Integrated Demand –Side Resource Programs

R.14-10-003 __________ Jan 5 the Commission filed Commissioner Florio and Administrative Law Judge Hymes’ Scoping Memo and Ruling in this new docket. There will be workshops instead of evidentiary hearings. Scope will be as follows: Phase One: Policy Issues  Review of past IDSM activities;  Review of activities in related proceedings as outlined in the OIR;  Determine reasons/barriers hindering past IDSM success;  Develop guiding principles for future IDSM activities;  Develop priorities and goals for IDSM;  Determine the breadth of future IDSM activities, i.e., broad vs. narrow;  Develop objectives for IDSM, including metrics; and  Consider the structure of future IDSM activities. Phase Two: Ratesetting Related Activities  Phase Two will be determined by the outcomes of Phase One. At this time, we anticipate that Phase Two may include the development of required mechanisms based on the outcomes of Phase One, possibly including shareholder incentive mechanisms, funding mechanisms, and necessary unification mechanisms. Four workshops are envisioned over a schedule to be determined. __________ Dec 20, 2014 post: ALJ Hymes has scheduled a workshop for Jan 22 in the CPUC Auditorium starting at 10:00. At this time she envisions one or more presentations or panels to discuss 1) an overview of the Commission’s IDSM Omnibus, referenced in the Order Instituting Rulemaking, 2) California past and current activities on IDSM, both Commission-regulated activities and activities that have been undertaken by other California entities, and 3) a discussion of gaps or barriers to successful IDSM. She also directed the Utilities to begin to prepare overviews of past and current IDSM activities they have undertaken. While further direction for the presentations will be provided in early January 2015, the Utilities should be prepared to include pilots such as the SCE Preferred Resources Pilot in the presentation. Furthermore, ALJ Hymes invited parties of R.14-10-003 to suggest other panelists who have engaged in such activities in California. Suggestions should be emailed no later than January 5, 2015 to her honor with carbon copies of the email to the entire service list. __________ Dec 5, 2014 post: Twelve parties filed reply comments Nov 24 (see Nov 20 post below). Those parties were: PG&E; SCE; SDG&E; Office of Ratepayer Advocates; Marin Clean Energy; CA Clean Energy; Center for Sustainable Energy; Consumer Federation of CA; Environmental Defense Fund; Local Government Sustainable Energy Coalition; SoCal Gas; and the Utility Reform Network. PG&E counsels that the proceeding should not become a forum to re-litigate issues that do not belong in this iDSM case or are pending in other proceedings, but rather should focus on coordinating existing DSM programs. SCE expresses concern about the lack of clarity around the purpose and specific objectives of the proceeding. CSE remains focused on a single customer-focused portal for utility programs (along with LGSEC and others) and even consolidating proceedings (along with NRDC, SDG&E, CEEIC, and EDF, with TURN opposed to the idea). MCE propounds the concept of Grid Neutrality. ORA suggests that the scope of this proceeding include a discussion of alternative models for administration of iDSM programs. SoCal Gas put in a plug for CHP. Shareholder incentives are also on the table. __________ Nov 20, 2014 post: A large number of parties commented on this new case Nov 7, including: the Natural Resources Defense Council; Greenlining Institute; Karey Christ-Janer; CA Energy Efficiency Industry Council; CAISO; the Utility Reform Network; Marin Clean Energy; PG&E; SolarCity; Office of Ratepayer Advocates; CA Energy Storage Alliance; Farm Bureau; Center for Sustainable Energy; SCE; CA Clean Energy Committee; Clean Coalition; SDG&E; Southern CA Renewable Energy Network; Consumer Federation of CA; San Francisco Bay Area Regional Energy Network and the Local Government Sustainable Energy Coalition jointly; Bloom Energy; and the Environmental Defense Fund. Parties expressed support for the integration idea, adding useful thoughts, but by and large spoke from the paradigm of their existing silos, which shouldn't be a surprise since many groups, including IOUs, are creatures of their regulatory approach historically. IOUs are generally supportive of the idea of unifying the view of integrated demand-side resources, and recommend focusing on the goals of this proceeding, while keeping all the related proceedings on their respective schedules. Similarly, CAISO seeks clarification on the interrelationship of this proceeding to others. CSE says that a customer-centric approach to developing and marketing programs will be necessary to achieve the Commission's goals. SDG&E emphasizes their view that rate design is key. NRDC also emphasizes rate design, but also urges GHG reductions through procurement of clean energy projects. BayREN and LGSEC are appreciative of the move toward increased coordination between utilities and local/regional governments. SolarCity is strongly supportive, and emphasizes zero net energy homes, consistent evaluation methodologies, leveraging of customer data, open architecture, and suggests program administration by a single independent entity. CESA points out how storage can aid in integration, and suggests incentives that will accelerate deployment. The Farm Bureau is the voice of experience when it urges the Commission to consolidate and streamline, rather than add an additional layer. ORA recommends inclusion of customer-side financing, but not shareholder incentives in this proceeding. TURN suggests consideration of the different roles of utilities and third parties with respect to residential customers. MCE may be a step ahead of the game as they say they are pursuing a single touchpoint for customers, and that a major barrier to widespread implementation of iDSM has been overdependence on the IOUs. The Commission set a prehearing conference before Administrative Law Judge Kelly A. Hymes, for December 5, 2014, at 9:30 a.m., in the Commission Courtroom to determine the parties, positions of the parties, issues, and other procedural matters in this case. __________ Nov 5, 2014 post: A couple of parties filed comments on this new docket November 3, including the Energy Producers and Users Coalition and eMeter. eMeter feels that the proceeding may be a bit too ambitious, and that prioritizing may be necessary, while EPUC makes sure that CHP is in the radar screen. __________ Oct 20, 2014 post: On Oct 8, 2014, the Public Utilities Commission issued its " Order Instituting Rulemaking 14-10-003 to Create a Consistent Regulatory Framework for the Guidance, Planning, and Evaluation of Integrated Demand –Side Resource Programs" which was signed by the Commission at its October 2, 2014 Commission Meeting. Demand-side management resources include energy efficiency, demand response, distributed generation and storage, smart grid, water-energy measures, electric vehicle hardware, and innovative rate design. In the past, guidance to integrate demand-side programs and portfolios has occurred mostly within the energy efficiency proceeding. However, there has not been an overarching process to plan for and procure all demand-side resources and technologies in an integrated and coordinated manner. Furthermore, State policy objectives, such as increased grid reliability, reduced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and the promotion of Zero-Net Energy buildings, require the Commission to carefully coordinate their efforts in these areas. Today, the regulated electric and gas utilities offer a host of demand management solutions, although several administrative aspects, including separate sources of funding and other inconsistent programmatic details, often makes the process cumbersome for participants. Additionally, each customer touch point can result in a significant amount of time and resources, and these separate touches may not take advantage of resource synergies or allow customers to optimize their energy management solutions across the different demand-side resources choices available to them. To improve upon these past and current efforts, the Commission finds it reasonable to review the integration of demand-side resources in this separate, standalone rulemaking. Phase 1 will consider the development of a regulatory framework, potentially termed the Customer Energy Solutions Framework, to provide policy consistency for the direction and review of demand-side resource programs. Phase 1 will consider the following: Policies to coordinate demand-side management goals and potential. Policies to unify demand-side management cost-effectiveness methods. Policies to unify the funding authorizations of all demand-side management technologies into one Customer Energy Solutions funding authorization. Further integrating the marketing, education, and outreach into the Customers Energy Solutions framework. Providing ongoing guidance for the statewide Energy Upgrade California marketing, education, and outreach efforts to ensure coordination with utility education and outreach in support of customer programs across and among different demand-side resources. How to best develop demand-side management assumptions for long-term resource planning in coordinate with the Long-Term Procurement Plan proceeding. Policies to streamline the evaluation, measurement, and verification across all demand-side management solutions. Policies that promote a more streamlined approach to the current energy efficiency program implementation plan and further consider developing a unified Customer Energy Solutions Plan. Determining the value of establishing a shareholder incentive mechanism across all demand-side management resources for any utility-specific programs that result from this proceeding. Identifying key policy and market barriers to adopting a coordinated demand-side management framework. Identifying any modifications to existing crosscutting policies needed to reduce or eliminate barriers to develop a coordinated demand-side management framework. Identifying new policies that the Commission can adopt to reduce or eliminate key identified barriers. Determining future goals for zero-net energy buildings. Identifying promising market segments for targeted load management pilot initiatives, including consideration of different market models for implementing Comprehensive Customer Energy Solutions. Identifying the proper role of the regulatory body, administrators, and implementers of resulting programs. Identify the most effective entities and regulatory structure to be administrators and implementers of resulting programs. Considering the inclusion of decisions on these issues in the next update of the Long Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan; considering such an update in this proceeding or the energy efficiency proceeding. Public Utilities Code Section 451 requires the Commission to take all actions necessary to promote the safety, health, comfort and convenience of utility patrons, employees, and the public. Phase 2 will consider the adoption of a mechanism for the Commission-regulated gas and electric utilities to fulfill any goals and requirements established during Phase 1. This phase may also require the electric and gas utilities to submit Customer Energy Solution Plans. The schedule calls for resolution of phase 1 issues in 6 months, and phase 2 issues in 18 months. Comments will be due in 30 days (Nov 7) and reply comments in 45 days (Nov 24). The case has been assigned to Commissioner Peevey and Administrative Law Judge Kelly A. Hymes.

Over 11K Stories!

| Independently Powered Energy News

Integrated Demand –Side Resource Programs

dgrandyadmin

Related Posts

NRC focuses on Diablo closure, not extension, CPUC staff tout demand flexibility potential, New transmission coming to AZ-CA desert

Silicon Valley CCA to Provide Google 100% Clean Energy All Day, Every Day

Offshore wind & green h2 advance, utility home demand response programs need improvement, zinc batteries show promise

Self Generation Incentive Program