Approved the performance of a demand response potential study (Study). Related to the working groups, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E), Southern California Edison Company (SCE), California Large Energy Consumers Association (CLECA), Johnson Controls, Inc., Comverge, Inc., Olivine, Inc., EnerNoc, Inc. (EnerNoc), and California Energy Storage Alliance (CESA), (jointly, the Petitioners) filed a Petition for Modification, on July 22, 2015, requesting the Commission to modify D.1412024 to authorize the continuation of the Integration Working Group and the Operations Working Group alleging that during the course of the two groups prior work, both Working Groups uncovered important implementation matters requiring further investigation by the groups. The California Independent System Operator (CAISO) filed a response on August 21, 2015 in opposition to the motion. In regard to the use of backup generation in Commissionregulated demand response programs, on September 29, 2015 the assigned Administrative Law Judge issued a ruling (September Ruling) describing an attached staff proposal that alleges difficulty with implementing the backup generation data collection requirements of D.1412024 and recommends implementing a prohibition of certain resources in the demand response program and introduces a program to ensure these resources are not used to attain demand response incentives (Staff Proposal). Parties were invited to respond to the Staff Proposal and address specific questions for the record; parties filed opening comments on October 15, 2015 and reply comments on October 19, 2015. Subsequent to
whether customer incentives should be uniform or differentiated by locational value. Results of those considerations will have a direct effect on future demand response programs. The May 20, 2016 Ruling in this proceeding highlighted a recommendation from the Interim Report of the Demand Response Potential that the integration of demand response services with other services could lead to reduced costs, increased potential and decreased customer confusion. In comments, SDG&E observed that a holistic approach is needed and referenced the work being done in R.1410003. We agree that the competitive solicitation framework proposed in R.1410003 should be the methodology for the proposed integration, as it directly improves demand response programs by incentivizing the integration of different resources. On August 1, 2016, the Competitive Solicitation Framework Working Group in R.1410003 filed a report recommending details of seven aspects of the framework: 1) services to be bought and sold; 2) methodologies to count services provided and ensure no duplication; 3) solicitation rules or principles; 4) solicitation oversight needs; 5) solicitation evaluation methodology; 6) solicitation pro forma contracts; and 7) outreach plans. It is anticipated that the proposal for the framework brought forth by the Competitive Solicitation Framework Working Group will be considered by the Commission in the near future. Two rate reform proceedings, R.1206013 (residential rates only), and R.1512012, will work together to address issues related to time of use rates. Time of use rates and Critical Peak Pricing were reviewed in the Study as load modifying resources. Several parties call for the Commission to send
Comments on Proposed Decision The proposed decision of Administrative Law Judge Hymes in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Section 311 of the Public Utilities Code and comments were allowed under Rule 14.3 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. Comments were filed on September 19, 2016 by CEEIC, CESA, Comverge, CLECA, Bloom Energy, Joint Demand Response Parties, OhmConnect, Opower, ORA, PG&E, SCE, SDG&E, Sierra Club/EDF, Solar City, and TURN. Reply comments were filed on September 26, 2016 by Bloom, CAISO, CLECA, Joint Demand Response Parties, ORA, OhmConnect, OPower, PG&E, SDG&E, Sierra Club/EDF, SoCalGas, SCE and TURN. Clarifications and corrections were made throughout this decision in response to the comments. We address certain comments here. SCE requested a 30-day delay in filing 2018-2022 demand response budget and activities applications. Noting that it received 4.5 months to develop 2017 bridge funding applications, SCE contends three months is insufficient time to develop a more difficult five-year application. We provide a 15-day extension and require the Utilities to file applications no later than January 16, 2017. Parties asked for clarification regarding whether the Utilities will be providing the new models of demand response or whether third party providers will be providing them through the demand response auction mechanism. This decision should be made following the issuance of the second part of the 2015 demand response potential study. Hence, the decision has been