I.07-01-022 et al. ALJ DIV/jt2
ALJ DIV/jt2 Date of Issuance 4/30/2012
Decision 12-04-040 April 19, 2012
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Order Instituting Investigation to Consider Policies to Achieve the Commission’s Conservation Objectives for Class A Water Utilities.______
And Related Matters. / Investigation 07-01-022
(Filed January 11, 2007)
Application 06-09-006
Application 06-10-026
Application 06-11-009
Application 06-11-010
Application 07-03-019
DECISION AWARDING COMPENSATION TO THE NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTION TO DECISION 11-05-004
Claimant: The National Consumer Law Center (NCLC) / For contribution to Decision 11-05-004Claimed: $28,214.85 / Awarded: $22,485.80 (reduced 20%)
Assigned Commissioner: Michael R. Peevey / Assigned ALJ: ALJ Division
PART I: PROCEDURAL ISSUES
A. Brief Description of Decision: / D.11-05-004 resolved Phase 2 of this water conservation proceeding. This decision adopted conservation goals for all Class A water utilities and modified existing Commission-ordered conservation data reporting requirements to measure the impact of adopted conservation rate designs on customers, including lowincome customers. The decision sets forth conservation and low-income data reporting for all Class A water utilities; the preferred means of complying with California Urban Water Council’s Best Management Practices and addresses conservation impacts on low-income customers. The decision declined to mandate specific conservation programs, including rebates or targeted low-income programs and monthly billing as well as the itemization of conservation-related surcredits or surcharges. Consideration of policies on advanced metering were removed from the scope of this proceeding and deferred to a later date in the January 6, 2010 ruling and amended Phase 2 scoping memo.B. Claimant must satisfy intervenor compensation requirements set forth in PublicUtilities (Pub. Util.) Code §§ 1801-1812:
Claimant / CPUC VerifiedTimely filing of notice of intent (NOI) to claim compensation (§ 1804(a)):
1. Date of Prehearing Conference: / February 7, 2007 / Correct
2. Other Specified Date for NOI: / March 19, 2007
(per 3/8/07 Scoping Memo) / Correct
3. Date NOI Filed: / March 15, 2007 / March 16, 2007
4. Was the notice of intent timely filed? / Yes
Showing of customer or customer-related status (§ 1802(b)):
5. Based on ALJ ruling issued in proceeding number: / Investigation
(I.) 07-01-022 / Correct
6. Date of ALJ ruling: / May 7, 2007 / Correct
7. Based on another CPUC determination (specify):
8. Has the claimant demonstrated customer or customer-related status? / Yes
Showing of “significant financial hardship” (§ 1802(g)):
9. Based on ALJ ruling issued in proceeding number: / I.07-01-022 / Correct
10. Date of ALJ ruling: / May 7, 2007 / Correct
11. Based on another CPUC determination (specify):
12. 12. Has the claimant demonstrated significant financial hardship? / Yes
Timely request for compensation (§ 1804(c)):
13. Identify Final Decision / D.11-05-004 / Correct
14. Date of Issuance of Final Decision: / May 12, 2011 / Correct
15. File date of compensation request: / July 11, 2011 / Correct
16. Was the request for compensation timely? / Yes
C. Claimant’s Comments on Part I:
CommentsD.08-02-036 directed the intervenors to request compensation for participation in Phase IA after a decision in Phase 1B. (at 48, paragraph 17.)
PART II: SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTION
A. Claimant’s claimed contribution to the final decision:[1]
Conservation Data Reporting:
NCLC’s expertise in data collection and reporting to monitor and assess the effectiveness of conservation rates as well as any harmful impacts on consumers, particularly low-income consumers, provided a substantial contribution to the outcome of this proceeding. In Phase 2, as part of the Joint Consumers, we strongly advocated for a robust and comprehensive set of data reporting requirements that would allow the Commission and intervenors to evaluate whether conservation efforts are having a beneficial impact on water savings, but, may also be having an adverse impact on affordability for individual customer classes and demographics.
Joint Consumers were strong proponents of reporting usage data by meter size and on a monthly or bi-monthly (depending on the billing cycle) basis similar to the data reporting for some Class As in the Phase 1 settlement agreements with the Joint Consumers. A standard set of data requirements on all Class A water utilities will assist in monitoring water saving and determining whether these conservation measures have unintended impacts on those customers.
NCLC substantially contributed to this proceeding by arguing for the need to track disconnection notices, disconnections and reconnections to gauge the impact of the conservation rate design on all residential consumers, including low-income customers. These monthly and bi-monthly data points indicate whether more residential consumers and low-income consumers in particular, are having trouble affording the water rates as well as gauging the level of need for the Low Income Ratepayer Assistance (LIRA) programs. These data points help the Commission to assess whether the dual goals of conservation and affordability are in conflict. The Commission agreed with the value in this data reporting, “As proposed by the Joint Consumers, we will collect data on disconnections for nonpayment and reconnections for all customers in order to measure the impact of adopted conservation rate designs.” (D.11-05-004 at 19.) Thus, NCLC substantially contributed to this proceeding on the key issue of data reporting. / Comments of NCLC, The Utility Reform Network (TURN) and Disability Rights Advocates (DisabRA) on the Workshop Summary (1/14/11) at 1-2, Joint Consumer Comments on Proposed Decision (4/21/11) 1-2, Reply Comments of TURN, NCLC and DisabRA on Ruling and Amended Phase 2 Scoping Memo (2/6/09) at 69, Reply Comments of Joint Consumers on Issues Presented in the Assigned Commissioner’s Ruling (ACR) and Phase 2 Scoping Memo (6/17/08) at17, Comments of TURN, NCLC and DisabRA on Phase 2 Scoping Memo (4/1/08) at 11-12.
D.11-05-004 at 19-20, Joint Consumers’ Reply on Proposed Decision (4/27/11)at 4-5, Comments of TURN, NCLC and DisabRA on Phase 2 Scoping Memo (4/1/08) at 11-12.
Joint Consumer Comments on Proposed Decision (4/21/11) at 2, Comments of NCLC, TURN and DisabRA on the Workshop Summary (1/14/11) at 5-6, D.11-05-004 at 11, 13, 19, Findings of Fact 8 - 10, 12-16, 18-19, Conclusions of Law 3-4, Order #2 and #3. / NCLC has failed to demonstrate that it has met the third prong level of review listed below to establish its claim of substantial contribution in two out of the three examples it provides on this issue. NCLC claims it “strongly advocated for a robust and comprehensive set of data reporting requirements that would allow the Commission and intervenors to evaluate whether conservation efforts are having a beneficial impact on water savings, but, may also be having an adverse impact on affordability for individual customer classes and demographics[,]”, however NCLC fails to cite to the specific portion of the Commission’s decision which indicates that the Commission adopted, in whole or in part, the intervenor’s recommendation.
This same deficiency is found with respect to the intervenor’s claim that the Joint Consumers “were strong proponents of reporting usage data by meter size and on a monthly or bi-monthly (depending on the billing cycle) basis similar to the data reporting for some Class As in the Phase I settlement agreements with the Joint Consumers.” Again, we find that NCLC has failed to establish that the CPUC adopted, in whole or in part, NCLC’s recommendation.
We do find merits in NCLC’s claim that it “contributed to this proceeding by arguing for the need to track disconnection notices, disconnections, and reconnections to gauge the impact of the conservation rate design on all residential consumers, including low-income customers.” NCLC quotes from the decision which states “as proposed by the Joint Consumers, we will collect data on disconnections for nonpayment and reconnections for all customers in order to measure the impact of adopted conservation rate designs.”
We reduce by 67% the 6.25 hours spent on the conservation data reporting issue due to NCLC’s failure to substantiate its claim of substantial contribution in this area.
Disallowances:
2008-Wein 2.2 hrs and
2010-Howat 2.0 hrs.
Low Income Data Reporting:
NCLC has been a long-time advocate in this proceeding for robust data reporting to track impacts of conservation rates on low-income consumers, stemming back to its role in the Phase 1 data collection settlement agreements. Joint Consumers proposed tracking low income (LI) ratepayer assistance data to determine the effectiveness of conservation programs on LI customers. NCLC and TURN presented their conservation data requirements proposal at the conservation data reporting workshop and it covered: low-income single family and high volume users; the definition of disadvantaged communities; impact of tiered rates on low-income and large households; tracking of usage by tracking monthly changes in consumption by ratemaking division, separated by meter size and customer class and monthly customer usage by service area and customer class; biannual reporting of top water usage accounts, usage data, disconnections and arrearages and Low-Income Ratepayer Assistance participation; supports usage data by meter size, or at a minimum broken out by customer class, district and rate tier or block, monthly/bi-monthly tracking of accounts, disconnections, restorations (also for LIRA); monthly/bi-monthly reporting of LIRA participation; and LIRA household size upon enrollment.
D.11-05-004 requires all Class A water companies to report low-income data as set forth in Attachment 3 which includes conservation data, changes in participation in low income programs, changes in monthly/bimonthly disconnections for nonpayment and reconnections to assess whether disconnections exceed reconnections for low-income customers, data on low-income program participants’ household size to facilitate a more precise estimate of the impact of conservation programs on low income households and tracking of consumption for large households. Thus, NCLC has substantially contributed to this decision. / Comments of NCLC, TURN and DisabRA on the Workshop Summary (1/14/11) at 2-6, Joint Consumer Comments on Proposed Decision (4/21/11) at 1-3, Joint Consumers’ Reply on Proposed Decision (4/27/11) at 1-2, Comments of Joint Consumers on ACR and Phase 2 Scoping Memo (1/27/09) at 8, Comments of TURN, NCLC and DisabRA on Phase 2 Scoping Memo (4/1/08) at 14-16,
D.11-05-004 at 13, 16-17, Findings of Fact 10-16, 18-25, Conclusions of Law 5, 6 and 7, Order #4 / We agree with NCLC’s assessment of its claimed contribution in this area and make no reductions.
Impacts on Low-Income Customers:
Throughout this proceeding NCLC has advocated for gauging the impacts of the conservation measures on low-income households and implementing appropriate measures to ensure low-income households participate in and benefit from conservation programs to maintain affordable access to essential water services. NCLC substantially contributed to this proceeding by elevating the concern that there needs to be a better understanding of the Class A residential demographics in order to more precisely assess the impact on low-income households, especially large households, high consumption households and tenants. There needs to be a better understanding of just how well conservation and affordability programs are serving these segments of residential ratepayers. In D.11-05-004, the Commission notes that it has insufficient information on low-income consumption patterns that would assist in determining whether specific programs or a low-income budget would be helpful to encourage low-income conservation (D.11-05-004 at 26-27) and takes the initial step of data gathering to assess the impacts on low-income consumers.
NCLC as part of the Joint Consumers argued for increasing the low-income ratepayer assistance discount based on household size because water consumption correlates with household size. D.11-05-004 takes the initial step of requiring Class A companies to gather LIRA customers’ household size.
Joint Consumers supported and defended the reporting of data to assess the impact on low-income customers in instances where surcharges in districts with large water revenue adjustment mechanism/Modified Cost Balancing Accounts balances would blunt the effects of low-income flat discounts rate assistance.
Joint Consumers raised concerns that very few existing conservation programs seem to be targeted to low-income consumers and supported targeting a portion of a conservation budget to support programs for LI consumers. Joint Consumers also proposed conservation program designs that are accessible to low-income households, such as no or low-cost programs with a low barrier to entry. Joint Consumers also raised concerns with overreliance on rebate programs to promote conservation and proposed the need for rigorous evaluation of individual rebate programs. D.11-05-004 requires all Class A companies to report on low-income customer inclusion in conservation programs to assess whether low-income customers are receiving the benefit of conservation programs.
The reporting requirement also includes identification of whether the program is offered with a third party. This addresses two concerns raised by Joint Consumers: whether the utility is “the most efficient agent of the change being sought,” and the value of coordinating with energy utilities and community-based organizations.
Rebates:
In Phase 2, the Joint Consumers have taken a very pragmatic approach to the role of rebate programs in promoting water conservation. Joint Consumers approached rebates in this proceeding with caution and have raised the importance of assessing the cost effectiveness of individual rebate programs “to ensure that there is a market flaw or market barrier that the rebate program can address.” Joint Consumers raised the risk that rebate programs could disproportionately benefit high-income consumers by focusing on expensive, high-end appliances or fixtures while at the same time excluding low-income consumers who cannot afford upfront payments. Joint Consumers also raised the potential efficiencies from piggy-backing rebate programs sponsored by energy utilities to share administrative overhead. These concerns support the Commission’s decision to address rebates on a case-by-case basis in general rate cases.
The Commission, while acknowledging the important role rebate programs play in achieving water conservation, opted to review rebate programs on a case-by case basis in general rate cases instead of adopting any policy on rebate programs in general.
Metering and Billing:
Joint Consumers recommended that the cost analysis, timeframe and further process to satisfy Pub. Util. Code § 781 and look at connections that pre-date 1979 should “be done in conjunction with a general rate case where each district’s unique characteristics can be taken into account.” The Commission has accepted this approach: “The transition to metered service and the incorporation of costs associated with the conversion to meters into rates is being considered for Class A water utilities in their general rate cases.”