Resolution E-4884 DRAFT December 14, 2017
SDG&E AL 3065-E/2568-G, AL 3065-E-A/2568-G-A/ MA7
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Agenda ID 16093
ENERGY DIVISION RESOLUTION E-4884
December 14, 2017
RESOLUTION
Resolution E-4884. Resolution approving San Diego Gas & Electric Company’s California Alternative Rates For Energy (CARE) and Energy Savings Assistance (ESA) programs conforming advice letters (No. 3065-E/2568-G and 3065-E-A/2568-G-A) filed in compliance with Decision 16-11-022.
PROPOSED OUTCOME:
· Approves, subject to modifications, San Diego Gas & Electric Company’s (“SDG&E”) CARE and ESA program Advice Letter (“AL”) 3065-E/2568-G, and Supplemental AL
3065-E-A/2568-G-A, filed in conformance with Decision
(D.) 16-11-022.
· Authorizes an additional $11,321,599 in unspent funds for SDG&E’s ESA program years 2017-2020. Approves SDG&E’s household treatment goals, energy savings targets, willingness to participate calculations, coordination efforts with the California Department of Community Services and Development, and various multifamily assistance and outreach efforts.
SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS:
· The CARE and ESA programs are authorized and operated under our policy to ensure the health, safety and comfort of low income customers living in Investor Owned Utility service areas.
· The ESA program provides weatherization services through the installation of efficiency measures in income qualifying low income homes and energy conservation education to improve the health, safety and comfort of program participants.
ESTIMATED COST:
· Authorizes an additional $11,321,599 in unspent funds for SDG&E’s 2017-2020 ESA program. These funds were previously collected, and would otherwise be returned to ratepayers or used to off-set future program expenses.
· Authorizes SDG&E’s new ESA program budget, including newly authorized unspent funds, is $138,777,375 for program years 2017-2020.
By Advice Letter 3065-E/2568-G, filed April 3, 2017; and Supplemental AL 3065-E-A/2568-G-A, Filed on June 20, 2017.
Summary
This Resolution approves with certain budget modifications, SDG&E’s CARE and ESA programs budgets for program years 2017 – 2020 pursuant to conforming AL 3065-E/2568-G, and supplemental AL 3065-E-A/2568-G-A.
This Resolution authorizes an additional $11,321,599 in unspent funds to implement D.16-11-022 directives, which brings SDG&E’s total authorized ESA program budget to $138,777,375for program years 2017-2020. This budget increase includes:
1. $245,000 for Measurement and Evaluation (“M&E”) studies.
2. $346,875 for regulatory compliance.
3. $8,000,000 for Multi-family common area measures.
4. $1,929,724 for leveraging with the California Department of Community Services and Development (“CSD”) Low Income Weatherization Program (“LIWP”).
5. $250,000 in additional unspent funds for the Programmable Communicating Thermostat (“PCT”) pilot.
This Resolution denies $2,726,867 of proposed new program expenses that were included in SDG&E’s additional budget requests, including unspent funds, as follows:
1. Denies $1,405,833 to cover contractor estimated costs for SDG&E’s My Account enrollment and in-home education efforts, pending further itemization directed here.
2. Denies in part SDG&E’s request for $571,677 in General Administration funds for the CSD’s data sharing and mobile versioning directives. We approve $300,000 for CSD data sharing efforts. We deny $271,677 requested for ESA mobile versioning, My Account directives, and AB 793 pending justification, given the pre-existing funding allocated for these activities in the D.16-11-022 decision.
3. Denies $473,829 in additional budget for CARE program Information Technology (“IT”) enhancements pending further itemization and justification.
4. Denies $350,000 to cover automation efforts for the low income telecommunications Lifeline program leveraging, pending the outcome of the Utilities’ Petition for Modification (“PFM”) to D.16-11-022 addressing approval for Lifeline coordination efforts.
5. Denies SDG&E’s CARE budget line item of $225,528 to cover the costs of mobile apps. SDG&E can re-request additional funding pending the outcome of the Utilities’ PFM to D.16-11-022 addressing development of mobile apps.
This Resolution also approves directives in D.16-11-022 for SDG&E’s revised household treatment goals, energy savings targets, willingness to participate calculations, coordination efforts with CSD, and various multifamily assistance and outreach efforts.
Any remaining unspent funds not authorized in this Resolution shall be utilized to fund program and policy objectives adopted in D.16-11-022, and to offset the program collections that would otherwise have been required. These funds shall be used to achieve ESA program and policy objectives and are not to be returned to ratepayers at this time.
Background
California Alternate Rates for Energy (“CARE”)
The CARE program provides an energy utility rate discount to all income eligible participants. Currently the discount is between 32-39% for electric charges and 20% for natural gas charges. Income eligibility for CARE participation is set at 200% or less of Federal Poverty Guidelines (FPG). The rate discount is funded by non-participating CARE customers as part of a statutory “public purpose program surcharge” that appears on energy customer’s monthly utility bills.
Energy Savings Assistance Program (“ESA”)
The ESA Program is an energy efficiency program that provides no cost weatherization services, energy efficiency measures, minor home repairs, and energy education to income eligible program participants. The goal of the program is to reduce energy consumption, resulting in bill savings, while also increasing the health, comfort, and safety of program participants. Income eligibility for ESA participation is also set at 200% or less of FPG. ESA program activities are funded by ratepayers as part of a statutory “public purpose program surcharge” that appears on monthly utility bills.
SDG&E CARE & ESA Program 2015-2017 Program Application
SDG&E filed its 2015-2017 cycle application for approval of its Low Income CARE and ESA Program budgets on November 18, 2014. That application was consolidated with the other Utilities’ applications into proceeding A.14-11-007. While a decision was pending in the proceeding, program funding was bridged for the 2015 and 2016 program years. On November 22, 2016, we issued
D.16-11-022, a final decision on the consolidated applications. The Decision extended the program cycle to 2020 and required SDG&E to file a conforming advice letter to update its proposed program activities and budgets. SDG&E was directed to provide clear and descriptive plans for implementation of its 2017-2020 CARE and ESA programs in this conforming advice letter.
SDG&E CARE and ESAP Conforming Advice Letter
SDG&E filed its CARE and ESA programs conforming AL 3065-E/2568-G on April 3, 2017. On April 10, 2017, Energy Division (“ED”) staff suspended AL 3065-E/2568-G for staff review. After initial review, ED staff requested additional information about SDG&E’s ESA program budgets and goals, noting gaps in the initial filing. On June 20, 2017, SDG&E filed its Supplemental
AL 3065-E-A/2568-G-A responding to ED staff’s request. Together, both filings address the following issues:
1. CARE and ESA program budgets, including allocations of unspent funds.
2. ESA program household treatment goals through 2020.
3. ESA cost effectiveness projections.
4. ESA program savings goals.
5. Collaboration efforts with the California Department of Community Services and Development (CSD).
6. Multifamily coordination efforts.
7. New Willingness to Participate Factor (“WTPF”) population estimates.
8. CARE program Information Technology (“IT”) enhancements.
9. AB 793 compliance efforts.
10. Request to modify the Programmable Communicating Thermostat (PCT) pilots ordered in the D.16-11-022.
In its conforming advice letter, SDG&E proposes to utilize an additional $12,999,109 in unspent funds to carry out the new directives required in the
D.16-11-022, as follows:
Table 1. Summary of SDG&E ESA Unspent Funds Proposal
Requested Unspent Funds Allocation / Category$245,000 / Measurement and Evaluation Studies
$346,875 / Regulatory Compliance
$1,405,833 / In Home Energy Education
$500,000 / Programmable Communicating Thermostats (PCT) Pilot
$8,000,000 / Multifamily common measures
$1,929,724 / Leveraging (CSD's LIWP)
$571,677 / General Administration
$12,999,109 / Total
While SDG&E did not disclose in its supplemental advice letter the current amount of unspent funds the utility reported to the Low Income Oversight Board (“LIOB”), that it has approximately $23 million in unspent funds. After taking into account its request for authority to use $12,999,109, approximately
$10 million is available to be used to offset future collections.
On August 7, 2017, ED staff suspended both advice letters (AL 3065-E/2568-G and AL 3065-E-A/2568-G-A) for review and dispensation.
Petitions for Modification (PFM) of D.16-11-022
On March 14, 2017, the IOUs filed a joint Petition for Modification of D.16-11-022, requesting clarification of the Decision language and modification of its ESA and CARE Program directives. The Utilities’ PFM made requests to change Decision directives affecting their obligations to present plans for ESA and CARE program activities in their conforming advice letters.
On April 4, 2017 the California Housing Partnership Corporation, Natural Resources Defense Council, and National Consumer Law Center, (“CHPC et. al”) filed a separate PFM requesting clarification and modifications of the Decision relating to implementation of its Multifamily and Mid-Cycle directives (referred to here as “the NRDC PFM,” or “second PFM”).
The requests made in both PFMs impact the low income Universal Lifeline Telephone Service (“ULTS” or “Lifeline”) program, Multi-family, and CSD coordination efforts ordered in our Decision. With the adoption of this Resolution, we defer to our final decision on both PFMs to direct any further compliance activities required by SDG&E.
Notice
Notice of AL 3065-E/2568-G and supplemental advice letter 3065-E-A/2568-G-A was made by publication in the Commission’s Daily Calendar on April 10, 2017. A copy of AL 3065-E/2568-G was mailed and distributed to the proceeding service list in accordance with Section 4 of General Order 96-B.
Protests
On April 24, 2017, AL 3065-E/2568-G was timely protested by the Center for Accessible Technology (“CforAT”), jointly by Brightline Defense Project (“Brightline”) and Greenlining Institute (“Greenlining”), and collectively by California Housing Partnership Corporation, Natural Resources Defense Council, and National Consumer Law Center, (parties collectively referred to as “CHPC et. al.”).
On July 10, 2017, AL 3065-E-A/2568-G-A was protested jointly by The East Los Angeles Community Union (“TELACU”), the Maravilla Foundation, the Association of California Community and Energy Services, the Energy Efficiency Council, and Brightline (“TELACU et. al”).
SDG&E responded to the protests of CforAT, Brightline, Greenlining, and CHPC et. al. on May 1, 2017; and to the protest of TELACU et. al. on July 17, 2017. The following is a summary of the major issues raised in protests and replies.
1. Center for Accessible Technology Protest
CforAT protested SDG&E’s request in AL 3065-E/2568-G for additional funding in the amount of $350,000 for CARE Program IT enhancements. CforAT opposes any additional funds to SDG&E for these enhancements on grounds that the utility has not provided “any information detailing how this additional funding will be utilized.”[1] CforAT requests greater detail of SDG&E’s planned CARE IT enhancements related to Lifeline, and argues it would be inappropriate to grant this request without such detail. CforAT also opposes SDG&E’s request for $473,829 in additional CARE IT funding for mobile and accessibility upgrades directed in the Decision. CforAT argued that the approved budget is sufficient for those efforts. CforAT further argued that SDG&E’s proposal for accessibility upgrades above the $300,000 initially authorized by the Decision, should not be authorized without additional justification by the utility.
2. Joint Protest of Greenlining Institute and Brightline Defense Project
Greenlining and Brightline protested AL 3065-E/2568-G on grounds that SDG&E does not clearly identify how it will utilize unspent funds for ESA program activities. They argued first that the advice letter “fails to notify the Commission/Energy Division if SDG&E’s unspent funds exceed the threshold for reporting”[2] that was set in the Decision. Secondly, they asserted that SDG&E does not “specify (the amount of) unspent funds SDG&E has or what percentage will remain unspent.”[3] Brightline and Greenlining further asserted that SDG&E is required to begin reporting on the eight percent unspent funds threshold established in the Decision. Finally, they requested that AL 3065-E/2568-G be resubmitted with information on SDG&E’s unspent funds balances, including a report about whether the eight percent threshold will be exceeded by its current expenditure of unspent funds.
3. Joint Protest of the California Housing Partnership Corporation, Natural Resources Defense Council, and National Consumer Law Center
CHPC et. al. protested SDG&E’s AL 3065-E/2568-G on the grounds that it omits “key details related to the development and implementation of an owner affidavit process for multifamily whole building enrollment,”[4] as ordered in the Decision. They argued that instead of including a copy of the actual owner affidavit process in its advice letter, SDG&E merely restates the directives in the Decision. CHPC et. al. found that SDG&E did not “provide any additional details or draft documents related to its proposed affidavit process, or how it plans on coordinating efforts with the other IOUs,”[5] to ensure that their process accommodates large portfolio owners as directed in the Decision. They requested that SDG&E supplement its original advice letter filing with an attachment of the proposed owner-affidavit process and property owner waiver forms, including details on coordination efforts with the other Utilities.
4. Joint Protest of the East Los Angeles Community Union, the Maravilla
Foundation, the Association of California Community and Energy Services, the Energy Efficiency Council, and Brightline Defense Project
TELACU et. al. protested SDG&E’s supplemental filing AL 3065-E-A/2568-G-A, on several legal grounds pertaining to its proposed ESA homes treated goals for the 2017-2020 program cycle. TELACU et. al. argued, in sum, that SDG&E’s proposed ratios of first-time treated to retreated ESA homes, violates directives in the Decision and are legally impermissible under the Public Utilities Code.[6] Further, TELACU et. al. asserted that the ratios of first-treated to retreated homes proposed by SDG&E are unreasonable and place an undue burden on service providers (contractors), to “tell low income households, who have been made eligible for ESA services through the elimination of the Go Back Rule, that they still cannot be served… .”[7] TELACU et. al. requested we reject SDG&E’s homes treated goals filed in AL 3065-E-A/2568-G-A. Moreover, they requested that we direct parties to harmonize our statutory directives in Public Utilities Code sections 3829(e) and 2790 by using their prescribed method for targeting ESA customers.[8] Briefly, TELACU et. al.’s seven step method outlines a combination of targeted mailing and canvassing efforts by contractors to list, locate, and treat ESA customers, with non-responsive customers removed from the list. TELACU et. al. requested that we direct SDG&E to meet with stakeholders to develop and adopt new ESA homes treated goals and additional customer targeting methods.