SCE Procurement
The proposal is approved as proposed.
PROGRAM BUDGETS AND TARGETS:
The following table is a summary of some of the key objectives of this program. The proposal should be consulted for a complete description of the program design and objectives.
Program Budget |
Energy Reduction Targets* (kWh) |
Demand Reduction Targets* (kW) |
Energy Reduction Targets* (Therms) |
Hard-to-Reach Targets | |
SCE* |
$ 4,000,000 |
11,102,737 |
1,981 |
NA |
36% of Applications |
SDG&E* |
$ 4,000,000 |
9,995,375 |
1,212 |
365,601 |
93% of Applications |
SoCalGas |
$ 2,798,000 |
9,657,958 |
693 |
1,255,166 |
29% of Applications |
PG&E* |
$ 7,709,156 |
5,417,193 |
4,513 |
18,850,520 |
30% of Applications |
TOTAL PGC |
$ 18,507,156 |
36,173,263 |
8,399 |
20,471,287 |
|
SCE Procurement |
$ 8,191,126 |
24,293,138 |
3,371 |
0 |
NA |
*Minimum expectations based upon reduced budget, pending program implementation plan finalization
4. Statewide Residential Retrofit Home Energy Efficiency Survey Program - 1116-04, 1238-04, 1247-04, and 1359-04
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION:
Each utility proposes to conduct mail and online surveys to assist consumers in improving energy use in their homes. At least 50% of the utilities' mail-in survey target will be sent to hard-to-reach customers.
PROGRAM MODIFICATIONS:
We support the utilities' efforts to assist customers in determining how they might improve the energy efficiency of their homes. Changes from the 2003 program include improving program equity by increasing customer participation and accessibility in new customer groups through the inclusion of surveys in two additional Asian languages, Vietnamese and Korean in PG&E's, SoCalGas', and SCE's service areas, and Chinese and Korean versions in SDG&E's service area. The utilities should continue to send 50% of mail-in surveys to hard to reach customers. Budgets reduced closer to previous year's budgets and to reflect available budgets in these service territories.
PROGRAM BUDGETS AND TARGETS:
Program Budget |
Energy Reduction Targets* (kWh) |
Demand Reduction Targets* (kW) |
Energy Reduction Targets* (Therms) |
Other Targets | |
PG&E |
$1,486,788 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
See Plan |
SCE |
$3,000,000 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
See Plan |
SDG&E |
$814,666 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
See Plan |
SCG |
$548,000 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
See Plan |
Total |
$ 5,849,454 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
.
*Minimum expectations based upon budgets, and pending program implementation plan finalization.
5. Statewide California Energy Star New Homes Program - Single Family, Multifamily 1330-04, 1128-04, 1239-04 1244-04, 1169-04
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION:
This program aims at influencing the design and construction of single family and multifamily residential new construction. Utilities work with single and multifamily builders, architects, energy analysts and other building industry professionals, the program to increase energy efficiency through a combination of education, design assistance and financial incentives. Single family and low rise multifamily building projects meeting the program requirements will additionally meet the requirements of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Energy Star® Homes Program. The EPA does not currently recognize high rise construction with the Energy Star® label, but participating utilities are part of a national consortium outlining requirements for future application to this program.
PROGRAM MODIFICATIONS:
In 2003 the utilities requested that the two-tier level of program incentives (15 percent and 20 percent) be combined into a single 15 percent level. The Commission ordered that the 20 percent level remain in place due to the need to encourage builders to "go higher" in their energy savings efforts. This year utilities note that they will rely on EM&V studies to determine whether the existing 20 percent incentive level is necessary, or whether builders achieve this level through minimal effort. If the latter is the case, utilities plan to ask the Commission to eliminate the 20 percent rebate level. The Commission supports the current structure for incentives in this program. Any changes to the program incentive levels will need to be submitted to the Commission for approval, per this decision.
Changes to program targets based on budget reductions are as follows:
* SCE - 10 percent reduction in original budget and targets
* SDG&E - 27.88 percent reduction from original budget and savings targets
* SCG - No reductions
* PG&E - 35.81 percent reduction in original budget and savings target.
PROGRAM BUDGETS AND TARGETS:
Program Budget |
Energy Reduction Targets* (kWh) |
Demand Reduction Targets* (kW) |
Energy Reduction Targets* (Therms) | |
SCE |
$9,000,000 |
7,840,629 |
10,353 |
NA |
SDG&E |
$5,200,000 |
4,666,047 |
6,423 |
326,656 |
SoCalGas |
$3,360,000 |
2,751,236 |
3,787 |
212,152 |
PG&E |
$11,219,913 |
1,936,997 |
2,064 |
871,443 |
PGC Total |
$28,779,913 |
17,194,909 |
22,627 |
1,410,251 |
Procurement Total |
$ 6,139,345 |
7,538,720 |
9,235 |
0 |
*Minimum expectations based upon reduced budget, pending program implementation plan finalization
6. Statewide Standard Performance Contract -
1121-04, 1177-04, 1240-04, 1347-04
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION:
The Standard Performance Contract is offered statewide to non-residential customers. The program offers rebates on a per therm and per kWh basis and requires energy savings measurements to qualify for the rebates Therefore the program allows flexibility from participants with respect to the types of energy efficiency measures they choose to undertake in reaching their energy savings goals.
PROGRAM MODIFICATIONS:
The utilities propose the following changes to the 2004-2005 SPC program:
1) Allow prescriptive per measure rebates (identical to those available in the Express Efficiency Program) in the SPC program for 2004-2005.
2) Eliminate the minimum energy usage requirement for participation in this program.
3) Eliminate the 80-20 Rule which requires that at least 20% of energy savings per SPC site be from non-lighting measures
4) Eliminate 30 percent lighting budget restriction, which requires that no more than 30% of each utility's incentive budget go towards lighting savings.
5) Change customer project sponsor cap to 25% of utility budget, which would allow a maximum of 25% of each IOU's incentive budget to go to one customer.
6) Increase therm incentive from $.60 to $1.00.
We accept the requested modifications in 1,2, and 6. We reject the requested changes in 3, 4, and 5. The 2004-2005 program will maintain the 80-20 rule, the 30 percent lighting incentive restriction, and the maximum incentive allocation per customer will remain at $300,000 per site and $1,500,000 across all utilities for PGC funds. If the IOU's wish to allocate procurement funds to their SPC program they can increase the customer incentive cap to their requested level using procurement funds. The incentive funds amount, including audits, for any site with a potential incentive amount greater than $300,000 per site or $1,5000,000 across all utilities must come, in its entirety from procurement funds.
PROGRAM BUDGETS AND TARGETS:
Program Budget |
Energy Reduction Targets (kWh) |
Demand Reduction Targets (kW) |
Energy Reduction Targets (Therms) |
Hard-to-Reach Targets | |
SCE |
$ 18,000,000 |
109,264,648 |
16,477 |
0 |
|
SDG&E |
$ 7,520,000 |
30,240,000 |
3,767 |
680,400 |
|
PG&E |
$28,471,354 |
156,918,064 |
18,559 |
5,073,534 |
|
PGC Total |
$ 53,991,354 |
296,422,712 |
38,803 |
5,753,934 |
|
Procurement Total |
$ 33,648,396 |
251,076,592 |
36,833 |
0 |
7. Statewide Nonresidential Express Efficiency PGC -1133-04, 1346-04, 1261-04, 1249-04/Procurement SCE -1178-04 Express
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION:
Express Efficiency is a prescriptive rebate program that provides financial incentives to all small-and medium-sized nonresidential customers on a seamless statewide basis. The prescriptive incentive design provides a straightforward and customer-friendly way to encourage the smallest utility commercial customers a relatively hassle-free and reliable means to decrease their utility bill and make their business more energy efficiency. One of the program's goals is to focus on providing small and medium-sized customers access to energy efficient technologies that had previously been adopted by larger customers.
PROGRAM MODIFICATIONS:
Targets: None
Budgets: SDG&E reduced by .6 percent ($40,089)
In 2003 (D.03-04-55) the Commission granted the utilities' request to replace the "Account Aggregation Rule, which limited chain or corporate account participation to $25,000, to a $25,000 incentives limit per corporation for chain account for work done on service accounts with loads of not exceeding 500 kW. The Commission understands D.03-04-055 to have had the effect of removing the corporate and chain account limitation/cap of $25,000 and replacing it with a site limit per corporation or chain account of $25,000. In their 2004-05 submittal, utilities propose to remove the "...$25,000 per corporation participation cap...."
The Commission understands that D.03-04-055 may have had the effect of encouraging more chain-store participation for those chains with service account of less than 500 kW, but continuing to discourage corporations with a large facilities over the 500 kW limit to participate in the program. The Commission initially placed the $25,000 limit on corporate participation to ensure that the hardest to reach small businesses that are generally without the financial resources to make efficiency improvements became a focus of the Express program. Since that time, the Commission has approved numerous programs aimed specifically at reaching this harder to reach audience. The utilities have also made this audience a target for their efforts. We therefore concur with the utilities that the $25,000 per corporation limit is unnecessary. Yet, we do maintain our concern that unlimited corporation access to the program may use up these funds at a rate that impacts the utilities hard-to-reach goals. We therefore strike a balance and authorize removal of the $25,000 corporate limit and the replacement of that limit with a corporate participation cap $200,000 per corporation for the Express program.
In their Express Efficiency proposal submittals the utilities also propose to increase incentive levels over those offered in 2003 based on a contractor study of measure incentive levels that might best "move" the market in relationship to Express Efficiency. After review of the study and study related issues, we conclude that the proposed incentive levels are reasonable and therefore authorize these levels for the 2004-05 Express Efficiency program.
Finally, in separate program filings (1120-04; 1179-04; 1334-04), the utilities propose a "Nonresidential Retrofit Prescriptive Motors and Air Conditioning Rebate," also called the "The Nonresidential Upstream HVAC and Motors" program. This innovative upstream approach holds great possibility to enhance utilization of the Express Efficiency rebate structure. We are, however, aware of the potential for "double counting" of savings in these two program efforts. We therefore order the utilities to establish and propose a set of clearly stated reporting mechanisms in their program implementation plans for both the Express and listed "Upstream" programs that will ensure the Commission that program savings and costs in these two program areas do not overlap i.e., are not "double-counted."
PROGRAM BUDGETS AND TARGETS:
Program Budget |
Energy Reduction Targets (kWh) |
Demand Reduction Targets (kW) |
Energy Reduction Targets (Therms) | |
SCE |
$12,000,000 |
205,196,016 |
45,100 |
0 |
SDG&E |
$6,687,911 |
95,661,152 |
15,304 |
72,044 |
SoCalGas |
$6,977,858 |
4,754,429 |
0 |
4,604,671 |
PG&E |
$9,998,131 |
191,416,080 |
33,287 |
2,132,391 |
PGC Total |
$35,663,900 |
499,251,106 |
93,691 |
6,809,106 |
SCE Procurement |
$3,635,562 |
54,072,940 |
5,794 |
0 |
8. Statewide Nonresidential Energy Audit Program -
1122-04, 1248-04, 1358-04, 1465-04
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION:
This program offers free energy audits to nonresidential customers. The audit provides customers an assessment of their current energy use and recommendations on ways to reduce their energy consumption and save money.
PROGRAM MODIFICATIONS:
The budgets are reduced closer to previous year's budgets and to reflect the available budgets in these territories. SCG's narrative included discussion on targeting 10% HTR but the table on goals did not include HTR data; SCG needs to clearly indicate its HTR target data in its implementation plan. .Targets may need to be adjusted to reflect the approved budgets but we expect utilities to adjust administrative costs rather than direct implementation costs.
PROGRAM BUDGETS AND TARGETS:
Program Budget |
Energy Reduction Targets (kWh) |
Demand Reduction Targets (kW) |
Energy Reduction Targets (Therms) |
Targeted Number of Audits* | |
SCG |
$2,195,886 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
6,400(including 640 HTR) |
SCE** |
$3,800,000 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
14,750 (including 6,720 HTR) |
SDG&E |
$1,222,000 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
7,600 (including 4,560 HTR) |
PG&E |
$5,100,000 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
20,000 (including 12,000 HTR) |
Total |
$12,317,886 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
48,750 (including 23,920 HTR) |
*Minimum expectations, pending program implementation plan finalization.
9. Statewide Building Operator Certification and Training Program - 1125-04, 1252-04, 1253-04, 1357-04
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION:
The training program component trains building operators to identify and implement energy savings opportunities as an integral part of their operations and maintenance activities. The training will include equipment operations, the latest methods of building operation and maintenance, and how to incorporate energy efficiency and peak reduction opportunities. All participants are tested to evaluate the amount of knowledge retained. A certification of course completion and recognition will be awarded to students that successfully complete the training program and required testing. The certification component provides a consistent benchmark of competencies for participants.
PROGRAM BUDGETS AND TARGETS:
Program Budget |
Level I BOC Courses |
Level I BOC Course Attendees |
Level II BOC Courses) |
Level II BOC Course Attendees | |
SCG |
$ 331,050 |
2 |
40 |
2* |
24* |
SCE |
$1,000,000 |
10 |
200 |
2 |
30 |
SDG&E |
$ 300,000 |
2 |
40 |
1 |
24 |
PG&E |
$ 510,714 |
8 |
160 |
2 |
24 |
Total |
$2,141,764 |
22 |
440 |
8 |
102 |
*SCG's narrative included discussion on providing Level II BOC training curricula in 2004 and 2005. However, the specific table for goals did not indicate any Level II courses. We expect SCG to conduct the minimum classes stated above. If the goals are different from above, SCG should file a program implementation plan to detail the revised goals.
10. Statewide Savings By Design/PGC -1127-04, 1346-04, 1261-04, 1249-04/Procurement SCE 1183-04, SDG&E 1323-04
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION:
Savings By Design (SBD) is an energy efficiency program for the nonresidential, commercial new construction industry. The program provides statewide consistency and energy savings persistence to the new construction market by promoting integrated energy efficiency design at the front-end of a construction project. SBD offers building owners and their design teams a wide range of services including education, design assistance, and owner incentives as well as design team incentives. SBD interventions avoid the missed opportunities that result when energy efficient measures and strategies are not incorporated in a project during the construction phase. Because the program is delivered before a building or process is constructed, energy savings are achieved when they create the greatest benefit and are most cost-effective for the owner.
PROGRAM MODIFICATIONS:
PG&E's administrative budget has been reduced by 7 percent
PROGRAM BUDGETS AND TARGETS:
Program Budget |
Energy Reduction Targets* (kWh) |
Demand Reduction Targets* (kW) |
Energy Reduction Targets* (Therms) | |
SCE |
$ 17,800,000 |
88,042,704 |
17,557 |
NA |
SDG&E |
$ 4,824,000 |
13,448,000 |
2,690 |
230,768 |
SoCalGas |
$ 4,468,000 |
22,628,568 |
4,367 |
296,194 |
PG&E |
$ 20,022,306 |
81,960,176 |
19,786 |
605,905 |
TOTAL PGC |
$47,114,306 |
206,079,448 |
44,400 |
1,132,867 |
SCE |
$ 10,443,685 |
65,198,392 |
12,757 |
NA |
SDG&E |
$ 6,596,000 |
20,172,000 |
4,034 |
346,152 |
Total Procurement |
$17,039,685 |
85,370,392 |
16,791 |
346,152 |
*Minimum expectations based upon reduced budget, pending program implementation plan finalization
11. Statewide Energy Efficiency Education and Training Program - 1123-04, 1258-04, 1264-04, and 1328-04
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION:
The Statewide Energy Efficiency Education and Training program is offered by PG&E, SCE, SDG&E, and SCG. This program educates contractors, architects and designers, residential developers and builders, manufacturers, commercial users, environmental organizations, agricultural users, and others on ways to improve energy efficiency.
The program promotes energy efficiency to a variety of customer segments through energy centers and other informational forums.
PROGRAM MODIFICATIONS:
The budgets are reduced closer to previous year's budgets and to reflect the available budgets for these territories. Targets specified in the narrative may need to be adjusted to reflect the reduced budgets. Utilities should fully discuss the changes in their program implementation plans. We expect utilities to make cost adjustments in the administrative rather than direct implementation costs.
PROGRAM BUDGETS AND TARGETS:
Program Budget |
Energy Reduction Targets (kWh) |
Demand Reduction Targets (kW) |
Energy Reduction Targets (Therms) |
Other Targets | |
PG&E |
$ 1,300,000 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
See Plan |
SCE |
$ 9,580,494 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
See Plan |
SDG&E |
$ 2,548,514 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
See Plan |
SCG |
$ 3,583,314 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
See Plan |
Total |
$17,012,322 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
12. Statewide Crosscutting Codes and Standards Advocacy Program - 1134-04, 1259-04, 1266-04, 1343-04
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION:
The Statewide Codes and Standards Advocacy Program advocate upgrades and enhancements in energy efficiency standards and codes in the Building Energy Efficiency Standards, California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6, and the Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards, Title 20.
PROGRAM MODIFICATIONS:
There are no program changes proposed or adopted for 2004 and 2005.
PROGRAM BUDGETS AND TARGETS:
Program Budget |
Energy Reduction Targets* (kWh) |
Demand Reduction Targets* (kW) |
Energy Reduction Targets* (Therms) |
Other Targets | |
PG&E |
$ 2,950,657 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
See Plan |
SCE |
$ 2,400,000 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
See Plan |
SDG&E |
$ 200,000 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
See Plan |
SCG |
$ 300,000 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
See Plan |
TOTAL |
$ 5,850,657 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
13. Statewide Emerging Technologies -
1126-04, 1254-04, 1255-04, 1329-04
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION:
The intent of the ET program is to help accelerate a product's market acceptance through a variety of approaches, but mainly by reducing the performance uncertainties associated with new products and applications. The program forms a link between new energy efficient technologies and applications emerging from the Research & Development (R&D) cycle and their introduction into the marketplace. Once an assessment project is concluded, and the results understood, many of the demonstrated applications either become part of the portfolios of mainstream energy efficiency programs, part of the basis of future energy-related codes and standards, or adopted as standard design practice in the marketplace. The program consists of two parts: Demonstration & Information Transfer, and the ETCC. The Demonstration & Information Transfer portion of the program focuses on the assessment of near-commercial and commercial energy efficient applications with low market penetration. Demonstration projects, conducted at either customer sites or in controlled environments, provide design, performance, and verification of novel energy efficient systems, helping to reduce the market barriers to their wider acceptance. The demonstration projects help to measure, verify, analyze, and quantify the potential demand and energy savings, and document customer acceptance of specific applications in different market segments. Information Transfer disseminates the results of the emerging technology application assessment projects, and is customized to the targeted markets.
PROGRAM MODIFICATIONS:
The following information will be required in a revised proposal and as they become available in the monthly reports that are submitted to ED:
1) Clarification regarding how public input is obtained and whether quarterly coordination meetings of the ETCC are open to the public.
2) Detailed justification as to how the 50%+ increase in program budget relative to 2003 will be utilized for the projects planned for 2004-2005.
3) Specific costs for projects planned to be undertaken.
4) PG&E will need to provide specific project details as they become available.
5) Progress that is being made on ongoing projects that were initiated in previous program years, and the results of those projects, including which associated products have since been incorporated into the IOUs other programs.
PG&E's budget has been reduced in order to cut back on what we consider to be excessive overhead costs. The overall goal in terms of the number of projects is to remain as proposed.
PROGRAM BUDGETS AND TARGETS:
The following table is a summary of some of the key objectives of this program. The proposal should be consulted for a complete description of the program design and objectives.
|
Program Budget |
# of Projects (Emerging Technology Application Assessments) |
SCE |
$ 3,600,000 |
20 |
SDG&E |
$ 410,000 |
6 |
SoCalGas |
$ 1,506,000
|
12 |
PG&E |
$ 2,382,013 |
20 |
TOTAL |
$ 7,898,013 |
58 |
Summary of other program activities:
Annual updates will be made to the Emerging Technology Coordinating Council website ( www.ca-etcc.com). These updates will provide information on the newly initiated Application Assessments.
At least four meetings of the Emerging Technologies Coordinating Council will be held annually.
14. Statewide Upstream HVAC and Motors Rebate Program -
1179-04, 1334-04, 1120-04
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTER(S): |
SCE, SDG&E & PG&E |
PROPOSED SUBCONTRACTOR(S) |
Energy solutions for SCE & PG&E TBD for SDG&E |
IOU SERVICE TERRITORY: |
PG&E - 1120-04 SCE - 1179-04 (Procurement) SDG&E - 1334-04 (Procurement) |
GEOGRAPHIC AREA: |
IOU service territory |
TARGET MARKET: |
Commercial, industrial, agricultural customers; manufacturers and distributors of premium efficient motors and HVAC equipment |
APPROVED BUDGETS BY SERVICE TERRITORY PGC
PROCUREMENT TOTAL Procurement |
PG&E: $2,692,581 SCE: $5,579,453 SDG&E: $2,807,882 $8,387,335 |
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION:
This is a statewide prescriptive rebate program that provides upstream financial incentives to distributors to stock and sell qualifying high efficiency products combined with downstream customer rebates to create a push/pull strategy. The program is essentially the HVAC and motors element of the statewide Express Efficiency program, but with upstream focus. All of the investor-own utilities' commercial, industrial and agricultural customers are eligible to participate. Incentives are offered for high efficiency packaged and split system air conditioners, heat pumps, integral HVAC smart controls, package chillers, and motors. Depending on market response, additional measures may be added in the second year of the program (2005).
PROGRAM MODIFICATIONS:
Although the three utilities propose to fund this program using either PGC or procurement dollars, the program should be offered consistently statewide. SCE and PG&E indicated that both retrofit and new construction applications qualify for the program; however, SDG&E proposed that the program apply only to retrofit projects and that new construction applications qualify for benefits through the Savings By Design program. To avoid any potential customer confusion, SDG&E should revise its program to qualify both retrofit and new construction applications.
There are discrepancies in the proposed rebate levels per unit across the three IOUs for certain measures (e.g., 25 to 60 HP motors) in their respective proposal narratives and workbooks. Also, SDG&E proposed initial A/C incentive of $100 per ton, which is not consistent with tiered rebates shown in its workbooks and in PG&E's and SCE's workbooks. The three utilities should ensure consistent rebate levels per unit for all the measures offered under the program and should submit to the Energy Division revised workbooks containing the appropriate rebates.
Although the core of the program is rebates to distributors to encourage stocking of premium efficiency equipment, both PG&E and SCE initially proposed to offer rebates to customers through the Express Efficiency program, but with all the rebate costs and savings accomplishments to be part of this upstream program. PG&E and SCE propose to split the total rebate per unit 70/30 between distributors (upstream rebate) and customers (downstream rebate). It is unclear from SDG&E's initial proposal whether it is offering similar rebate split, and if so, how the downstream rebate costs would be funded. The utilities shall consult with each other and the Energy Division in determining the program's focus and rebate split. Each utility's revised PIP should ensure consistency across the three utilities on these program features.
All three utilities propose to provide additional marketing effort and possibly bonuses for equipment installed in transmission constrained areas. The utilities also propose to use bonuses to convince distributors to submit their first application, as part of their marketing effort. No additional details were provided in the proposals regarding how these bonuses would be implemented and how much, if any, additional rebates will be offered. The utilities should not implement these bonuses without first seeking approval of the Energy Division and should fund these bonuses out of the program's marketing budgets if they are part of the utilities' marketing efforts.
We approve the total proposed budgets of SCE and SDG&E, but reduced PG&E's proposed budget to make its overhead costs comparable to the other two utilities as discussed elsewhere in this decision. However, we noted wide discrepancies in the utilities' proposed budgets for certain cost items. For example, the proportion of administrative costs to the total proposed budget varied widely across the three utilities: SCE - 3%, SDG&E - 21%, PG&E - 17%. In addition, SCE includes $1.47 million for subcontractor labor doing field verification, whereas SDG&E and PG&E only proposed $57,400 and $15,212 for field verification and site inspections, respectively. PG&E included $400,750 marketing/advertising budget, whereas SCE included zero dollars and SDG&E only budgeted $43,710.
All three utilities should submit revised budgets to the Energy Division that include supporting details and reallocate their budgets to address the discrepancies noted above.
PROGRAM BUDGETS AND TARGETS:
Program Budget |
Energy Reduction Targets* (kWh) |
Demand Reduction Targets* (kW) |
Energy Reduction Targets* (Therms) | |
PG&E (PGC) |
$2,692,581 |
5,722,867 |
2,902 |
0 |
SCE |
$5,579,453 |
23,556,304 |
8,611 |
0 |
SDG&E |
$2,807,882 |
5,495,807 |
3,923 |
0 |
Procurement Total |
$ 8,387,335 |
29,052,111 |
12,534 |
0 |
*Minimum expectations based upon reduced budget, pending program implementation plan finalization
(END OF ATTACHMENT 4)
