SK1/MEG/hkr 2/6/2004
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Order Instituting Rulemaking to Examine the Commission's Future Energy Efficiency Policies, Administration and Programs.
Rulemaking 01-08-028
(Filed August 23, 2001)
ASSIGNED COMMISSIONER'S RULING ESTABLISHING SCHEDULE
FOR ADDRESSING HIGH PRIORITY ISSUES DURING 2004,
AND NOTICE OF WORKSHOP ON ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTUREA further prehearing conference (PHC) was held on January 23, 2004, to discuss sequencing and scheduling options for the following issues in this proceeding:
· Administrative structure
· Avoided costs
· Energy efficiency savings goals
· Performance incentives
· Evaluation, measurement and verification (EM&V)
Based on the discussion at the PHC, I establish below the sequence and schedule for addressing these high priority issues during 2004, which will be phased over the course of the year.
This ruling also serves as notice for a two-day workshop on administrative structure, to 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. The workshop topics are described in greater detail in today's ruling.
Phase 1: Administrative Structure
We will address the issue of administrative structure for energy efficiency programs as follows:
Public Workshop: March 17 and 18, 2004
Proposals for Administrative
Structure: April 8, 2004
Opening Comments on Proposals: April 26, 2004
Reply Comments: May 10, 2004
A draft decision will be prepared as soon as practicable after the receipt of reply comments. The draft decision will then be circulated for opening comments within 20 days and reply comments 5 days thereafter, per the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. I anticipate that this item will be placed on the agenda for the July 8, 2004 Commission Conference.
The purpose of the public workshop is to (1) identify each area of responsibility for energy efficiency administrator(s), (2) describe the various options for administrative structure, including those implemented in other states, and (3) identify and discuss the range of potential criteria for evaluating the best administrative options for California. Attachment 1 presents my initial thinking on each of these areas, based in part on survey information gathered in two recent discussion papers. Workshop participants should familiarize themselves with these papers as background for the workshop.1 Interested parties should feel free to recommend other discussion papers on the topic to the service list in advance of the workshop, via e-mail communication. In addition, I recommend that workshop participants familiarize themselves with the Commission's experience in implementing an administrative structure for energy efficiency via advisory boards, which is summarized in Attachment 2 of Decision (D.) 03-10-057.2
I want to emphasize that the purpose of the workshop is not to present and debate specific proposals for energy efficiency administration in California. Rather, the workshop should facilitate the development of: (1) common terminology with respect to administrative functions and responsibilities, (2) a better understanding of the range of administrative options available for consideration and associated implementation requirements (e.g., statutory changes that may be necessary), and (3) criteria for evaluating parties' specific administrative proposals.
I also want to stress that the criteria for evaluating specific administrative proposals should not be developed in a vacuum. In my view, the issue of evaluation criteria is inextricably linked with integrated resource planning and the Commission's Energy Action Plan goals for energy demand reductions. We now have two sources of funding for future energy efficiency programs (via procurement rates and public goods charge rates) that can serve to displace more costly investments in generation or transmission "steel in the ground" projects. The evaluation criteria for administrative options should reflect this important function, as indicated in the list of criteria I present for discussion in Attachment 1. This does not preclude workshop participants from proposing additional (or different) evaluation criteria to consider for the administration of programs, based on other functions they consider to be important. . However, our discussion of evaluation criteria will begin with how to best evaluate administrative proposals for energy efficiency in order to serve the function of promoting integrated resource planning and the Commission's energy savings goals. The workshop discussion should also reflect the Commission's direction in D.04-01-050 that:
"As the Commission will authorize a uniform portfolio of energy efficiency, we believe it necessary that the Commission have in place a unified administrative structure to oversee all energy efficiency programs regardless of the source of funding in the years ahead. For this reason, we are referring the issue of administration of energy efficiency programs authorized in this proceeding to R.01-08-028."3
In their April 8, 2004 submittals, parties should clearly describe the evaluation criteria utilized in evaluating administrative options and developing their specific recommendations for administrative structure(s). The proposals should clearly identify which administrative functions and responsibilities are associated with each recommended structure, if more than one structure is recommended (e.g., one for program portfolio administration, another one for EM&V.) The proposals should also include a discussion of implementation steps associated with each option, including a discussion of what, if any, new statutory authority is required for the options considered. Parties should append legal briefs to their comments to support their views on the legal requirements of each option considered and of their recommended proposal(s).
I strongly encourage all parties who plan to actively participate in this phase of the proceeding, either by submitting specific proposals or commenting on those submittals, to attend the workshop scheduled for March 17 and 18, 2004. In developing their proposals (and comments), I expect parties to utilize and reference the common terminology discussed at the workshop regarding administrative functions/responsibilities, options for administrative structure and associated implementation requirements, and proposed evaluation criteria. This will facilitate a clear understanding of where parties agree and disagree with respect to the administrative option(s) they are proposing for one or more administrative functions, as well as the criteria for evaluation that they use to reach their recommendations.
I have scheduled both opening and reply comments on the administrative structure proposals, as indicated in the schedule above. All parties are reminded that all opening comments provide the opportunity for parties to express their views on the proposals filed on April 8, and should be as detailed as necessary to fully articulate the criticisms or commendations of those proposals. Reply comments are limited to the specific issues raised in opening comments, and may not be used as a substitute for filing comprehensive opening comments. In fairness to all parties, I will not permit any party to wait until the reply round of comments to put forth its specific criticisms or commendations of submitted proposals.
1 Regulatory Assistance Project's "Who Should Deliver Ratepayer Funded Energy Efficiency": www.raponline.org/Pubs/RatePayerFundedEE/RatePayerFundedEEPartI.pdf, University of California Energy Institute's "Who Should Administer Energy-Efficiency Programs?":
2 This decision and attachments are available on the Commission's Website at www.cpuc.ca.gov.
3 D.04-01-050, mimeo., p. 106.
