However, the requirement that IOUs may only use their EPIC funds for TD&D was not made to reduce duplication in the Applied R&D program area; it was made because the Commission found that Applied R&D should be funded by an entity without a business interest in the results. For PG&E to fund work that is substantively similar to (even if non-duplicative of) the type of work done in the Applied R&D program area would be an improper use of its TD&D budget. We reiterate that the IOU administrators shall not fund Applied R&D activities nor expressly fund others to do so on their behalf. We do not place any restrictions on which organizations the IOUs may partner with in advancing their EPIC goals, and we continue to recognize that EPIC may fund research institutes (and that “research institutes” often conduct demonstrations and deployments), but IOU administrators may only do so to the extent that their EPIC funding allocations support TD&D activities specifically. PG&E’s project 30 shall only fund TD&D activities. Additionally, we identified an area of concern related to PG&E’s proposals as characterized in the comparison matrix filed on July 28. The category “Coordination with CPUC Proceedings or Legislation” intended to identify current policymaking efforts related to the proposed work. Of its 30 projects, PG&E identified only two as having any coordination or relation to Commission proceedings, with the rest identified as “N/A” (not applicable) to that category. PG&E was the only administrator to leave this category nearly empty for its entire portfolio. While PG&E may not be able to fully specify these details at this time, we stress that Commission energy proceedings will be applicable to PG&E’s EPIC work, and vice versa.
However, the requirement that IOUs may only use their EPIC funds for TD&D was not made to reduce duplication in the Applied R&D program area; it was made because the Commission found that Applied R&D should be funded by an entity without a business interest in the results. For PG&E to fund work that is substantively similar to (even if non-duplicative of) the type of work done in the Applied R&D program area would be an improper use of its TD&D budget. We reiterate that the IOU administrators shall not fund Applied R&D activities nor expressly fund others to do so on their behalf. We do not place any restrictions on which organizations the IOUs may partner with in advancing their EPIC goals, and we continue to recognize that EPIC may fund research institutes (and that “research institutes” often conduct demonstrations and deployments), but IOU administrators may only do so to the extent that their EPIC funding allocations support TD&D activities specifically. PG&E’s project 30 shall only fund TD&D activities. Additionally, we identified an area of concern related to PG&E’s proposals as characterized in the comparison matrix filed on July 28. The category “Coordination with CPUC Proceedings or Legislation” intended to identify current policymaking efforts related to the proposed work. Of its 30 projects, PG&E identified only two as having any coordination or relation to Commission proceedings, with the rest identified as “N/A” (not applicable) to that category. PG&E was the only administrator to leave this category nearly empty for its entire portfolio. While PG&E may not be able to fully specify these details at this time, we stress that Commission energy proceedings will be applicable to PG&E’s EPIC work, and vice versa.