Service List and Electronic Service Protocols
The current service list in this proceeding is posted on the Commission's Website. Instead of replacing the existing service list in its entirety, based on the appearance forms filled out at the PHC, I have elected to add those new appearances to the existing service list, and update the e-mail addresses as indicated in the appearance forms. Any party who no longer wishes to remain on the service list should contact our Process Office to remove his/her name. I also remind all interested parties in this proceeding that it is their responsibility to inform the Process Office of any changes to contact information, including electronic mail addresses. The Electronic Service Protocols attached to my December 22, 2003 ruling continue to apply to the documents served in this proceeding, until further notice.
IT IS RULED that:
1. The high priority issues in this proceeding will be addressed in the sequence and schedule set forth in today's ruling.
2. A two-day workshop on energy efficiency administrative structure will be held from 9 a.m. until 4 p.m. on March 17 and 18, 2004, at the Commission's Courtroom, 505 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, California. An agenda for the workshop will be distributed to the service list in this proceeding via electronic mail and posted on the Commission's Website at www.cpuc.ca.gov.
3. The Electronic Service Protocols attached to the Assigned Commissioner's Ruling dated December 22, 2003, will continue to apply to the documents served in this proceeding, until further notice.
Dated February 6, 2004, at San Francisco, California.
/s/ SUSAN P. KENNEDY
Susan P. Kennedy
Assigned Commissioner
ATTACHMENT 1
ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES,
OPTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE, AND
CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF ADMINISTRATION PROPOSALS
A. Identified Areas of Administration Responsibility:
The starting point for our Workshop discussion on administrative structure will be to identify the functions and responsibilities of an energy efficiency administrator (or administrators), using common terminology.1 I seek input from parties to clarify or expand the following list during the workshop discussion.
1. Policy Oversight: Determines policy direction and priorities, including short- and long-term energy efficiency and procurement goals; approves portfolio funding.
2. Research and Analysis in Support of Policy Oversight: Provides research and recommendations to assist in development of the Energy Efficiency policies and budget, including evaluation of Energy Efficiency potential savings, long-term impacts and priorities, short-term portfolio analyses and priorities; provides research related to procurement and Public Goods Charge funded activities; evaluates effectiveness of the structure for managing and administering the implementation of the Energy Efficiency Portfolio as it relates to budget management, program development and support and overall costs and results.
3. Portfolio-Level Evaluation, Measurement and Verification (EM&V): Establishes EM&V plan for evaluating the portfolio based on policy and budget priorities; evaluates overall objectivity and accuracy of EM&V results and makes recommendations for improvements; recommends overarching EM&V studies and other evaluation priorities, as needed. The EM&V activities described under #6 feed into this EM&V function.
4. Program Choice: Solicits and/or develops and selects programs that meet the approved policy priorities; submits general program description and budgets for regulatory approval.
5. Management/Administration of Energy Efficiency Program Portfolio: Responsible for general administration, and coordination of programs; reviews design of selected programs and propose changes based upon experience to date; oversees contracting and program implementation process; develops and implements quality assurance standards and tracking protocols; reviews and approves invoices; generates required reports and maintains centralized system for reports to regulators, legislators, advisory groups, and others.
6. Management/Administration of Individual Program EM&V: Oversees and ensures effectiveness of individual program EM&V; oversees assessment of individual program impacts, cost effectiveness and other appropriate measurements; develops EM&V criteria and determines reporting frequency; evaluates overall objectivity of individual program EM&V results.
7. Fiscal Agent: Responsible for holding and dispersing funds.
8. Dispute Resolution: Resolves disputes among administrative entities and implementers, including third-party contractors.
B. Options for Administration Structures
A significant portion of the Workshop will focus on identifying the various administrative options for the administrative functions and responsibilities described above, and on describing the implementation issues associated with each of them.
By way of background, I briefly outline the "current situation" with respect to energy efficiency administration in California, and then present a general listing of options to expand upon and describe in more detail at the Workshop.
Current Situation: Today, The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) holds the responsibility to determine policy priorities, policy recommendations, approve specific programs and overall statewide reports, and to update the Policy Manual. The CPUC is also responsible for program solicitation and review, and for some aspects of ongoing program management. The investor owned utilities (IOUs) are responsible for oversight and evaluation of their programs, and as well as oversight of Commission approved non-IOU programs. We recognize that evaluation of programs is most often outsourced, but the IOU or the non-IOU program implementers currently hold the contracts directly with the contractors. The IOUs are responsible for contracting studies on statewide energy efficiency issues such as savings potential.
The CPUC is responsible for approving funding for programs funded by the public goods charge (PGC),2 the procurement energy efficiency balancing account charge (PEEBA),3 and the natural gas surcharge (NGS).4 The IOUs hold fiscal responsibility for the PGC and PEEBA funds. Upon approval by the CPUC, those funds are dispersed by the IOU. NGS funds are remitted by the IOUs and interstate pipeline customers to the Board of Equalization.5 Upon approval by the CPUC, the State Controller issues payment to the IOUs to reimburse them for their expenses.
General Administrative Options:6
· Independent Administration- Independent, non-governmental agency contractually responsible to the CPUC or statutorily responsible for most aspects of energy efficiency with some regulatory oversight by the PUC.
o Examples: Oregon's non-profit Energy Trust, and Vermont's regulated Energy Efficiency Utility
· Vertically Integrated IOU- authority is given to the IOU to design and implement programs approved by the PUC. Most closely resembles current California model, although CPUC is responsible for solicitation for all EE programs.
o Examples: Washington state, Minnesota, Florida, Colorado
· Distribution Only Utility- generation divested utility responsible for design and implementation of programs approved by the PUC.
o Examples: MA, Connecticut, New Jersey
· Governmental Administration- state agency (or agencies) holds responsibility for overall administration of programs.
o Examples: New York (quasi-gov't corporation), Maine (PUC administers programs), Wisconsin, Illinois, Ohio
C. Criteria for Evaluation of Administration Proposals. We will also spend time during the workshop identifying criteria that should be considered in recommending and evaluating the best administration options for California. I present the following list to initiate the Workshop dialogue. Participants may suggest others that they see relevant in pursuing an administration option.
1. Promotes Integrated Resource Planning and Energy Efficiency Goals: The administrative structure ought to wholly support and inform these public policy goals. How does the proposed structure provide the following:
· Capability of administering a portfolio of cost-effective energy efficiency programs that can meet the Energy Action Plan goals.
· Capability of administering a portfolio of cost-effective energy efficiency programs that can meet the goal of reducing per capita demand by 1%, per the Assigned Commissioner's ruling dated July 3, 2003.
· Communication and coordination with entities responsible for supply-side portfolio management and transmission planning to ensure that all resource options are considered in a least-cost, integrated manner.
2. Organizational Focus and Mission: The organizational focus and mission should be compatible with Criteria #1.
· How does the administrative structure ensure that energy efficiency is a core component of the agency(s) responsibility and focus?
· Are there any conflicts based on the agency(s) organizational focus and mission (financial or non-financial) with respect to pursuing cost-effective energy efficiency? If so, what are they?
3. Accountability and Oversight: The administrative structure ought to provide checks and balances throughout the process. How does the proposed structure consider and ensure the following:
· Measurement and monitoring of administrative effectiveness
· Efficient, non-redundant program costs or efforts
· Remove or mitigate conflicting financial interests to ensure ongoing objective implementation and verification of programs
4. Administrative Effectiveness: How does the proposed structure consider and ensure the following:
· Collaborative process and involvement of parties
· Demonstrate flexibility to adapt programs to evolving market conditions/opportunities
· Timely and transparent decision making process
5. Implementation Considerations: Each administrative option will have implementation requirements that should be considered in the selection process. These include:
· What are the startup and ongoing costs of the organization?
· What are the necessary steps and requirements to ensure smooth transfer of program responsibilities?
· What is required to ensure funding and institutional sustainability of effort over time?
· What legislation, if any, is required to implement the proposed administration structure(s)?
· What other legal issues must be address prior to implementation of the proposed administration structure(s)?
(END OF ATTACHMENT 1)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that I have this day, served electronically the parties to which an electronic mail address has been provided, and served by U.S. mail the parties who do not have e-mail addresses, a true copy of the original attached Assigned Commissioner's Ruling Establishing Schedule for Addressing High Priority Issues During 2004, and Notice of Workshop on Administrative Structure on all parties of record in this proceeding or their attorneys of record.
Dated February 6, 2004, at San Francisco, California.
/s/ KE HUANG
Ke Huang
NOTICE
Parties should notify the Process Office, Public Utilities Commission, 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 2000, San Francisco, CA 94102, of any change of address to ensure that they continue to receive documents. You must indicate the proceeding number on the service list on which your name appears.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The Commission's policy is to schedule hearings (meetings, workshops, etc.) in locations that are accessible to people with disabilities. To verify that a particular location is accessible, call: Calendar Clerk (415) 703-1203.
If specialized accommodations for the disabled are needed, e.g., sign language interpreters, those making the arrangements must call the Public Advisor at (415) 703-2074, TTY 1-866-836-7825 or (415) 703-5282 at least three working days in advance of the event.
1 Note: Program delivery and implementation are not included in this list, because we are focusing solely on areas of administrative responsibility.
2 Pub. Util. Code § 381.
3 CPUC Decision 03-12-062.
4 Pub. Util. Code §§ 890-900.
5 The Board of Equalization transmits payments to the Gas Consumption Surcharge Fund in the State Treasury. Pub. Util. Code § 892.
6 The list of options draws from the Regulatory Assistance Project's report "Who Should Deliver Ratepayer Funded Energy-Efficiency Programs," March 2003.
