Intervenor must satisfy intervenor compensation requirements set forth in Pub. Util. Code §§ 1801-1812: Intervenor CPUC Verified Timely 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
Commission policies and decisions. 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 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 the Commission awarded TURN 1. High Efficiency Furnaces D.16-11-022, p. 107 (directives to PG&E) PD, pp. 75-76 TURN Opening Brief, pp. 1-8 2. Replacing CFLs with LEDs D.16-11-022, pp. 113-114 D.16-11-022, p. 112 (summarizing TURN’s recommendations) TURN Opening Brief, pp. 8-14 TURN Protest, pp. 4-5 3. High Efficiency Clothes Washers D.16-11-022, p. 146 TURN Opening Brief, pp. 14-16 TURN Rep Brief, 8/4/15, pp. 4-6 4. Smart Power Strips D.16-11-022, p. 115 TURN Opening Brief, pp. 16-18 (discussing TURN’s original and modified positions, and the basis for the change) Verified
climate zones where EC work best, as proposed by SCE, and directing SCE to phase out EC as an ESAP measure. TURN urged the Commission to retain EC because high efficiency EC can reduce energy consumption and lower bills for low-income customers more than efficient CAC in certain climate zones. TURN also suggested that the pros and cons of EC, including the safety risks identified by the APD, should be discussed between ESAP contractors and residents before an EC is installed. In response, the Commission modified the APD to direct SCE to offer households the opportunity “to elect either air conditioning or an evaporative cooler after receiving energy education on air conditioning as compared to evaporative cooler electricity and water use, maintenance, operational needs (e.g. an open window for evaporative cooler operation), and demand response program capability.” To that end, the Commission directed the “electric IOUs to develop a brochure in order to give customers the ability to make this informed choice rather than approving automatic exchange of air conditions with evaporative coolers,” and provided guidance on the contents of that brochure. ESAP – Energy Savings Goal The Commission relied on the “thorough and rigorous analysis” provided by TURN (and also NRDC/NCLC/CHPC) in reaching the conclusions adopted in regarding the role of an energy savings target or goal in ESAP. The Commission also adopted TURN’s specific four-step approach to developing an energy savings goal for application to ESAP in the future. In addition to TURN’s showing on this issue, as presented in TURN’s rebuttal testimony, opening brief, reply brief, and at oral argument, TURN also assisted the Commission in developing the record on this issue by facilitating the Commission’s D.16-11-022, pp. 46-48 (discussing the influence of TURN (and NRDC/NCLC/CHPC) on the Commission’s analysis) D.16-11-022, p. 52 (“TURN’s recommendation for a four-part approach to developing this energy savings goal is reasonable and timely, and complements the decision to initiate the shift to an energy savings program by adopting [an interim energy savings target].” Verified
TURN, among other parties, demonstrated that the Commission should act as expeditiously as possible to issue a decision on the 2015-2017 CARE and ESAP programs, given the pending proposals for new measures and policies to increase energy savings from ESAP, which would have the effect of increasing ESAP benefits both in the Aliso Canyon affected region and across the state. Without these changes, TURN questioned the ability of ESAP to meaningfully relieve reliability implications of Aliso Canyon. D.16-04-040, p. 22; Conclusion of Law 1 (“The Commission should endeavor to issue a decision for the 2015-2017 CARE and ESA programs as expeditiously as possible.”) TURN Cmts on Aliso Canyon, 3/24/16, p. 3, TURN Reply Cmts on PD/APD, 4/19/16, pp. 3-4 Verified D.15-12-047 (Re: Community Help and Awareness of Natural Gas and Electricity Services (CHANGES) Program) TURN demonstrated that the Commission should dismiss the suggestion of some of the utilities that the CHANGES program is unnecessary to meet the needs of LEP consumers -- since some CHANGES functions simply cannot be performed by the utilities, and because cultural and linguistic barriers prevent CAB from sufficiently serving this population – and transition CHANGES into an ongoing statewide program, as recommended by the CHANGES Evaluation Report. D.15-12-047, pp. 17-19 (summarizing parties’ positions); Conclusion of Law 7 (establishing CHANGES as an ongoing statewide program) TURN Cmts on CHANGES Pilot Program Evaluation, 1/16/15, pp. TURN Reply Cmts on CHANGES Pilot Program Evaluation, 1/23/15, pp. Verified TURN demonstrated that the Commission should continue to fund CHANGES through the CARE administrative budget until the Commission can fund it through its own reimbursable “on budget” account. Several of the utilities had argued that CHANGES should instead be funded through GRC rates (if continued). D.15-12-047, pp. 17-19 (summarizing parties’ positions); Conclusion of Law 10 (finding that CHANGES should be funded through CARE rates until it can be brought “on budget” by the Commission) TURN Reply Cmts on CHANGES Pilot Program Evaluation, 1/23/15, pp. Verified
TURN demonstrated that the Commission should reject PG&E’s proposed changes to the Proposed Decision (PD) and Alternate Proposed Decision (APD), which would have subjected the CHANGES CBOs to more onerous requirements regarding customer consent to disclosure of utility account information than currently applicable to the CHANGES program. ORA also addressed this issue, but TURN and ORA provided unique analyses supporting rejection of PG&E’s position. (See ORA Reply Cmts on CHANGES PD/APD, 12/14/15, pp. 1-5). Compare D.15-12-047, pp. 29-30 with PD, pp. 27-28 and APD, pp. 29-30 (showing no change, consistent with TURN’s recommendation); see also, D.15-12-047, p. 3, fn. 34 (noting TURN’s opposition to PG&E’s comments re CHANGES CBOs, which ORA also opposed) TURN Reply Cmts on CHANGES PD/APD, 12/14/15, pp. 1-5 Verified Duplication of Effort (§ 1801.3(f) and § 1802.5): Intervenor’s Assertion CPUC Discussion a. Was the Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) a party to the proceeding? Yes Verified b. Were there other parties to the proceeding with positions similar to yours? Yes Verified c. If so, provide name of other parties: TURN’s positions overlapped to various degrees with the following parties: Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA), Center for Accessible Technology (CforAT), Greenlining Institute (Greenlining), National Consumer Law Center (NCLC), California Housing Partnership Corporation (CHPC), and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). Verified