ALJ/WAC/avs PROPOSED DECISION Agenda ID# 15508
Ratesetting
Decision ______
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Application of Southern California Edison Company (U338E) for Approval of its Energy Savings Assistance and California Alternate Rates for Energy Programs and Budgets for Program Years 2015-2017. / Application 14-11-007(Filed November 18, 2014)
Application of San Diego Gas & Electric Company (U902M) for Approval of Low Income Assistance Programs and Budgets for Program Years 2015-2017. / Application 14-11-009
(Filed November 18, 2014)
Application of Pacific Gas and Electric Company for Approval of the 2015-2017 Energy Savings Assistance and California Alternate Rates for Energy Programs and Budget. (U39M). / Application 14-11-010
(Filed November 18, 2014)
Application of Southern California Gas Company (U904G) for Approval of Low Income Assistance Programs and Budgets for Program Years 2015-2017. / Application 14-11-011
(Filed November 18, 2014)
DECISION GRANTING COMPENSATION TO THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK FOR CONTRIBUTION TO DECISION (D.) 16-11-022,
D.16-04-040, AND D.15-12-047
D.16-04-040, and D.15-12-047
Claimed: $192,200.86 / Awarded: $189,867.11
Assigned Commissioner: Michael Picker / Assigned ALJ: W. Anthony Colbert
173700795 - 1 -
A.14-11-007 et al. ALJ/WAC/avs PROPOSED DECISION
PART I: PROCEDURAL ISSUES
A. Brief description of Decision: / In D.16-11-022, Decision on Large Investor-Owned Utilities’ California Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE) and Energy Savings Assistance (ESA) Program Applications, the Commission authorized CARE and ESA Program activities and budgets for Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), Southern California Edison Company (SCE), San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E), and Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) for program years 2017 through 2020. The Commission also authorized the continuation of several working groups created pursuant to D.12-08-044 to inform mid-cycle and next program cycle ESA Program changes, including the Mid-Cycle Working Group, the Cost-Effectiveness Working Group, and the Multi-Family Working Group.In D.16-04-040, Decision Adopting Measures in Response to the Aliso Canyon Natural Gas Leak Emergency, the Commission directed SoCalGas and SCE to intensify their ESA Program efforts in the geographic regions most impacted by the natural gas leak, and to suspend certain administrative rules to facilitate near-term electric and natural gas savings.
In D.15-12-047, Interim Decision on the Community Help and Awareness of Natural Gas and Electricity Services Pilot Program, the Ongoing Program, and Related Funding, the Commission approved the establishment of the Community Help and Awareness of Natural Gas and Electricity Services (CHANGES) program as an ongoing program to be managed by the Commission’s Consumer Service and Information Division, with technical input from Energy Division, and funded through the CARE Program until the Commission can bring the program into its own budget.
B. Intervenor must satisfy intervenor compensation requirements set forth in Pub. Util. Code §§ 1801-1812:
Intervenor / CPUC VerifiedTimely filing of notice of intent to claim compensation (NOI) (§ 1804(a)):
1. Date of Prehearing Conference (PHC): / 2/20/15 / Verified
2. Other specified date for NOI:
3. Date NOI filed: / 3/23/15 / Verified
4. Was the NOI timely filed? / Yes
Showing of customer or customer-related status (§ 1802(b)):
5. Based on ALJ ruling issued in proceeding number: / R.14-05-001 / Verified
6. Date of ALJ ruling: / 9/5/14 / Verified
7. Based on another CPUC determination (specify):
8. Has the Intervenor demonstrated customer or customer-related status? / Yes
Showing of “significant financial hardship” (§ 1802(g)):
9. Based on ALJ ruling issued in proceeding number: / R.14-05-001 / Verified
10. Date of ALJ ruling: / 9/5/14 / Verified
11. Based on another CPUC determination (specify):
12. 12. Has the Intervenor demonstrated significant financial hardship? / Yes
Timely request for compensation (§ 1804(c)):
13. Identify Final Decision: / D.16-11-022 / Verified
14. Date of issuance of Final Order or Decision: / 11/21/16 / Verified
15. File date of compensation request: / 1/19/17 / Verified
16. Was the request for compensation timely? / Yes
- 3 -
A.14-11-007 et al. ALJ/WAC/avs PROPOSED DECISION
PART II: SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTION
A. Did the Intervenor substantially contribute to the final decision (see § 1802(i), §1803(a), and D.98-04-059).
Intervenor’s Claimed Contribution(s) / Specific References to Intervenor’s Claimed Contribution(s) / CPUC DiscussionD.16-11-022 (Re: Utilities’ 2015-2017 CARE and ESA Program Applications)
CARE – Enrolling/Retaining Eligible Customers
TURN demonstrated that the utilities should modify their forms and other customer communications pertaining to CARE Post Enrollment Verification (PEV) to make it abundantly clear that customers who enroll through categorical eligibility can satisfy PEV by providing proof of continued enrollment in the qualifying program. / · D.16-11-022, Section 4.1.1, p. 283 (discussing TURN’s recommendations); p. 285 (adopting TURN’s recommendations)
· TURN Protest, pp. 11-12 (recommending that the Commission clarify the PEV requirements for customers who enrolled in CARE through categorical eligibility)
· Ex. 34 (TURN/Goodson), pp. 3-13 (recommending changes to SDG&E and PG&E materials) / Verified
CARE – IT Programming Budget
TURN closely analyzed the utilities’ proposed IT Programming budgets in light of historical recorded costs, past budget requests and authorizations, and incremental activities and costs identified by the utilities. As a result of this analysis, TURN recommended that the Commission authorize a lower budget than requested by each utility for 2015-2017. While the Commission did not adopt TURN’s specific reductions, the Commission concluded that the utilities’ proposed budgets should be sufficient to cover their proposed activities plus the new IT-enhancements related to mobile devices, customer notification, and coordination with LifeLine required by D.16-11-022, in light of TURN’s analysis of historical data.
TURN additionally demonstrated that the APD and PD both erred in authorizing additional IT budget (beyond the utilities’ requested budgets) without record support for mobile platform IT upgrades to enable CARE/ESA enrollment, PEV, and re-certification. The Commission instead took TURN’s suggested approach and directed the utilities to address their incremental costs, if any, of complying with new IT directives in their post-decision budget filing. / · D.16-11-022, Section 4.3, pp. 306-308 (authorizing IT budgets)
· Ex. 34 (TURN/Goodson), pp. 14-28 (analyzing the utilities’ requested IT budgets)
· Compare D.16-11-022, Section 4.5, pp. 318-320 with Proposed Decision, Section 4.5, p. 255, and Alternate Proposed Decision, Section 4.5, p. 311 (proposing new budgets for mobile platform IT upgrades)
· D.16-11-022, p. 308 (authorizing the utilities to request additional funds for the newly required incremental IT activities, if necessary, and provide “detailed justifications and explanations” for any such budget increases in their “conforming Advice Letter”)
· TURN Comments on PD, pp. 5-6; TURN Comments on APD, pp. 13-14 (addressing the error in authorizing new budgets for mobile platform IT upgrades) / Verified
CARE – Interaction with Green Tariff Shared Renewables Program
TURN demonstrated that the CARE discount should be provided to eligible GTSR participants, and should be applied to non-generation rates -- the same method used for all other CARE customers -- rather than adjusted to account for any premiums or credits associated with GTSR participation, to preserve non-participant indifference, as required by law. (PG&E agreed with TURN’s analysis in rebuttal testimony.) / · D.16-11-022, Section 4.11, pp. 339-341
· Ex. 36 (TURN/Freedman), pp. 1-4
· TURN Opening Brief, pp. 72-75 / Verified
CARE – Overall Administrative Budgets
TURN, together with ORA, demonstrated that historic, recorded CARE administrative costs should inform the Commission’s consideration of the reasonableness of the utilities’ proposed CARE Administrative Budgets.
TURN, together with ORA, also demonstrated the need for standardization in the budget categories and subcategories used by the utilities to report recorded costs, so as to permit meaningful comparisons across the utilities. / · D.16-11-022, Section 4.12, p. 345 (finding merit in TURN’s and ORA’s concerns about the utilities’ administrative cost forecasts; concluding that the utilities’ CARE Administrative budgets should not be approved as proposed; and generally tying authorized budget increases to 2015 recorded costs)
· D.16-11-022, pp. 346-47 (directing the Mid-Cycle Working Group to ensure standardization in budget categories across the utilities)
· Ex. 37 (TURN Rebuttal/Goodson), pp. 1-4 (addressing the need for standardization in budget reporting, and the importance of historical costs, in assessing the reasonableness of proposed budgets)
· TURN Opening Brief, pp. 68-70 / Verified
CARE – The Role of AMI Data
TURN demonstrated that the PD and APD erred in authorizing the utilities to issue two RFPs to generate end-use profiles of CARE customers and segregate the population into groups based on load profiles. TURN recommended that the utilities first take advantage of the report recently issued by LBNL, which was funded by ratepayers and commissioned in R.13-09-011, in which LBNL used customer-level data to segment all customers into clusters based on load profiles, end-uses, and their ability to shift load, with CARE and non-CARE customers separately clustered. TURN suggested that this public dataset first be used to meet the Commission’s goals, to the extent possible. In D.16-11-022, the Commission rejected the approach originally proposed in the PD and APD and found that “the LBNL developed segmented profiles are ripe for the IOUs to use and act on.” The Commission directed the utilities to use the LBNL dataset in conducting marketing, outreach, and enrollment in ESA, Demand Response, and other energy efficiency programs.
TURN also cautioned against the directive in the PD and APD that the utilities share the vendor-developed load profiles with potential DRAM bidders in accordance with customer privacy provisions. TURN pointed out that the Commission has previously concluded that customer-specific data cannot be shared with third party DRAM bidders, and TURN recommended that efforts to expand third party demand response should be closely coordinated with the rules under development in A.14-06-001. The Commission dropped the directive regarding data sharing with DRAM bidders from D.16-11-022. / · D.16-11-022, Section 4.4, pp. 315-316 (LBNL study)
· TURN Comments on PD, p. 6; TURN Comments on APD, pp. 14-15 (LBNL study)
· Compare D.16-11-022, Section 4.4 with PD, Section 4.4, and APD, Section 4.4. (DRAM bidder directives dropped);
· TURN Comments on PD, pp. 6-7; TURN Comments on APD, p. 15 (data sharing with DRAM bidders)
· See also APD Rev. 4 (Redline), Section 4.4, showing the changes regarding the LBNL study and data sharing with DRAM bidders / Verified
CARE – CleanCARE Pilot Program
TURN recommended that the Commission reject the “CleanCARE” pilot program, in the form proposed by the Interstate Renewable Energy Council (IREC), because it would convert the CARE discount into a transferable voucher in violation of AB 327, would conflict with or prejudge the outcome of issues being addressed in other proceedings, and could invite fraud and abuse of participants, leaving them worse off than with CARE. While the Commission in D.16-11-022 was silent as to the legal conclusion suggested by TURN, the Commission found shortcomings in the CleanCARE proposal and deferred disposition to R.12-06-013, where the Commission is currently considering potential changes to the structure of the CARE discount. Specifically, the Commission “declined to take action” because “IREC has not sufficiently addressed the overlap of its CleanCARE proposal” with other active Commission proceedings and “the Commission’s previous Net Energy Metering and Rate Reform Decisions.” Instead, the Commission encouraged IREC to update its CleanCARE proposal in Phase 3 of R.12-06-013 to specifically address some of the concerns raised by TURN, including ensuring “sufficient protections that participating CARE customers will not receive higher bills than they would have under the current CARE discount,” and to reconcile CleanCARE with related Commission policies and decisions. / · D.16-11-022, Section 5.5.2.6, pp. 391-396
· Ex. 36 (TURN/Freedman), pp. 4-6
· TURN Opening Brief, pp. 75-79 / Verified
ESAP – Measures
The Commission adopted many of TURN’s recommendations regarding the addition of new measures to ESAP to increase natural gas savings, electricity savings, and water savings from the program.
1. High Efficiency Furnaces
TURN provided additional analysis to support SoCalGas’s proposal to include High Efficiency FAU Furnaces as an ESA Program measure, but on a targeted basis. TURN also recommended that the Commission direct PG&E to include High Efficiency furnaces using a targeted approach similar to that proposed by SoCalGas. PG&E did not propose to add this measure.
The PD would have taken an approach very similar to that advocated by TURN, by (1) adopting SoCalGas’s proposal to target this measure to high users with the least efficient furnaces, and (2) directing PG&E to add this measure on a targeted basis like SoCalGas, depending on the results of re-running the measure cost-effectiveness calculation using the 65% AFUE baseline.
The Commission adopted the APD rather than the PD. Regarding PG&E, the two were the same, and thus the Commission adopted an approach akin to TURN’s recommendation. However, the Commission directed SoCalGas to add HE furnaces, but without the targeting recommended by TURN (and SoCalGas).
The Commission has also long held that contribution to an ALJ’s PD is evidence of a substantial contribution, even if the Commission does not adopt the PD’s recommendations. For example, in D.11-05-044 the Commission awarded TURN $143,800 out of $147,600 requested for TURN’s work in the SoCalGas automated meter infrastructure (AMI) proceeding, even though the underlying decision had approved the proposed AMI program over TURN’s objections. On several issues the Commission agreed that TURN made a substantial contribution even though the decision did not adopt TURN’s recommended outcome. As the Commission explained, “TURN’s participation ensured a thorough analysis on this issue, and their position was reflected in the PD, though not in the alternate PD, which was the final decision that was adopted.” D.11-05-044, p. 4. See also D.13-09-041, p. 3 (“To the extent that TURN’s participation substantially contributed to the PD, we find that it also substantially contributed to the
alternate PD which was adopted by the CPUC.”).
TURN submits that the circumstances presented by our work in this proceeding on the High Efficiency Furnace issue are substantially the same as those presented in these prior proceedings. Therefore, TURN requests that the Commission find a substantial contribution warranting an award of intervenor compensation for the reasonable costs and expenses TURN incurred for our participation in the proceeding on this issue.