California utilities and public interest groups are squaring off over how the state’s energy efficiency programs should be managed through 2020 as a California Public Utilities Commission draft decision on a long range plan heads to a final vote, expected later this month. In comments filed September 8 with the commission, public interest groups lauded the draft decision’s suggestion that the state consider forming an independent third party organization to help administer its multi-billion dollar energy efficiency program funded by utility ratepayers. One group argued the commission should move ahead despite concerns about its limited legal authority. “We urge the commission to take a more pro-active stance regarding creation of an independent market transformation entity, either as part of the commission or as a third party non-profit,” wrote Tamlyn Hunt, Community Environmental Council energy program director. The Utility Reform Network and Greenlining Institute also endorsed the concept of forming a third party organization to help administer the state’s program and push the envelope on energy efficiency technologies. Currently, the programs largely are administered by utilities. The California Municipal Utility Association expressed interest in such an independent body, but told the commission it should play only an advisory role at first, rather than actually setting energy efficiency requirements and directing how money is spent. The association endorsed forming “a broadly-based forum to develop policy recommendations.” However, the state’s investor-owned utilities objected to such a new organization. In joint comments, they wrote that creating a new administrative body would disrupt existing efficiency programs and jeopardize future energy savings. “A new administrative structure is unnecessary, unwarranted, and disruptive,” they told the commission. The utilities did endorse making sure that energy efficiency programs are developed and carried out in a collaborative fashion that includes broad elements of the community. California’s big utilities also called the draft decision’s goal of retrofitting half the state’s commercial buildings as zero net energy structures by 2030 “financially unrealistic.” The measure could prove so expensive it would “dwarf” other energy efficiency goals, the utilities said. Consequently, the companies suggested the commission wait on setting the commercial building zero net energy retrofit goal until further studies on available technologies are conducted. The various comments came in reaction to a draft decision issued late last month by commissioner Dian Grueneich. That August 19 decision also called for zero net energy new homes in California beginning now, optimizing heating and air conditioning systems throughout the state, and making sure that “all eligible low income customers will have a meaningful opportunity to participate” in the state’s energy efficiency program and “will be provided all cost-effective energy efficiency measures” by 2020. Grueneich’s draft decision called for reaching 25 percent of the state’s low income residents with energy efficiency measures every three years between now and 2020. The decision also outlined more specifics about how to finance energy efficiency goals and how to transform lighting technology, particularly to expand the use of light emitting diodes. Finally, until a third party administrative body is formed, the draft decision urged the commission to broaden participation in energy efficiency policy formulation by “non-commission and non-investor-owned utility entities.”
