|
|
 |
 |
PUC eases rules of energy-efficiency program
California utilities can keep monetary incentives for reaching
power savings goals -- even if an audit later reveals that
they missed the mark
|
By
Elizabeth Douglass
Los Angeles Times
February 1, 2008
California regulators Thursday lowered the bar for an
energy-efficiency program to allow utilities to earn about $89
million in customer-funded incentives for achieving as little
as 65% of the power savings goals laid out for them.
The California Public Utilities Commission also ruled that
utilities could keep such incentives awarded to them even if a
subsequent audit showed that the companies did not achieve the
savings they reported.
The provisions approved Thursday, based largely on requests
from utilities, significantly alter the terms of the
energy-efficiency risk-reward program that the PUC adopted
four months ago.
Under that plan, utilities that achieved 65% of energy-
efficiency goals collectively would have been penalized $142
million. Incentives would accrue after the companies reached
85% of the goals.
Several consumer advocacy groups objected to the changes, but
commission President Michael Peevey lauded Thursday's
decision.
The energy-efficiency program "allows utilities to earn
real money on an annual basis for their progress in meeting
the state's energy-efficiency goals without having to worry
that they'll have to give those monies back," he said.
"This will significantly strengthen the motivation the
utilities have to aggressively pursue energy efficiency."
Under both the old and the new provisions, utilities could
earn a combined maximum of $450 million in incentives by
substantially exceeding goals.
The three utilities most affected by the energy-efficiency
program -- Pacific Gas & Electric Co., Southern California
Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric Co. -- sought the
changes from the commission. They argued that having the
incentives subject to possible refund after the performance
audit undermines the incentive process and leaves the
utilities unable to book the rewards as income when they are
paid.
The PUC said it "recognized that this change increases
the risk to ratepayers of overpayment," and added two
provisions to help offset the added risk. Utilities would have
35% of their incentive payments withheld pending verification,
an increase from 30% in the previous provision. In addition,
the new rules require utilities to use updated
energy-efficiency data to help make projections more accurate.
Tom Roberts, an analyst at the PUC's Division of Ratepayer
Advocates, said he strongly opposed shifting the incentive
rules.
"We had a big problem with a reward at the 85%
level," he said. "Now [the utilities] would be
rewarded for what we could call mediocre or D-plus
performance, and that doesn't seem consistent with the goal of
trying to reach 100% of goals."
Roberts and other critics complained that the original program
required that the bonuses would be paid for "real and
verified" energy-efficiency savings. By removing the
post-audit give-back requirement, ratepayers could end up
overpaying and have no way to recoup the money.
If utilities "don't produce some real results, I'd like
to think the commission would take at least portions of these
programs away from them," Roberts said.
elizabeth.douglass@latimes.com
|
Copyright 1999-2008, California Coastal Coalition
Phone: (760) 944-3564
|
|
|
 |