order the Utilities to allow parties to break a resource into sub-10 MW resources and allow performance to be measured across all for the capacity available by each utility in the sub-LAP. PG&E confirmed this is already the case. As discussed in detail below, we adopt the notification time with specific language as requested by the Joint Demand Response Parties. However, we grant the request to adopt a 4.5 percent increase in incentives. While we recognize that inflation should not be the reason to increase incentives, we also must consider the value of the load impact of customers transferring from AMP to CBP. We grant the requested dispatch trigger, but discuss the issue in our discussion on SCE’s proposal. We deny the payment bands and penalties revisions requested by the Joint Demand Response Parties; as described below, the CBP program cannot be compared to the DRAM pilot. We also adopt the request by the Joint Demand Response Parties to allow customers to break a resource into sub-10 MW resources and allow performance to be measured across all for the capacity available by each utility in the sub-LAP. We find that CBP residential participation should not be addressed in a one-year bridge funding decision and, as such, deny the request to expand participation to residential customers. However, we will address this issue in an upcoming Ruling regarding the 2018 and beyond demand response application. We first address the requested time notification change. PG&E explains that adjusting the day-ahead notification time from 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. to account for instances when the day-ahead market closes later in the day will provide resources that receive market awards sufficient time to be dispatched. Joint Demand Response Parties cautioned that this may prove to be problematic
order the Utilities to allow parties to break a resource into sub-10 MW resources and allow performance to be measured across all for the capacity available by each utility in the sub-LAP. PG&E confirmed this is already the case. As discussed in detail below, we adopt the notification time with specific language as requested by the Joint Demand Response Parties. However, we grant the request to adopt a 4.5 percent increase in incentives. While we recognize that inflation should not be the reason to increase incentives, we also must consider the value of the load impact of customers transferring from AMP to CBP. We grant the requested dispatch trigger, but discuss the issue in our discussion on SCE’s proposal. We deny the payment bands and penalties revisions requested by the Joint Demand Response Parties; as described below, the CBP program cannot be compared to the DRAM pilot. We also adopt the request by the Joint Demand Response Parties to allow customers to break a resource into sub-10 MW resources and allow performance to be measured across all for the capacity available by each utility in the sub-LAP. We find that CBP residential participation should not be addressed in a one-year bridge funding decision and, as such, deny the request to expand participation to residential customers. However, we will address this issue in an upcoming Ruling regarding the 2018 and beyond demand response application. We first address the requested time notification change. PG&E explains that adjusting the day-ahead notification time from 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. to account for instances when the day-ahead market closes later in the day will provide resources that receive market awards sufficient time to be dispatched. Joint Demand Response Parties cautioned that this may prove to be problematic