of two public workshops, and by July 15, 2013, the CE Working Group shall submit to the assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) its Final Proposal and Recommendation. The ALJ thereafter shall circulate the Recommendation for comments to the service list of this proceeding. The final Recommendation for any proposed revised cost-effectiveness methodology and framework must be forward looking and shall take into account the ESA Program goals and the goals of the Strategic Plan.

    Refrigerator Replacement Criteria: We approve the proposed change to the ESA Program refrigerator replacement criteria from pre-1993 units to pre-1999 units.

    Eight Immediate Multifamily Segment Strategies: As the first prong of a parallel, two-pronged approach, we direct the IOUs to immediately begin improving their penetration of the multifamily segment of the low income population, with the eight immediate Multifamily Segment Strategies, including additional measure offerings. The IOUs are directed to immediately roll out the following strategies: (1) Whole Neighborhood Approach; (2) Property Owner Waiver Update; (3) Updated Marketing Approach to Multifamily Homes; (4) EUC/MIDI/MFEER Coordination; (5) Single Point of Contact; (6) Same Day Enrollment, Assessment, and Installation; (7) Streamline Practice and Service Delivery; and (8) Providing Feasible Measures for Multifamily Segment Including Retention of Certain Measures Proposed for Retirement for program cycle 2012-2014.

    Comprehensive Multifamily Segment Strategies: As the second and complementary part of this parallel, two-pronged approach, we direct the IOUs to take the following planning activities during the second phase of this proceeding toward developing a set of comprehensive Multifamily Segment Strategies. The IOUs must establish a consultant budget, authorized at $400,000, and provide a framework and directions to contract a consultant for immediate and full examination of the Multifamily Segment issue to devise a full set of comprehensive Multifamily Segment Strategies. Specifically, the IOUs are directed to begin developing and advancing more long-term and comprehensive multifamily segment strategies as ordered in this decision. A consultant shall be hired, and final report is due prior to June 14, 2013, with recurring stakeholder workshops held throughout and leading to its development.

    Expedited Enrollment Proposal, Housing Subsidy and Income Definition: In addition to the two-pronged multifamily approach we order in this decision and while the multifamily consultant process during the second phase of this proceeding is underway, the Commission intends to further examine and develop an informed record regarding NCLC's proposed multifamily expedited enrollment process, including identifying and examining relevant legal and operational hurdles (e.g., housing subsidy and definition of income, and potential need for memorandum of agreement or understanding with other potential partner agency(ies)), toward development of feasible expedited enrollment process. The ALJ has already made an expedited request for staff's legal analysis and recommendation to lay the foundation for this examination and anticipates issuance of a ruling setting briefing schedule after the decision is issued.

    Energy Education Study: We approve the request for a $300,000 for shared energy education evaluation study by the IOUs.

    Leave-Behind Energy Education DVD: We approve SoCalGas' request for $65,000 for leave-behind energy education DVDs.

    New Joint Impact Evaluation: We approve and authorize a budget and framework for the joint Impact Evaluation, as proposed and described in SCE's testimony, and direct that the Energy Division and the IOUs take all actions reasonably necessary to ensure that by no later than August 31, 2013, the Final Impact Evaluation Report is posted on Energy Division's Public Download Area website: http://www.energydataweb.com/).

    New Low Income Needs Assessment Study: We direct and authorize a budget and framework for an updated Low Income Needs Assessment Study and direct that the Energy Division and the IOUs take all actions reasonably necessary to ensure that by no later than August 31, 2013, the Final Needs Assessment Study is posted on Energy Division's Public Download Area website: ( http://www.energydataweb.com/).

    IOUs' Quarterly Public Meetings: The IOUs' Quarterly Public Meetings which had initially been mandated by D.06-12-038, shall be modified as follows: (1) The IOUs are relieved of the Quarterly Public Meetings ordered in
    D.06-12-038; (2) The IOUs shall convene a minimum of one public meeting per year, within 60 days of their filing of the annual report, and other public meetings as deemed necessary by the IOUs, the Energy Division, the ALJ, or the Commission; and (3) In the upcoming 2012-2014 program cycle, IOUs are directed to use the IOUs' public meetings as a forum to host the working groups ordered in this decision.

1.3. Key Highlights of 2012-2014 California Alternate Rates for Energy Program

Enrollment Review: We retain the 90% CARE penetration target we established in D.08-11-031. However, we emphasize, that in this cycle and going forward, the IOUs shall enhance their Post Enrollment Verification as directed in this decision and direct their CARE enrollment activities toward ensuring and delivering the CARE Program benefits to only those eligible customers for whom it was designed.

Aggressive and Tailored Outreach: We recognize and therefore direct the IOUs to employ more focused and aggressive outreach strategies to maintain and increase the current penetration rates to offset the number of customers lost through attrition factors, and to further streamline the program administration toward cost-effectively identifying, targeting and reaching the remaining hardest to reach CARE eligible population.

Categorical Eligibility and Enrollment Program: The IOUs are directed to retain and follow our current Categorical Eligibility and Enrollment Program to continue to allow continued ease of access for enrolling customers into the CARE Program. The IOUs are also directed to jointly review and submit, by Tier 2 Advice Letter, a list of proposed categorical eligibility low income programs with income thresholds consistent with the CARE and ESA Programs annually by January 31st, and the Energy Division will review the proposed list and issue an annual letter listing approved categorical eligibility programs along with the annual CARE income guideline letter on April 1st each year.

Post Enrollment Verification: The IOUs are directed to develop and implement interim and long term stratified probability Post Enrollment Verification models as directed in this decision to cost-effectively identify and income verify those enrollees who have the probability of being ineligible in the program, while tailoring the models to each of the IOUs' territory that incorporate basic probability factors, inputs, populations and costs. Each IOU shall develop and begin implementing its interim probability model within 60 days of this decision. The IOUs are directed to track, monitor and report the number and specific reasons for each CARE customer de-enrolled during the Post Enrollment Verification process (e.g. customer non-response to the IOUs' request for income verification, deemed ineligible for the program, etc.) as well as how that customer was initially enrolled in the CARE Program (e.g., capitation agency, self-certification, categorical enrollment, etc.). Each IOU shall, based on the lessons learned through implementation of the interim models, devise a long term Post Enrollment Verification probability model as well as optimal verification rate and submit them for review by September 2013, by Tier 2 Advice Letter.

Re-certifications: All CARE re-certifications shall require income documentation verification for renewal. No customers shall be allowed to self-recertify without providing income documentation. As an exception to this rule, in lieu of income documentation, CARE customers who have been income verified by a qualifying categorical eligible low income program may recertify by submitting proof of enrollment in an approved categorical eligibility program.

Cooperation with Income Verification Process: We approve SCE's request for CARE customers who fail to respond to an income verification request be barred from self-certified re-enrollment in the CARE Program for 24 months. However, if at any time during the 24 months a de-enrolled customer verifies income eligibility, they must be placed back on the CARE rate. After 24 months, those de-enrolled customers may be able to enroll in CARE by again self-certifying their household and income eligibility. To ensure consistency statewide, all of the IOUs are directed to implement this CARE Program rule change proposed by SCE.

Capitation Fee Increase: We approve an increase in the capitation fee from "up to $15.00" to "up to $20.00" for each new CARE enrollment for program year 2012-2014, and similarly approve that increased capitation fee cap to apply statewide to all IOUs.

CARE High Usage Customers: We approve PG&E's proposed CARE Program changes, as modified below, to address the electric users on the CARE rate whose usage exceeds 400% of the baseline in any monthly billing cycle, and direct all of the electric IOUs (PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E) to implement the statewide program changes, which includes the following new rules:

(1) 600% or more above baseline users: CARE electric customers with electric usage above 600% of baseline in any monthly billing cycle will have 90 days to drop usage substantially or be de-enrolled and barred from the program for 24 months. In addition, to continue to stay in the program, these customers must undergo Post Enrollment Verification and apply for the Energy Savings Assistance Program within 45 days of notice. We also direct the IOUs to develop an expedited appeals process so that customers with legitimate high usage can demonstrate the need for their usage levels.

(2) 400% - 600% baseline users: CARE electric customers with electric usage at 400%-600% of baseline in any monthly billing cycle must undergo Post Enrollment Verification and, if not previously enrolled in the program, apply for the ESA Program within 45 days of notice.

2.1. ESA Program Overview

2.2. CARE Program Overview

2.3. Procedural Background

Workshop #1 [Overview of Lessons Learned]: Review of major ESA and CARE Programs related studies, pilots and reports since D.08-11-031, including (1) Final Report on Low Income Energy Efficiency Program, 2009-2010 Process Evaluation (The 2009 Process Evaluation), and (2) Final Report on Impact Evaluation of the 2009 California Low Income Energy Efficiency Program (The 2009 Impact Evaluation).

Workshop #2 [Review of ESA Program]: Review of overall effectiveness of the ESA Program in reaching the energy saving Strategic Plan goals, and cost effectiveness of ESA Program, including examination of potential barriers to energy savings, methods of removing barriers to energy savings and review of delivery models.

Workshop #3 [Cost Effectiveness Methodology and Measures]: Discussion and review of cost effectiveness at the measure level, including discussion on cost effectiveness methodology and what and how measures are added, deleted, etc.

Workshop #4 [Multi-Family Sector Issues]: Review of multifamily sector needs, proposals, and any related operational and legal concerns.

Workshop #5 [Workforce, Education and Training]: Review of workforce, education and training issues, including review of current contractor selection and bidding process.

Workshop #6 [Outreach and Enrollment]: Review of current ESA Program outreach and enrollment practices/efforts and ways to improve them to reach the Strategic Plan goals, including any energy education proposal.

Workshop #7 [Review of CARE Program]: Review of current CARE Program, including re-certification, categorical eligibility, high usage customers and CARE Program complaint and oversight.

Workshop #8 [Working Groups, Pilots and Studies]: Review of potential ongoing working groups, pilots and studies to improve the ESAP and CARE Program in the near-term and longer term, including standardizing Utilities' various reports.

3.1. Integration of Low Income Programs with Other Utility Demand-Side Programs

3.1.1. Introduction

3.1.2. Background

· Pursue integrated marketing, education, and outreach for demand side programs to better leverage ratepayer funding for more effective results by developing marketing messages that offer bundles of DSM programs targeted to specific customer groups as well as a statewide integrated marketing plan.

· Initiate integrated pilot programs to test integrated marketing strategies.

· Promote operational improvements (i.e., integrated audits recommending the full range of DSM options available to the customer).

· Promote optimization via emerging technologies that support integration at the customer's site, test integrated cost-effectiveness and attribution methodologies.

· Develop an online integrated tool that includes several characteristics such as comprehensiveness (including gas and electric DSM technologies and integration optimization technologies), site-specific, verifiable, and compatible with the statewide California Solar Initiative program.

(i) Interdepartmental Coordination: Increased coordination in work efforts between departments within the utility. This type of integration results in cost and/or resource savings as well as one or both of the following:

a. Consolidation of work efforts; and

b. Elimination of overlapping and/or repetitive tasks.

(ii) Program Coordination: Increased coordination between multiple programs managed by the utility. This type of integration results in cost and/or resource savings as well as one or both of the following:

a. Increased services provided to customers; and

b. Greater number of customers served by a program.

(iii) Data Sharing: Increased information and data sharing between departments within the utility and/or multiple programs managed by the utility. This type of integration results in cost and/or resource savings as well as one or both of the following:

a. Greater number of customers served; and

b. Consolidation of work efforts.

(iv) ME&O Coordination: Consolidation of marketing, education and outreach for multiple programs managed by the utility. This type of integration results in cost and/or resource savings as well as any or all of the following:

a. Greater number of customers reached;

b. More cost effective marketing, education and/or outreach to customers; and

c. Elimination of customer confusion.

3.1.3. Parties' Positions

3.1.4. Discussion

3.2. Leveraging Low Income Programs

3.2.1. Introduction

3.2.2. Background

3.2.3. Leveraging with California Department of Community Service and Development (CSD)

· Promote education, information sharing and collaboration between the administrators and providers of both programs to facilitate awareness of opportunities for leveraging and coordination;

· Minimize the differences between the ESA Program and LIHEAP and DOE's WAP programs in eligibility and allowable measures;

· Coordinate outreach and related activities of each program to maximize the penetration and impact in low income communities and among vulnerable populations;

· Develop a universal eligibility and intake assessment form;

· Develop a database of information about administration, scheduling and service delivery that both ESA Program providers and Local Service Providers can use to coordinate services to eligible homes where possible and coordinate funding streams to maximize the number of energy saving and health and safety measures installed in low income households;

· Develop a referral and/or credit system between the programs;

· Develop and implement pilot projects for partnerships that can be replicated throughout the state, that demonstrate measurable outcomes; and

· Develop and implement data logging projects to measure energy consumption, renewable energy generation and carbon emissions.

· Data sharing among the IOUs and corresponding Local Service Providers proved difficult with different tracking systems, software and data reporting requirements; and

· CSD was unable to give this leveraging issue its highest priority as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 suddenly awarded CSD a huge increase in funds for efficiency services to deploy in a short 2-3 year timeframe, requiring CSD to redirect staffing resources to those activities and away from the MOU leveraging process-improvement targets.

3.2.4. IOUs' Leveraging Proposals

3.2.4.1. PG&E

3.2.4.2. SCE

3.2.4.3. SoCalGas

3.2.4.4. SDG&E

3.2.5. Discussion

· To share successful leveraging models and to try and duplicate the successes of other IOUs' leveraging efforts; and

· To actively explore new opportunities and coordinate actual program delivery to promote long term enduring energy savings and cost efficiency.

1. Entering into agreement with CSD to develop a comprehensive statewide database system or bidirectional data sharing exchange that will enable the identification of households served under the LIHEAP/WAP program; and

2. The design and implementation of a partnership effort that will effectively combine the resources and benefits of the LIHEAP/WAP programs with those of the ESA Program.

3.3. Program Design and Delivery Model

3.3.1. Parties' Positions

3.3.1.1. DRA

3.3.1.2. NRDC

3.3.1.3. TELACU et al.

3.3.1.4. EEC

3.3.1.5. TURN

3.3.1.6. Joint Parties

3.3.2. IOUs' Positions

3.3.2.1. SCE

3.3.2.2. SoCalGas

3.3.2.3. SDG&E

3.3.2.4. PG&E

3.3.3. Discussion

· The IOUs should look into creating forms and updating databases to allow for more robust descriptions of customer homes so that enrollment and assessment contractors can better document special circumstances or potential problems in a home in order to better prepare the installation contractors for their initial visit and reduce the chance for a second visit.

· The IOUs should consider further upgrades to their databases to potentially allow contractors to edit information after uploading it.

· The IOUs that share territories should look into using single intake forms and list the same requirements for proof of income.

3.4. Marketing Education and Outreach (ME&O)

3.5. ESA Program and Cost-Effectiveness

3.5.1. Introduction

3.5.2. Background

3.5.3. Parties' Concerns

3.5.4. Working Group on Cost - Effectiveness
Methodology Review

(i) What type of cost-effectiveness framework should the ESA Program use? Should the cost-effectiveness analysis of the ESA Program be determined by cost-effectiveness evaluation of the entire program? Should such cost-effectiveness analysis be done solely at the individual measure level to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the individual measure to determine the approval of individual measure? Should such analysis be done using some type of hybrid approach, looking at both the cost-effectiveness of the program and its measures? Should such analysis be done using any other potential approach? And if so, what and how?

(ii) Should the Commission continue to use the Modified Participant Test (PCm) and the Utility Cost Test (UTC) to measure the ESA Program cost-effectiveness, or should the Commission instead (or additionally) use the Total Resource Cost (TRC) test? Do these tests require any modification to be better suited for use by the ESA Program?

(iii) Should all measures, both equity (including health, safety and comfort measure) and resource measures, be subject to cost-effectiveness analysis? How do we define which measures are considered resource measures and which are considered equity measures? Should they be treated differently? Should we have specific goals or metrics for equity measures? How should those goals or metrics be defined?

(iv) What is the appropriate role of non-energy benefits, including equity factors such as health, safety and comfort issues, in the cost-effectiveness analysis for the ESA Program? Which cost-effectiveness tests should include which non-energy benefits? How should the various non-energy benefits be measured and treated? Are there additional non-energy benefits which should be included, or current non-energy benefits which should be excluded?

1. The Energy Division will take the lead role in the CE Working Group.

2. In addition to one representative from each of the IOUs in the CE Working Group, The Energy Division will send a request to the service list of this proceeding to solicit the remaining CE Working Group members as soon as practicable after this decision is issued to form the CE Working Group consistent with the directives in this decision, including the directions for the makeup of the CE Working Group. In response, no more than two representatives from each segment of the parties (Contractors, community based organizations, DRA, consumer advocates, other special interest groups) should be nominated and those nominees should have expertise and/or knowledge to be able to contribute substantially to the CE Working Group process.

3. The Energy Division will select the members of the CE Working Group based on its review of the industry representatives who can provide helpful insight and expertise on the subject, subject to reasonable guidelines established by the ALJ, to ensure the CE Working Group's size and composition do not work against thoughtful and meaningful discussion and examination of the issues.

4. By February 15, 2013, the Energy Division staff, in coordination with the CE Working Group, will issue a white paper on the subject of the CE Working Group.

5. The white paper will examine the suggestions and comments made by parties in this proceeding and outlined in this decision, and present a proposal and recommendation for a revised cost-effectiveness framework for parties to comment on.

6. CE Working Group shall review all comments and thereafter develop a final proposal and recommendation for a revised cost-effectiveness framework.

7. By March 15, 2013, the CE Working Group shall convene a minimum of two public workshops.  Additional workshops or meetings may be held at Energy Division's discretion.

8. By July 15, 2013, the CE Working Group shall submit its Final Proposal and Recommendation (Recommendation) to the ALJ. The ALJ thereafter shall circulate the Recommendation for comments to the service list of this proceeding. The final Recommendation for any proposed revised cost-effectiveness framework should be forward looking and shall take into account the ESA Program goals and the goals of the Strategic Plan.

9. If adequate cost-effectiveness justification consistent with the overall Strategic Plan vision supports such Proposal and Recommendation for cost-effectiveness framework, it may thereafter be adopted in a decision with directions to the IOUs to use the framework as they design their portfolio for subsequent program applications for program cycle 2015-2017.

3.6. Approved ESA Program Measures

3.6.1. Introduction

3.6.2. ESA Program Measure Cost-Effectiveness Test

1. The housing type and climate zone;

2. The quantity of each add back measure the IOU anticipates installing in 2012-2014 in each by climate zone;

3. The budget of each add back measure; and

4. The energy savings impacts of each add back measure, based on the assumption that installation of measures that do not already exist in a home will increase, rather than decrease, energy usage.

3.6.3. IOUs' ESA Program Measure Portfolio Proposals

3.6.3.1. PG&E

Proposed Measures to be Retired (PG&E)

Proposed Add Back Measures (PG&E)

3.6.3.2. SCE

    Proposed Measures to be Retired (SCE)

            Proposed Add Back Measures (SCE)

3.6.3.3. SoCalGas

      Proposed Measures to be Retired (SoCalGas)

    Proposed Add Back Measures (SoCalGas)

3.6.3.4. SDG&E

      Proposed Measures to be Retired (SDG&E)

    Proposed Add Back Measures (SDG&E)

3.6.4. Parties' Positions

3.6.4.1. EEC

3.6.4.2. TELACU et al.

3.6.4.3. NRDC

3.6.4.4. Synergy

3.6.4.5. CHPC, NCLC, NHLP (CHPC et al.)

· Whole-building, investment-grade energy audits;

· HVAC-Heating Systems, repair and replacement: (Boiler/heater repair and replacement, Heating pipe insulation, Boiler plant controls, Boiler blankets, Heat pumps);

· Thermostats and Thermostatic Radiator Valves;

· Water Heater, repair and replacement: (Domestic hot water heater repair and replacement, Domestic Hot Water Pipe Insulation, High Efficiency Pump Motors/Heating Loop Pump, Recirculation Controls, Water Heater blankets);

· Common Area Lighting; and

· Roof/Attic Insulation.

3.6.4.6. DRA

3.6.4.7. Niagara

3.6.4.8. TURN

3.6.5. Discussion

3.6.5.1. Retirements and Add Back Measures

3.6.5.1.1. Attic Insulation (PG&E)

3.6.5.1.2. Envelope and Air Sealing Measures (PG&E, SCE, and SoCalGas)

3.6.5.1.3. Water Conservation Measures (PG&E)

3.6.5.1.4. Furnace and Water Heater Repair/Replacement (PG&E, SoCalGas, and SDG&E)

3.6.5.1.5. Cooling Measure (SCE)

3.6.5.1.6. Heat Pumps for Single Family Climate Zone 15, Multifamily Climate Zone 15 (SCE)

3.6.5.1.7. Room Air Conditioner for all Housing Types in Climate Zones 10, 13, 14, 15 (SCE)

3.6.5.1.8. Room Air Conditioner for all Housing Types in Climate Zone 10 (SDG&E)

3.6.5.1.9. Cooling Measures - Proposed for Retirements (PG&E and SDG&E)

3.6.5.1.10. Duct Test and Seal - Proposed for Retirement (PG&E, SoCalGas, and SDG&E)

3.6.5.1.11. Central Air Conditioner Service (SCE)

3.6.5.1.12. Evaporative Coolers Maintenance - Proposed for Retirement (SCE)

3.6.5.1.13. Evaporative Cooler Cover - Proposed for Retirement (SDG&E)

3.6.5.1.14. Tankless Water Heater - Proposed for Retirement (SoCalGas)

3.6.5.2. New 2012-2014 Measures

· PG&E: Thermostatic Shower Valve Measure, Smart Air Conditioner Fan Delays, and Microwaves;

· SCE: Smart Power Strips and Variable-Speed Pool Pumps;

· SoCalGas: Thermostatic Shower Valve Measure; and

· SDG&E: Smart Power Strips.

3.6.5.3. Other 2012-2014 Measures

3.6.5.3.1. High Efficiency Forced Air Unit (FAU)

3.6.5.4. Conclusion

3.7. Current Modified 3 Measure Minimum Rule (Modified 3MM Rule)

3.7.1. Background

3.7.2. SCE's Request to further Change the Modified 3MM Rule

3.7.3. Other IOUs' Position

3.7.4. Other Parties' Comments

3.7.4.1. DRA

3.7.4.2. EEC

3.7.4.3. TELACU et al.

3.7.5. Additional Comments by the IOUs

3.7.5.1. SCE's Response to December 2011 Ruling

3.7.5.2. PG&E's Response to December 2011 Ruling

3.7.5.3. SDG&E's Response to December 2011 Ruling

3.7.5.4. SoCalGas' Response to December 2011 Ruling

3.7.6. Discussion

3.8. Refrigerator Replacement Criteria

3.9. Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFLs)

Utilities will begin to phase traditional mass market Compact Fluorescent Lamps bulb promotions and giveaways out of program portfolios and shift focus toward new lighting technologies and other innovative programs that focus on lasting energy savings and improved consumer uptake.76

3.10. Multifamily (MF) Housing Segment

3.10.1. Introduction

3.10.2. IOUs' Multifamily Housing Segment Strategy Proposals

3.10.3. Multifamily Comments and Proposals of NCLC, CHPC, and NHLP (NCLC et al.) and TELACU et al.

3.10.3.1. Multifamily Comments and Proposals of NCLC et al.

· A per-building cap for whole-building audits of no more than $100 per income eligible unit, up to a maximum of either the actual cost of the audit or $15,000, whichever is less.

· A per-building cap for all energy measures (excluding the audit) of no more than a pre-set amount per income-eligible unit.

3.10.3.2. Multifamily Comments and Proposals of TELACU et al.

Phase 1: (Small Scale Pilot Installation/Program Incentives of 1,700 units for an ESA budget of $1,020,000 and Comprehensive EUC Audits of 42 Buildings with an EUC budget of $315,000) - Small Scale Pilot will serve roughly 1,700 units with this delivery model and will provide 42 buildings with an EUC comprehensive audit and measures.

Phase 2: (Evaluation and Modification: Development of Market Segmentation Database ($200,000), Interim Pilot Phase 1 Evaluation Report ($175,000), and Development of Multifamily Program Installation and Policy and Procedures ($125,000)) - Phase 2 will see the $200,000 development of the Market Segmentation Data Warehouse that will provide investors and regulators with data to better develop energy and assisted housing policy and assist the Commission in developing a methodology for revised future allocation of energy costs to owners (annual Utility Allowance provided for units) and provide Utilities with a more detailed and accurate way of segmenting and profiling energy savings potential within the existing multifamily housing stock. Phase 2 also develops a $175,000 Phase 1 Interim Pilot Evaluation Report and the $125,000 Multifamily Program Installation and Policy and Procedures manual.

Phase 3: (Large Scale Pilot: Installation/Program Incentives of 6,800 units for an ESA budget of $4,080,000 and Comprehensive EUC Audits of 168 Buildings with an EUC budget of $1,260,000) - The phase 3, Large Scale Pilot, will ramp up the services to 6,800 multifamily units and audits of 168 buildings.

Phase 4: Comprehensive Evaluation and Reporting Phase (Final Pilot Report ($125,000), EM&V ($250,000), and Administrative Costs Budget ($547,500)) - This final phase includes Comprehensive Evaluation and Reporting will include a Final Pilot Report and $250,000 for an Evaluation, Measurement, and Verification plan that will compare (by climate zone, size, vintage, and other characteristics) the number and type of measures installed on a per unit and per building basis between typical ESA Program installations and the piloted program.

3.10.4. IOUs' Responses to NCLC et al.'s and TELACU et al.' Proposals

3.10.4.1. IOUs' Responses to NCLC et al.'s Proposal

3.10.4.2. IOUs' Responses to TELACU et al.'s Proposal

3.10.5. Other Parties' Comments on Multifamily Segment Issues and Proposals

3.10.5.1. DRA

3.10.5.2. TURN

3.10.5.3. CforAT

3.10.5.4. G4A

3.10.5.5. The Joint Parties

3.10.5.6. NRDC

3.10.6. Discussion

3.10.6.1. Background

3.10.6.2. Need

· PG&E dropped from 27% multifamily homes treated in 2000-2006 timeframe to 18% multifamily homes treated in 2007-2010 timeframe;

· SCE dropped from 45% multifamily homes treated in 1997-2006 timeframe to 23% multifamily homes treated in 2007-2010 timeframe;

· SoCalGas dropped from 36% multifamily homes treated in 1997-2006 timeframe to 25% multifamily homes treated in 2007-2010 timeframe; and

· SDG&E increased from 49% multifamily homes treated in 1997-2006 timeframe to 54% multifamily homes treated in the 2007-2010 timeframe.

3.10.6.3. Multifamily Segment Strategies

· Attic insulation

· Air Sealing/Envelope Measures

· CFLs and Hardwire lighting

· Hot water conservation measures

· Water heater blankets

· Water heater pipe insulation

· Pre-1999 refrigerators

· Furnace clean and tune

· Central System Natural Gas Water Heater

· Central System Natural Gas Boilers for Water and Space Heating

· Natural Gas Storage Water Heater

· Energy-efficient Electric Storage Water Heaters

· Central Natural Gas Furnace

· Central Natural Gas Furnace with Built-In Variable-Speed Motor (VSM)

· Energy-efficient Package Terminal Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps

· High-efficiency Clothes Washers

· High Performance Dual-pane Windows

· Attic and/or Wall Insulation

· Energy Star Room Air Conditioner Replacement Multiple-Speed or Variable Speed Motor (VSM)

· Ducted Evaporative Cooling System Level 1 and Level 2

· Package Terminal Air Conditioner (PTAC) and Package Terminal Heat Pump (PTHP)

3.10.6.4. Comprehensive Multifamily Segment Strategies Formulation and Implementation

_ Past studies and other programs, develop targeted and integrated outreach and marketing to low income multifamily housing owner/operators; and

_ An understanding of the issues faced by contractors who will participate in the new approach to the low income multifamily housing segment, including training, certifications, service workflow, etc.

3.11. Workforce Education and Training (WE&T)

3.11.1. Background

3.11.2. IOUs' Post Statewide WE&T Needs Assessment Position

3.11.2.1. PG&E

3.11.2.2. SCE

3.11.3. Parties' Positions

3.11.3.1. DRA

3.11.3.2. Brightline and Green for All (G4A)

3.11.3.3. G4A

3.11.3.4. Joint Parties

3.11.3.5. EEC

3.11.3.6. Brightline

3.11.4. IOUs' Responses to Other Parties

3.11.4.1. PG&E

3.11.4.2. SoCalGas and SDG&E

3.11.4.3. SCE

3.11.5. Discussion

3.11.5.1. Statewide WE&T Needs Assessment Recommendations

3.11.5.2. Proactive WE&T Needs Assessment and Planning

3.11.5.3. Focuses for ESA Program WE&T

3.11.5.4. Preliminary Reports and WE&T Working Group

3.11.5.5. General Energy Efficiency WE&T Coordination

3.11.5.6. Brightline's WE&T Pilot Proposal

3.11.5.7 Joint Parties' Recommendation

4.1. Proposed and Adopted CARE Budgets

4.2. CARE Administrative Expenses - Outreach Budget Component

4.2.1. Parties' Positions

4.2.1.1. DRA

4.2.1.2. Joint Parties

4.2.1.3. Greenlining

4.2.2. IOUs' Positions and Responses to Objections

4.2.2.1. PG&E

4.2.2.2. SCE

4.2.2.3. SDG&E

4.2.2.4. SoCalGas

4.2.3. Discussion

4.3. CARE Administrative Expenses - Cooling Centers

4.3.1. IOUs' Proposals

4.3.1.1. SCE

· Approval of $767,000 in 2012; $768,000 in 2013; and $776,000 in 2014 for Cool Center program administration and implementation;

· Consistent with Advice Letter 2011-E and D.06-12-038, as modified by D.07-06-004, and as authorized in D.08-11-031, SCE proposes to continue to record the 2012-2014 Cool Center program expenses to the Public Purpose Programs Adjustment Mechanism (PPPAM)109 by modifying Preliminary Statement, Part FF, PPPAM, to record up to $767,000 in 2012; $768,000 in 2013; and $776,000 in 2014 as incremental Cool Center program costs associated with implementing the 2012, 2013, and 2014 Cool Center programs; and

· SCE proposes that the Commission modify the PPPAM to record all incremental Cool Center program-related expenses incurred during the summers of 2012 and 2013 and 2014, not to exceed $767,000 in 2012; $768,000 in 2013; and $776,000 in 2014.110

4.3.1.2. SDG&E

4.3.1.3. PG&E

4.3.2. Background

4.3.3. Parties' Comments to Proposed Decision

4.3.4. Conclusion

4.4. CARE Categorical Eligibility and Enrollment, Post Enrollment Verification, and Re-certification

4.4.1. Categorical Eligibility and Enrollment

4.4.2. Post Enrollment Verification

4.4.2.1. SCE's Post Enrollment Verification Proposal

4.4.2.2. PG&E's Post Enrollment Verification Proposal

4.4.2.3. SoCalGas' Post Enrollment Verification Proposal

4.4.2.4. SDG&E's Post Enrollment Verification Proposal

4.4.3. Other Parties' Positions

4.4.4. IOUs' Response to Other Parties' Positions

4.4.5. Discussion

4.5. CARE High Usage Customers

4.5.1. PG&E's Proposal

4.5.2. Background

4.5.3. Other Parties' Positions

4.5.4. Discussion

4.6. CARE Capitation Fee

4.6.1. PG&E's Request to Increase Capitation Fee

4.6.2. Joint Parties' Request for Increase in Capitation Fee and More

4.6.3. Discussion

5.1. Overview and Background

5.2. Pilots and Studies

5.2.1. CHANGES Pilot Program

5.2.2. CARE Customer Choice Pilot Proposal (Choice Pilot) and Split Incentive Study Proposal (Split Incentive Study)

5.2.3. Opower, Inc. Home Energy Report Pilot

5.2.4. PC Tablet Proposal

5.2.4.1. Other Parties' Comments and Positions

5.2.4.2. IOUs' and EEC's Costs and Savings Estimates

5.2.4.3. Discussion

5.2.5. SCE's Energy Education/Energy Education Evaluation Study and SoCalGas' Leave-behind Energy Education DVD

5.2.5.1. Parties' Comments and Positions

5.2.5.2. Discussion

· At this time, households that receive energy education and no other measures are not to be defined as a "treated" home.

· All energy education provided should be "tailored" to cover the measures installed (e.g. proper use of evaporative coolers, information about measure-specific demand side programs, etc.)

· Without quantifiable energy savings, energy education cannot (at this time) be considered a standalone measure.

5.2.6. Next Impact Evaluation Study and Report

5.2.6.1. Background

5.2.6.2. 2009-2011 Impact Evaluation

· PY2009 estimates are lower than those found in the PY2005 evaluation, even though the same general method for estimating savings was used in both evaluations. 

· PY2009 electric savings decreased approximately 22% compared to PY2005, with the largest decrease occurring in SCE's service territory.

· PY2009 gas savings decreased almost 50% from PY2005, but as a share of consumption, it is similar to PY2005 (from 3% to 4% of consumption).

5.2.6.3. IOUs' Proposals

5.2.6.4. Other Parties' Comments and Positions

5.2.6.5. IOUs' Replies

5.2.6.6. Discussion

· The lower 2009 savings relative to 2005 may be a reflection of the inherent difficulty in estimating savings from a billing regression model for residences where expected savings values are a small fraction of total energy use and where there can be substantial variation across households and program years (such as economic conditions) that cannot be entirely controlled for in the model.

· Some of the lower impact estimates may be a sign of diminishing savings available. Program savings may be less because the most opportune homes have already been treated and households have over the years adopted some of the measures, such as CFLs, previously supplied.

· A change in weather conditions relative to 2005 is a third possible explanation of the lower impact estimates. A closer examination of the weather conditions in the current evaluation indicates that a shift in participation to milder climate conditions may explain at least some of the decrease in estimated savings relative to the 2005 impact evaluation. This was evidenced by a substantial shift in participation to milder climate zones for some weather-dependent measures as well as lower heating degree days (HDDs) experienced in the current evaluation for some high usage customers installing these measures.

5.2.6.7. Conclusion

5.2.7. Next Low Income Needs Assessment

5.3. Miscellaneous Administration and Delivery Proposals

5.3.1. Calculating Eligible Population

5.3.1.1. IOUs' Positions

5.3.1.2. Other Parties' Positions

5.3.1.3. IOUs' Responses

5.3.1.4. Discussion

5.3.1.5. Conclusion

5.3.2. CARE and ESA Program Eligibility and Federal Poverty Guideline

5.3.2.1. Introduction

5.3.2.2. Background

5.3.2.3. Discussion

5.3.3. Customers with Disability

5.3.4. Natural Gas Appliance Testing Policy

5.3.4.1. DRA's Recommendation

5.3.4.2. CHPC et al.'s Position

5.3.4.3. SoCalGas' and SDG&E's Position

5.3.4.4. PG&E's Response

5.3.4.5. Discussion

5.3.5. ESA Program Contractor Reimbursement/Charge Back

5.3.5.1. EEC's Position

5.3.5.2. IOUs' Propositions

· Customer received a special needs replacement refrigerator (side-by-side or bottom freezer), but proof of disability did not meet program requirements. Since the contractor is responsible for obtaining valid proof of disability prior to installing a side-by-side or bottom freezer, a chargeback is required.

· The contractor installed an evaporative cooler but did not verify if the customer's home owners association approved the installation. Since the contractor is responsible for verifying approval by the home owners association, a chargeback is required.

· A customer received a measure but the proper documents are not on file. For example, a renter was eligible for a refrigerator and the contractor performed outlet grounding without a completed property owner waiver. Because the contractor is responsible for obtaining a property owner waiver, a chargeback is required.

· The contractor completes an installation while a customer account is inactive. Because the contractor is responsible for verifying that the account is active at the time of installation, a chargeback is required.

· Customers that were determined to be over income threshold for the ESA Program during audits of contractor paperwork by RHA (PG&E's ESA Program prime administrator), or PG&E.

· Customer did not provide sufficient income documentation to prove their eligibility; and

· Not meeting the Three Measure Minimum rule.

· Documentation issues for customer file (incomplete documentation, missing signatures, missing correct income documentation, addresses do not match records in customer file, etc.).

· Home does not meet the three measure minimum requirements due to the condition of the home (e.g. major repairs are required before measures are feasible for installation), combustion ventilation and air issues exist in the home which prevent infiltration measures from being installed, and/or the customer refuses the installation of one or more measures.

5.3.5.3. Discussion

5.3.6. Annual Family Electric Rate Assistance (FERA) and CARE Income Eligibility Letter Release Date

5.3.7 Studies and Reports Completion Due Date

5.3.8. Mid-Cycle Program Changes by Tier 2 Advice Letter/Move Quarterly Public Meetings to Annually/New Method to Update P&P Manual and WIS Manual/Working Groups

5.3.8.1 Other Parties' Comments and Positions

5.3.8.2. Discussion

5.3.8.3. Conclusion

5.3.9. 2015-2017 Application Due Date and Projected 2015-2017 Guidance Document Due Date

5.3.10. Customer Referral Incentive/Contractor Referral Incentive/Contractor Common Uniforms/Enrollment Kit

5.3.11. SoCalGas' Customer Assistance Representative Positions

5.3.12. IT Costs for Water Utility Data Sharing

5.3.13. CARE Estimate Deadline

6.1. Evaluation, Measurement and Verification (EM&V) Process

· Savings Measurement and Verification - Measurement and verification of savings resulting from energy efficiency measures, programs, and portfolios serve the fundamental purpose of developing estimates of reliable load impacts delivered through ratepayer-funded efficiency efforts. Measurement and verification work should reflect a reasonable balance of accuracy and precision, cost, and certainty, and be designed for incorporation into in procurement planning activities.

· Program Evaluation - Evaluation of program-specific qualitative and quantitative measures, such as the program performance metrics discussed earlier in this decision and process evaluations, serves a key role in providing feedback for the purposes of improving performance and supporting forward-looking corrections to utility programs and portfolios. In order to maximize return on ratepayer dollars, program evaluations must be completed on a timeline which informs mid-course corrections and/or program planning for the following cycle.

· Market Assessment - In a constantly evolving environment, market assessments are an essential EM&V product needed to set the baseline for strategic design and improvement of programs and portfolios. Saturation studies, surveys of emerging technologies and other such analyses which inform estimates of remaining program potential and forward-looking goal-setting are key aspects of market assessment.

· Policy and planning support - Consistent with prior program cycles, it is essential to reserve funding to support overarching studies and advisory roles which support Commission policy goals. Over the last program cycle this has been inclusive of potential and goals studies, maintenance of the DEER database, developing databases of best practices for program design and delivery, program design mix, and other means which support the Commission's oversight role, but do not fall under the core EM&V categories described above.

· Financial and Management audit - Supporting the Commission's oversight function of ensuring the efficient and effective expenditures of ratepayer funds within the utilities' energy efficiency portfolios is another objective of EM&V activities. Rigorous financial and management audits overseen by Commission staffs.

6.2. Fund Shifting Rules

6.3. Review of Reports

6.4. Final Budget Augmentation for CARE and ESA Programs 2012-2014

8. Comments on Proposed Decision

8.2. Cooling Measures, Climate Zones 10 and 13 and Health/Death Risk Argument

8.7. Continuation of Capitation Fee for ESA Program and Expansion to All Homes

8.8. Continuation of ESA Program Income
Verification / Self-Certification / Categorical Eligibility Program

9. Assignment of Proceeding

Findings of Fact

(a) CE Test: Measures that have both a PCm and a UCT benefit-cost ratio greater than or equal to 0.25 (taking into consideration the housing type and climate zone for that measure) for that utility pass the CE Test and shall be included in the ESA Program. This rule applies for both existing and new measures.

(b) Two exceptions to CE Test are:

_ PG&E dropped from 27% multifamily homes treated in 2000-2006 timeframe to 18% multifamily homes treated in 2007-2010 timeframe;

_ SCE dropped from 45% multifamily homes treated in 1997-2006 timeframe to 23% multifamily homes treated in 2007-2010 timeframe;

_ SoCalGas dropped from 36% multifamily homes treated in 1997-2006 timeframe to 25% multifamily homes treated in 2007-2010 timeframe; and

_ SDG&E increased from 49% multifamily homes treated in 1997-2006 timeframe to 54% multifamily homes treated in the 2007-2010 timeframe.

...for fully subsidized low income programs, modify program objectives to include workforce outcomes. Assess current workforce outcomes and if they are not adequate, use high-road agreements and sector strategies to pilot incorporation of the new national DOE skill standards and certifications or other strategies to improve both energy efficiency and workforce outcomes.

Conclusions of Law

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that:

· Share successful leveraging models and duplicate the successes of other Utilities' leveraging efforts; and

· Actively explore new opportunities and coordinate actual program delivery to promote long term enduring energy savings and cost efficiency.

(a) Entering into agreement with CSD to develop a comprehensive statewide database system or bidirectional data sharing exchange that will enable the identification of households served under the LIHEAP/WAP program; and

(b) The design and implementation of a partnership effort that will effectively combine the resources and benefits of the LIHEAP/WAP programs with those of the Energy Savings Assistance Program.

(a) CE Test: Measures that have both a Modified Participant Cost Test (PCm) and a Utility Cost Test (UCT) benefit-cost ratio greater than or equal to 0.25 (taking into consideration the housing type and climate zone for that measure) for that utility, pass the CE Test and shall be included in the Energy Savings Assistance Program. This rule applies for both existing and new measures.

(b) Two exceptions to CE Test are:

(a) Within 30 days after this decision is issued, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall forecast, for 2012-2014 (per year and for the full three year period), for any measure that we include in the program that falls below the 0.25 cost effectiveness threshold test, the following:

(b) Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company shall report in their annual reports, due in May of each year for the prior year, the actual figures in each of the foregoing four categories. If the add backs will compromise these Utilities' ability to meet the 2020 Strategic Plan goal that 100% of eligible and willing customers will have received all cost effective Energy Savings Assistance Program measures, they shall include a narrative in their annual reports on how they propose to address the shortfall in other parts of their Energy Savings Assistance Program.

· Pacific Gas and Electric Company: Thermostatic Shower Valve Measure, Smart AC Fan Delays, and Microwaves

· Southern California Edison Company: Smart Power Strips and Variable-Speed Pool Pumps

· Southern California Gas Company: Thermostatic Shower Valve Measure

· San Diego Gas & Electric Company: Smart Power Strips

(a) How the Energy Savings Assistance program can be modified to better meet the needs of its low income multifamily residents;

(b) How multifamily segment measure offerings should be modified (including central system needs) and develop possible co-pay framework that comply with the Energy Savings Assistance Program cost-effectiveness approach; and

(c) How to modify the current service delivery approach to address multifamily energy efficiency programming concerns, based on: (i) Past studies and other programs, develop targeted and integrated outreach and marketing to low income multifamily housing owner/operators; and (ii) An understanding of the issues faced by contractors who will participate in the new approach to the low income multifamily housing segment, including training, certifications, service workflow, etc.

(a) The Utilities shall retain all prior pre-approved categorical enrollment programs, for now;

(b) By January 31st of each year, the Utilities are directed to jointly and annually review and submit, by Tier 2 Advice Letter, an updated list of proposed categorical eligible low income programs for the upcoming year. The list must propose to retain and add categorically eligible programs for enrollment in low income programs, as appropriate, and must include only programs with income thresholds consistent with the California Alternate Rates for Energy and Energy Savings Assistance Program Programs;

    (i) These lists, once approved, shall be updated annually and be used to implement the Categorical Eligibility and Enrollment Program for California Alternate Rates for Energy and Energy Savings Assistance Program, for the upcoming fiscal year; and

    (ii) Energy Division shall review and issue an annual approval letter (with the approved updated list of programs in the Categorical Enrollment Program) along with the updated annual California Alternate Rates for Energy income guidelines letter on April 1st each year; and

(c) No customers shall be permitted to self-recertify without providing income documentation. As an exception to this rule, in lieu of income documentation, California Alternate Rates for Energy Program customers who have been income verified by a qualifying categorical eligible low income program may recertify by submitting proof of enrollment in an approved categorical eligibility program.

(a) The number of enrollments verified;

(b) The number of successful verifications and de-enrollments;

(c) The number and reason for each California Alternate Rates for Energy customer de-enrolled during the Post Enrollment Verification process (either through customer non-response or deemed ineligible for the program);

(d) How those successfully verified were initially enrolled in the California Alternate Rates for Energy Program (e.g. capitation agency, self-certification, Categorical Enrollment, etc.);

(e) How those de-enrolled and ineligible customers were initially enrolled in the California Alternate Rates for Energy Program (e.g. capitation agency, self-certification, Categorical Enrollment, etc.); and

(f) Whether probability model is yielding optimal results by de-enrolling ineligible customers from the California Alternate Rates for Energy program and ensuring that California Alternate Rates for Energy Program discounts are not diverted to ineligible population.

(a) 600% or more above baseline users: California Alternate Rates for Energy electric customers with electric usage above 600% of baseline in any monthly billing cycle shall have 90 days to drop usage below 600% baseline in any monthly billing cycle or be de-enrolled and barred from the program for 24 months. In addition, to continue to stay in the program these customers must undergo Post Enrollment Verification and apply for the Energy Savings Assistance Program within 45 days of notice, and, if not previously enrolled in the program, apply for the Energy Savings Assistance Program within 45 days of notice. To the extent possible, all notifications must be accessible to customers with disabilities and to customers without English language proficiency, and must include information on the Medical Baseline program and the Utilities' appeal process.

(b) De-enrollment Appeal Process: Within 30 days of this decision, the Utilities must develop an expedited appeal process for those customers who may believe that they have been wrongfully de-enrolled to allow them the process to submit an appeal of the de-enrollment documenting their concerns and demonstrating their usage as "necessary, basic and legitimate household energy usage." If the Utilities' appeal process does not effective resolve the customer's appeal, the customer may seek the Commission's Energy Division assistance by contacting the Energy Division's Director and Energy Division Director will make the determination on whether there is reasonable justification demonstrating "necessary, basic and legitimate household energy usage." Once that determination is made, such customer may be re-enrolled upon the customer's agreement to participate in Post Enrollment Verification and energy efficiency/savings efforts by participating in the Energy Savings Assistance Program. An example of justified legitimate "necessary, basic and legitimate household energy usage" may include multiple income qualified households residing in a single residence and customers with documented medical equipment needs which requires and justifies the high usage.

(c) 400% - 600% baseline users: California Alternate Rates for Energy high electric customers with electric usage at 400%-600% of baseline in any monthly billing cycle must undergo Post Enrollment Verification and, if not previously enrolled in the program, must apply for the Energy Savings Assistance Program within 45 days of notice. To the extent possible, all notifications must be accessible to customers with disabilities and to customers without English language proficiency, and must include information on the Medical Baseline program and the Utilities' appeal process. All California Alternate Rates for Energy customers with usage above 400% in any monthly billing cycle who do not complete Post Enrollment Verification requests or have incomes found to be higher than allowed in the program, shall be de-enrolled from the program and barred from re-enrolling in the California Alternate Rates for Energy program for 24 months.

(d) Medical Baseline Program Referral: The Energy Savings Assistance Program contractors who visit these high usage households are to be trained to make referrals to the Medical Baseline program.

(e) Energy Savings Assistance Program Cooperation: If a high California Alternate Rates for Energy electric customer required to participate in the Energy Savings Assistance Program as a condition of their continued enrollment in California Alternate Rates for Energy, fails to keep at least one of the two appointments made with an Energy Savings Assistance Program contractor or fails to provide access to any portion of the metered property in question, or refuses to allow a post-participation quality control inspection, that customer shall be de-enrolled from the California Alternate Rates for Energy program and barred from re-enrolling in the California Alternate Rates for Energy program for 24 months.

(f) Post Enrollment Verification: The electric Utilities shall develop and field a standard income verification document for these instances which may require customers to provide a state or federally verified form of income proof, such as the household's annual tax returns

(a) If at any time during the 24 months a de-enrolled customer verifies eligibility, they must be placed back on the California Alternate Rates for Energy rate. After 24 months, those de-enrolled customers may be able to enroll in California Alternate Rates for Energy by again self-certifying their household and income eligibility; and

(b) To ensure consistency statewide, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, Southern California Gas Company and San Diego Gas & Electric Company shall also implement the California Alternate Rates for Energy program rule change.

(a) How many households are eligible for the California Alternate Rates for Energy and Energy Savings Assistance Programs;

(b) How many households are enrolled in California Alternate Rates for Energy and have recently participated in the Energy Savings Assistance Program;

(c) What is the eligible, willing and remaining population for California Alternate Rates for Energy and Energy Savings Assistance Programs;

(d) Whether the current Energy Savings Assistance and California Alternate Rates for Energy Program's targeting, outreach, enrollment and verification processes are effective, and how can they be improved;

(e) The main reasons why customers choose not to participate in the California Alternate Rates for Energy and Energy Savings Assistance Programs;

(f) The Energy Savings Assistance Program measures that are most needed among eligible households;

(g) The Energy Savings Assistance Program measures that serve the most benefit to eligible households based on the Energy Savings Assistance Program eligible population's energy need, behavior and household characteristics;

(h) The available energy savings potential from the Energy Savings Assistance Programs;

(i) Whether the California Alternate Rates for Energy and Energy Savings Assistance Programs are reaching the appropriate targets, and if there are any significant under- or over-served segments; and

(j) Whether the California Alternate Rates for Energy and Energy Savings Assistance Programs are achieving their maximum potential program benefits, and what strategies should be used toward this end.

(a) Submit their evaluation projects for Energy Division approval prior to implementation; and 

(b) Adhere to this same process when evaluating pilots and any other activities ordered in this consolidated proceeding. This includes compliance with Commission's direction in Decision 10-04-029, which laid out guidelines for stakeholder input and Energy Division review and approval of utility-led energy efficiency evaluation projects. Specifically, evaluation projects will be posted to the public document website ( www.energydataweb.com) as well as Energy Division's internal file-sharing website (https://energydivision.basecamphq.com/login). In this manner, stakeholders and Energy Division will provide comment on and review of utility's evaluation project research plans, draft reports, and other documents integral to the evaluation project(s).

(a) COMMITMENT OF FUTURE FUNDING FOR LONG-TERM PROJECTS: For those long-term projects that require funding beyond the current budget program cycle and that will not yield savings in the current cycle, if applicable, these Utilities may anticipatorily commit funds for such projects for expenditure during the next program cycle, under strict limitations as follows:

(b) ENERGY SAVINGS ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS FUND SHIFTING AND LIMITATIONS: Utilities are permitted to shift funds under the following conditions in the Energy Savings Assistance Program. are permitted to shift funds under the following conditions in the Energy Savings Assistance Program.

(c) CALIFORNIA ALTERNATE RATES FOR ENERGY FUND SHIFTING AND LIMITATIONS: These Utilities are permitted to shift California Alternate Rates for Energy funds in the same manner as they did in the 2006-2008 budget cycle, but shall report all such shifting.

1 California Public Utilities Code Section 382. All references to Code hereinafter refer to California Public Utilities Code.

2 D.08-11-031 at 2.

3 In this decision the terms household and home (or dwelling unit or unit) may be used interchangeably, as the program enabling terms provide eligibility based on
household-based criteria and the actual measures are delivered to homes, dwelling units or units.

4 See Energy Action Plan II, Implementation Roadmap for Energy Policies II, California Energy Commission and California Public Utilities Commission, September 21, 2005. Available at: http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/word_pdf/REPORT/51604.pdf.

5 See Strategic Plan ( http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/NR/rdonlyres/D4321448-208C-48F9-9F62-1BBB14A8D717/0/EEStrategicPlan.pdf); see also January 2011 Update to Strategic Plan ( http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/NR/rdonlyres/A54B59C2-D571-440D-9477-3363726F573A/0/CAEnergyEfficiencyStrategicPlan_Jan2011.pdf).

6 Ibid.

7 Ibid.

8 Ibid.

9 Code Section 382  (e) provides, inter alia: The commission shall, by not later than December 31, 2020, ensure that all eligible low-income electricity and gas customers are given the opportunity to participate in low-income energy efficiency programs, including customers occupying apartments or similar multiunit residential structures. The commission and electrical corporations and gas corporations shall make all reasonable efforts to coordinate ratepayer-funded programs with other energy conservation and efficiency programs and to obtain additional federal funding to support actions undertaken pursuant to this subdivision.

10 Id at 1.

11 See supra footnote 3.

12 See KEMA Needs Assessment, at 1-3. This document can be viewed at ( http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/published/Graphics/73106.PDF).

13 California Public Utilities Code Section 2790. All References to Code, hereafter in this decision, will be to California Public Utilities Code.

14 See www.californiaenergyefficiency.com.

15 Ibid.

16 Id. at 184; see also Strategic Plan which provides "The complementary objectives of the ... [ESA Program] are to provide an energy resource for California and to produce energy savings, while reducing low-income customer bills." Id. at 25.

17 Generally, the energy efficiency measures are provided at no cost to the resident, with the exception of a few measures owned by the landlords. In those instances, the landlord must make a co-pay.

18 Strategic Plan, updated January 2011 at 23.

19 These figures are from the IOUs' annual reports and Applications.

20 Strategic Plan at 25.

21 D.11-11-010, the bridge funding decision, also authorized $6.06 million in additional bridge funding for SoCalGas, for the bridge funding period based upon SoCalGas' projections.

22 On February 13, 2012, SDG&E filed an amended response to its prior response to the December 2011 Ruling.

23 D.12-06-030.

24 See supra footnote 3.

25 2009-2010 energy savings figure is based on the IOUs' annual reports and 2011 energy savings figure is based on the IOUs' December 2011 monthly reports, since 2011 annual reports are not due for filing until May 1, 2012.

26 2009 and 2010 homes treated figures are based on the IOUs' annual reports, and 2011 homes treated figures are based on the IOUs' December 2011 monthly reports, since 2011 annual reports are not due for filing until May 1, 2012.

27 PG&E updated its homes treated projections in its reply testimony. Program cycle total is unchanged but year by year projections were modified.

28 The variance between the IOUs' projections and the Commission's projections reflect the difference between the IOUs' estimates of eligible but unwilling low income homes which are higher than the Commission's estimates for that population. IOUs' estimate for that sector of low income household is 7% and the Commission's estimate is 5%. See section 5.3.1 of this decision generally discussing the Commission's 5% estimate.

29 See Strategic Plan.

30 In this decision, use of the terms and acronyms "integrated demand side management," "IDSM," "DSM," and integrated "Demand Side Resources" refer to all three primary demand side energy resources: energy efficiency (including low income programs), demand response, and distributed generation, and also to energy storage, where appropriate.

31 D.07-12-051 at 11.

32 Id. at 88.

33 D.07-12-052, Conclusion of Law 7.

34 Under the auspice of the energy efficiency budget proceeding, Application (A.) 98-07-021, et al., the Commission authorized the IDSM Taskforce. See D.09-09-047 at 215, Ordering Paragraph (OP) 33.

35 D.08-11-031 at 131-132.

36 See Strategic Plan; see also D.08-11-031.

37 HEES programs are administered by the IOUs and provide customers with information to help them become familiar with ways to control and reduce energy and water usage in their homes by offering customers up to four options (mail-in survey, on-line survey, phone survey, and in-home survey) in multiple languages, including an action plan for implementation. The program also provides survey results to enable participants to understand how their energy use varies throughout the year and how their household compares with similar households. The "official" program implementation plan can be found at the attached link. ( http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/NR/rdonlyres/3A357638-9BF5-4A64-A073- 5462B40AD1AE/0/SCESWResAudit.pdf)

38 SDG&E's IHD Pilot was designed to test technology that could provide real-time energy use and billing information to qualified low income customers. However, recruitment and fielding for the pilot became an issue as ESA outreach specialists did not have the technical expertise to discuss the product with customers due to the complexity and uniqueness of the technology being offered. (https:// www.pge.com/regulation/LowIncomeProgramPY12-14/Other-Docs/SDGE/2012/LowIncomeProgramPY12-14_Other-Doc_SDGE_20120201_228591.pdf.)

39 TURN describes this concept as a program that provides rebates to customers. The rebate amount would equal the electric and natural gas energy bill savings a customer achieves. TURN claims such program would have no minimum energy savings threshold to participate and no cap on the amount of rebate paid.

40 The HEAT System is SoCalGas' ESA Program workflow database used to track program activity and expenditures.

41 Final Report: Low Income Energy Efficiency Process Evaluation, dated June 10, 2011 (2009 Process Evaluation).

42 SCE is in the process of implementing automated routing and scheduling functionality into its central database. This functionality will provide proximity-based scheduling of jobs, mileage and time calculations, and route maps to and in between appointments allowing contractors to utilize the program's database as their single reference tool for scheduling jobs. This will improve customer service by allowing any one person speaking to the customer to respond to appointment inquiries. This technology will also enable ESA Program field crews to receive and close out new work orders through their smart phones. The use of this technology will result in faster response times and potentially reduce phone calls, paperwork and overhead costs. See SCE's Budget Application at 8-9.

43 Code §§ 8281 et seq. which provides: "it is the declared policy of the state to aid the interests of women, minority, and disabled veteran business enterprises in order to preserve reasonable and just prices and a free competitive enterprise, to ensure that a fair proportion of the total purchases and contracts or subcontracts for commodities, supplies, technology, property, and services for regulated public utilities, including, but not limited to, renewable energy, wireless telecommunications, broadband, smart grid, and rail projects, are awarded to women, minority, and disabled veteran business enterprises, and to maintain and strengthen the overall economy of the state."

44 D.11-05-019.

45 D.09-06-026 clarified D.08-11-031.

46 Issued August 9, 2002 in R.01-08-027.

47 Non-energy benefits capture a variety of effects, such as changes in comfort and reduction in hardship, that are not captured by the energy savings estimates derived from load impact billing evaluations, and are ignored in more traditional cost effectiveness approaches like the Total Resource Cost (TRC) Test.

48 D.08-11-031.

49 http://www.liob.org/docs/Non%20Energy%20Benefits%20Study%20-%20SERA%20Inc%20%202010.pdf.

50 Strategic Plan at 24.

51 Currently, the Commission only allows central air conditioning in climate zones 14 and 15, consistent with our prior decisions. Additionally, the Commission does not allow furnace repair and replacement or water heater repair and replacement work, consistent with our conclusions in D.07-12-051 and D.08-11-031, in rented housing as the Commission, time and again, found those should not be the responsibility of ratepayers but in fact should remain the responsibility of the landlord, consistent with landlord's habitability responsibility. See D.08-11-031 at 53; and See Green v. Superior Court (1974) 10 Cal.3d 616 [111 Cal.Rptr. 704], which held that all residential leases and rental agreements contain an implied warranty of habitability. Under the implied warranty, the landlord is legally responsible for repairing conditions that seriously affect the rental unit's habitability. That is, the landlord must repair substantial defects in the rental unit and substantial failures to comply with state and local building and health codes.

52 R-value indicates insulation's resistance to heat flow -- the higher the R-value, the greater the insulating effectiveness.

53 PG&E Testimony at 1-77 - 1-78.

54 EEC Protest at 11-13 and Synergy Protest at 5-6.

55 See also D.11-05-020 which directs the energy utilities in this proceeding to begin data sharing with the water utilities.

56 "Order Approving Pilot Water Conservation Programs Within the Energy Utilities'

57 See http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/NR/rdonlyres/FB6B2D95-CCC7-4C7B-B22E-00C2624C6E0F/0/EmbeddedEnergyinWaterPilotEMVReport_Final.pdf).

58 Central systems measures CHPC et al. propose include: (1) Whole-building, investment-grade energy audits; (2) HVAC-Heating Systems, repair and replacement: (Boiler/heater repair and replacement, Heating pipe insulation, Boiler plant controls, Boiler blankets, Heat pumps); (3) Thermostats and Thermostatic Radiator Valves; (4) Water Heater, repair and replacement: (Domestic hot water heater repair and replacement, Domestic Hot Water Pipe Insulation, High Efficiency Pump Motors/Heating Loop Pump, Recirculation Controls, Water Heater blankets); (5) Common Area Lighting; and (6) Roof/Attic Insulation.

59 PG&E estimates are based on its Response to ALJ December 2011 Ruling at 24; SDG&E's estimates are based on their 2011 data which shows that contractors repaired and/or replaced 945 space heaters and 152 hot water heaters in owner occupied units. In 2011, SDG&E enrolled approximately 22,751 homes of which 71% were rental units. This estimate assumes a consistent ratio of homes requiring this service, (SDG&E's Response to ALJ December 2011 Ruling at 13); and SoCalGas estimated number of appliance installations was calculated by applying the same rates of furnace and water heater repairs and replacements in owner-occupied units from 2009 through November 2011 to the projected number of rental units to be treated during the 2012-2014 period, (SoCalGas' Response to ALJ December 2011 Ruling Response at 1).

60 These figures are based on a different cost-effectiveness methodology used by CHPC for their projects. The CHPC's methodology is not consistent with the ESA Program's current cost-effectiveness methodology.

61 Measures (based on whole-building investment-grade audits for almost four dozen properties from across the state), Ruling Response at 10.

62 CHPC/NCLC Ruling Response at 10.

63 See D.08-11-031 at 53; and See also Green v. Superior Court (1974) 10 Cal.3d 616 [111 Cal.Rptr. 704].

64 See D.08-11-031 at 53; and See also Green v. Superior Court (1974) 10 Cal.3d 616 [111 Cal.Rptr. 704].

65 NRDC proposes that Duct Test and Seal be considered separately from duct sealing and the WIS manual should be updated to match Title 24 standards. The IOUs' current practice with regards to Duct Test and Seal is consistent with Title 24 standards. If there is a repair and replacement completed in a single family home, Title 24 require Duct Test and Seal, as it is currently in the ESA Program now. Duct Test and Seal performed as a prescriptive measure when Repair and Replacement (R&R) is not performed, actually exceeds Title 24 standards. Therefore, we do not find that WIS manual requires such update.

66 Strategic Plan at 57-65.

67 A climate zone map appears at the following link: http://www.energy.ca.gov/maps/renewable/building_climate_zones.html.

68 Strategic Plan at 25.

69 D.08-11-031 at 95.

70 D.09-06-026 clarified that for the purpose of qualifying a home, the measures used are individual measures, not measures groups, so that the 3MM Rule could be met by meeting the energy savings threshold (measures must achieve energy savings of at least either 125 kWh/annually or 25 therms/annually).

71 SoCalGas requested as an add back measures that do not meet the CE Test that would increase health and comfort, but also make it easier to meet the 3MM Rule, as modified in D.08-11-031, specifically in multifamily dwellings. These include envelope and air sealing measure be offered as an add back measure for all dwelling types and climate zones. (See section 3.6.2 of this decision, this request is approved).

72 Reasons, other than the modified 3MM Rule provided by PG&E include: (1) customer refusal; (2) contractor inability to reach customer to schedule measure installation, (3) contractor inability to get a signed property owner waiver, (4) customer over income limit, and (5) customer with incomplete enrollment paperwork.

73 SDG&E claims that there would be no impact to its overall ESA Program budget since SDG&E, in accordance with Section 4.6 of the California Statewide Low Income Energy Efficiency Policy and Procedures Manual, does not currently place a limit on the number of CFLs installed per home.

74 Smart power strip is approved as a measure that passes the CE Test (See Section 3.6.5.2.1 of this decision).

75 Updated ESA Program Refrigerator Replacement Eligibility Criteria Memo (Refrigerator Degradation Study), dated December 2, 2011.

76 Strategic Plan at 11.

77 D.08-11-031 at 78-79.

78 Id.

79 DRA's Opening Brief at 23. DRA also contends "high-energy use is recommended by both the 2005 and 2009 ESAP Impact Evaluations as criteria to identify households with the highest potential for savings" and suggest that there is high potential for energy savings that could be gained from that segment.

80 NCLC's Opening Brief at 4-5.

81 SCE, in its reply comments, opines that there is no need to emphasize on MF households by ESA Program.

82 NCLC et al. characterize AB 758 (Skinner, 2009) as an effort which created the Comprehensive Energy Efficiency in Existing Buildings Law that requires the energy efficiency retrofit of all buildings by 2020.

83 TELACU et al.'s Opening Testimony, Pilot Proposal at 1-31.

84 U.S. Department of Energy's guidance on accrual of benefits to low-income tenants in multi-family buildings under the Weatherization Assistance Program (April 8, 2010) states: "In instances in which tenants of multi-family buildings pay directly for energy, the accrual of benefits requirement can be assured by demonstrating a reduction in the tenants' energy bills. However, DOE recognizes that there are instances in which a tenant does not pay directly for energy (e.g., energy costs are paid through rent, or under certain housing assistance programs, energy costs are paid for through vouchers). In instances in which a tenant does not pay for energy directly, a combination of several categories of benefits could be used to demonstrate that the benefits of the weatherization accrual primarily to the tenant. Benefits that could be combined, include, but are not limited to:

85 CforAT's Reply Brief at 6.

86 Unless otherwise stated, statutory references are to the California Public Utilities Code.

87 D.07-12-051 at 5.

88 Strategic Plan at 9.

89 PG&E's figures were from its 2000-2006 annual reports. Other IOUs' reports were from their 1997-2006 annual reports.

90 2009 Process Evaluation Report at 43-44 and 60.

91 Id. at 53-54.

92 Id. at 33.

93 D.07-12-051 at 48.

94 Strategic Plan at 80.

95 WE&T Needs Assessment at 293.

96 Process Evaluation at 40-41.

97 PG&E's Testimony at 1-62.

98 PG&E's Reply Testimony at 31-32.

99 SCE's Testimony at 35-36.

100 SCE's Application at 26-27; SCE's Testimony at 52-53.

101 SCE's Application at 15-17; SCE's Testimony at 28.

102 Advice 2588-E-B, approved effective October 29, 2011.

103 WE&T Needs Assessment at 293.

104 Findings from the Process Evaluation noted that during ride-along observations, enrollment and assessment contractors' employment structures influenced the amount of time they spent enrolling homes, impacting the quality of enrollment and assessment contractors' work. The Process Evaluation also refers to interviews and focus group findings suggesting that incentive structures may also impact how installation contractors approach their work. Furthermore, the Process Evaluation also refers to interviews with contractors and stated that piecework incentive structures, coupled with firm directives to focus on profitable measures, may encourage installation contractors to focus their time on installation of measures that the program reimburses at a higher rate. As the report indicates, these findings are not exhaustive as the data is not statistically sufficient; however there may be merit to the concerns raised. (Process Evaluation at 40-41.)

105 Strategic Plan, updated January 2011 at 23.

106 The 2010 Low Income Energy Efficiency Workforce Education & Training (WE&T) Pilot Project aimed to recruit and train residents of disadvantaged, low income communities to install energy efficiency measures in households as part ESA Program Proposal teams were required to include partners from educational institutions, ESA Program implementation contractors, and IOUs. Each team proposed to develop and implement a certificate program (offered through an educational institution) that included both in-class and hands-on training that could be used to train students in the core competencies they would require to find work as Energy and Weatherization Specialists in the IOU ESA Programs. Results can be found at http://liob.org/docs/ACF9D9.pdf.

107 Joint Parties' Response to December 2011 Ruling at 14.

108 SCE should continue its current practice of using its call center operations organization to continue enrolling eligible customers on the CARE rate and charge incremental expenses to the CARE Program budget during the 2012-2014 program cycle.

109 The PPPAM balance is consolidated in SCE's Public Purpose Programs Charge (PPPC) revenue requirement and included in PPPC rate levels in SCE's annual Energy Resource Recovery Act (ERRA) forecast proceeding. The Cool Center program costs may be reviewed by the Commission, along with all entries recorded in the PPPAM, in SCE's April 1 ERRA Review application.

110 SCE's Application at 65-77.

111 SDG&E's Testimony (SW) at 14-15.

112 PG&E's Application at 2-31 - 2-33.

113 SCE E-3885, SDG&E E-3873, PG&E E4040.

114 OP #5 D.06-11-016 Opinion On The Reasonableness And Prudence Of Southern California Edison Company's Energy Resource Recovery Account And Other Regulatory Accounts SCE is authorized to close nine regulatory accounts no longer serving regulatory purposes. Those accounts are the Block Forward Market Memorandum Account, PX Credit Audit Memorandum Account, Songs 2 & 3 Permanent Closure Memorandum Account, Palo Verde Permanent Closure Memorandum Account, Independent Evaluator Costs Memorandum Account, Bill Format Modification Memorandum Account, Voluntary Power Reduction Credit Memorandum Account, Cool Center Program Memorandum Account, and Electric Transaction Administration Costs Memorandum Account. Revisions to its Tariff reflecting the closing of these accounts shall be filed by SCE within 30 days after the date of this order

115 D.05-04-052, OPs 7-8.

116 2011 Annual Reports.

117 Id.

118 SFCP Opening Testimony at 6; and SFCP also argues that the CARE discount rate inadvertently mutes price signals to low income customers that would otherwise prompt conservation or inspire efficiency investments. Ibid.

119 Id. at 10.

120 DRA Reply Testimony at 5; and DRA's reply testimony argues against SFCP's claims that the CARE Program rate encourages energy overconsumption, and instead presents information that in except for the smallest dwellings, low income customers use significantly less electricity than similarly situated higher income customers. Ibid.

121 Code § 739.1 4 provides that tiers 1, 2, and 3 CARE rates shall not exceed 80 percent of the corresponding tiers 1, 2, and 3 rates charged to residential customers not participating in the CARE Program.

122 2009 Process Evaluation at 43.

123 These projections are summarized from the IOUs' responses to the December 2011 Ruling.

124 SDG&E did not provide subsidy savings projections in response to the December 2011 Ruling.

125 No IOUs other than PG&E request increased capitation fee.

126 Joint Parties' Response (dated January 13, 2012) to December 28, 2011 ALJ Ruling Seeking Comments Set #1.

127 Ibid.

128 CforAT's Response (dated January 13, 2012) to December 2011 Ruling, Set #1.

129 SoCalGas` Reply Testimony, SoCalGas' Reply Testimony, SCE Reply Testimony, DRA's Reply Testimony, TURN's Reply Testimony.

130 Opower's Opening Testimony.

131 NRDC's Reply Testimony.

132 TELACU et al.'s Reply Testimony; SoCalGas' Reply Testimony; SDG&E's Reply Testimony; SCE's Reply Testimony; and TURN Reply Testimony.

133 As part of the proposed General Administration cost category of the SoCalGas' Application, SoCalGas has included general program delivery improvements including PCs in the amount of $2,238,000. To the extent, such figures represent funding for any PC tablets, those requested proposal are denied in this decision. SoCalGas' general administration cost category should be augmented to reflect elimination of such funding.

134 2009 Process Evaluation Final Report, Low Income Energy Efficiency Program, dated June 10, 2011 at VII, 46-49, and 2009 Impact Evaluation of the 2009 Low Income Energy Efficiency Program, date June 10, 2011 at ES-15, 97.

135 See Section 3.6.5.1 of this decision.

136 This examination of need should identify what portion of CARE and ESA Program eligible population constitutes cash only workers who are unable to show proof of income documentation, and examine potential methods of enhancing the income verification process for that population.

137 D.08-11-031 at 110.

138 In 2011, the US Census Bureau released a new poverty metric called the Supplemental Poverty Measure that takes into account housing, food subsidies, geographic differences, transportation costs, and medical costs.

139 Joint Parties' Opening Testimony at 12.

140 TURN Reply Testimony at 5.

141 DRA proposes that working groups could take on the following issues: (1) update installation and skill standards, and consider adopting parts or all of the Department of Energy's voluntary skill standards; (2) revise the cost-effectiveness methodology, (3) update and incorporating values and assumptions; (4) consider new program measures, technologies and program delivery approaches; (5) Integrate with other ratepayer-funded Demand Side Management programs; and (6) Draft an ESAP policy manual, as suggested by SCE and consistent with Commission direction. TURN agrees with DRA's suggested functions for such a working group.

142 D.06-12-038, OP 7.

143 SCE, SDG&E and SoCalGas have all sought Commission's authorization in this proceeding to permit them to make "minor changes" to the Statewide ESA Program Policy and Procedures Weatherization Installation Standards Manuals, with appropriate public input, to reflect Commission direction in this proceeding for the 2012-2014 program cycle or similar changes related to updated and/or new code requirements, such as Title 24.

144 SCE requests that a comprehensive ESA Program policy document be developed in this cycle. We do not believe such a document is timely nor necessary at this time, particularly as the ESA Program is going through changes, with multiple critical components being reviewed during this cycle (e.g. cost-effectiveness methodology, etc.). This and other relevant Commission decisions with the backdrop of current Strategic Plan will suffice. SCE's request is denied.

145 R.09-12-017 at 8, and D.11-05-020 at 36.

146 The Utilities have been hampered in ramping up the ESA Program during 2012 due to series of bridge funding, delay in adoption of this decision and all of the related uncertainties. It, therefore, is unlikely that the Utilities could achieve the 2012 homes treated annual benchmark. However, the Utilities should be able to ramp up their activities upon issuance of this decision to begin to reach the overall program cycle goal by end of 2012-2014 program cycle.

147 SCE Application, at 73.

148 See SoCalGas' AL 4067-G, dated March 3, 2010 and SDG&E's AL 2140-E1922-G, dated March 4, 2010.

149 In 2011, the SDG&E ESA Program exceeded its goal for the number of homes treated, as the program served 22,575 customers, which is 111% of the 2011 goal. See 2011 Annual Report, at 3.

150 SoCalGas' ESA Program treated a total of 161,020 homes, which exceeded the 2011 CPUC Treated Goal by more than 10%. See 2011 Annual Report, at 11.

151 D.08-11-031 at 28.

152 Currently, to be categorically eligible for ESA and CARE Programs, customers must prove enrollment in select low income programs. See D.08-11-031 at 29.

Top Of Page