Findings of Fact
1. These applications proposing program year 2001 energy efficiency programs were filed on November 15, 2000, as required by D.00-07-017 and pursuant to the direction of the ALJ, after an extensive public planning process.
2. California is experiencing an electric supply shortage, escalating electric prices, routine Stage II alerts, and threatened Stage III alerts, and anticipates further supply shortages in the summer of 2001.
3. Measures to reduce load are the most effective means of ensuring reliability and putting downward pressure on prices in the near term.
4. The proposed programs and program portfolios are improved over PY 2000. The utilities have modified some programs, measures, and incentives, and have proposed new programs to meet the need for peak load savings and to enhance energy savings.
5. The utilities should have the fund-shifting flexibility to expand and accelerate, as necessary, programs that achieve the maximum feasible reductions in uneconomic and peak electricity consumption.
6. Limiting fund-shifting within program areas will ensure the goals of equity in PGC spending and targeting underserved communities. This limitation will not hinder utilities' portfolios management since there are substantial untapped conservation opportunities in all customer classes, communities, and program areas.
7. The utilities should chronicle the changes in the program emphasis and funding in their April quarterly reports.
8. Programs specifically targeted toward energy efficiency in new construction are an important part of our energy efficiency portfolio, have the potential to provide much needed energy and demand savings, and are mandated by AB 970.
9. Pub. Util. Code §399.15(b)(2) is ambiguous and subject to more than one interpretation, permitting us to look to a variety of extrinsic aids to ascertain the legislative intent in order to effectuate the purpose of the law.
10. TPI are a source for new, innovative, creative, successful, and cost-effective programs that have the potential of producing both short-term and long-term energy and demand savings. Third parties, with established community ties, can break down barriers and effectively promote energy efficiency programs.
11. The utilities have not followed our prior directives to increase funding for general and targeted TPI.
12. MA&E studies should be related to the programs that are ultimately approved for PY 2001.
13. The utility-managed statewide MA&E studies have been reviewed in a public process and, for the most part, consist of continuing studies to support continuing programs.
14. The description of the utility-specific MA&E studies are not sufficiently detailed to provide for review and evaluation and have not been reviewed in any public process.
15. The descriptions of the studies to be performed by the CEC raise several issues that need to be reviewed prior to approval.
16. The utilities propose a shareholder incentive mechanism that divides milestones into three categories: 1) energy savings; 2) market effects; and 3) performance adders for information programs, with the greatest weight given to energy savings.
17. PG&E's and Edison's estimated electric savings associated with PY 2001 programs are substantially lower than both recorded electric savings in PY 1999 and projected electric savings for PY 2000. SoCalGas' estimated therms saved are substantially lower than recorded therms saved in PY 1998 and 1999 and projected therms saved for PY 2000.
18. We question the legitimacy of PG&E's, Edison's, and SoCalGas' estimated energy savings for PY 2001 programs.
19. Energy and peak demand savings should meet or exceed those savings recorded or projected for prior program year.
20. The utilities should take every effort to maximize energy and peak demand savings for PY 2001.
21. The utilities' historical experience provides an appropriate information to establish energy and peak demand savings targets.
22. The adopted earnings targets and earnings potential, together with the fund-shifting flexibility we adopt, provide the utilities with both the incentive and the means to earn performance awards.
23. The utilities should provide estimations of energy demand savings for the first half of 2001 in their June quarterly reports.
24. The proposed market effects and proposed performance adder incentives are approved as proposed.
25. There are some areas of the utilities' applications that do not comply with our prior directives, with AB 970, and with our goals of maximizing energy and peak demand savings.
26. The ACR Implementing AB 970 directed Edison to submit a budget for PY 2001 programs totaling $90 million instead of the $50 million minimum funding level provided for in §381(c)(1).
27. Edison's budget for PY 2001 programs consists of $50 million in PGC funds, plus $40 million in carry-over funds and balancing account interest. Edison proposes to make up any shortfall by accessing PY 2002 funds for certain programs.
28. Under current market conditions and Edison's rate freeze, it would be burdensome to order Edison to adjust its ratemaking to absorb an additional $40 million in PGC funding over which it has no assurance of cost recovery.
