bridge funding budget. This was in keeping with the CFC position. We would also note that, in taking a D.1405025, Approves Demand more critical approach at the urging Response Program of CFC, the Commission identified Improvements and 2015-2016 at least one pilot as (May “duplicative.” Bridge Funding Budget Though the pilots were allowed to 15, 2014), page 11. continue, the Commission, in keeping with arguments propounded by CFC, specifically questioned the efficacy of continued programs. 4. Bifurcation Verified, but we note CFC put arguments CFC generally supported bifurcation In its Response to Questions set that were duplicative of and was cited for doing so. forth in the Order Instituting other parties, including (October 21, 2013), Ratemaking Sierra Club and The page 3. In D.1403026, Utility Reform Network, Addresses Foundational Issues on this issue. This CFC supported bifurcation in terms of the Bifurcation of Demand demonstrates that the of improving resource adequacy and (March 27, Response Programs. parties failed to planning, as well as for improving 2014), at page 12, fn. 27, the adequately coordinate administrative efficiencies. commission cited CFC’s on this issue, which Response to Questions from resulted in a duplicative Order Instituting Ratemaking effort. (October 21, 2013) page 3 as supportive of bifurcation in general. CFC did not object to the use of the Also in its Response to terms and Questions set forth in the Order “supply-side” to categorize the various types (October Instituting Ratemaking of DR resources. However, CFC 21, 2013), page 3. In pointed out that, . . the definitions D.1403026 - Addresses “. of these terms need to be made more Foundational Issues of the specific than those suggested by the Bifurcation of Demand Commission.” (March 27, Response Programs. 2014), page 14, the Commission found it reasonable to revise the terms proposed in the OIR and adopt more specific definitions, in accord with CFC concerns.
bridge funding budget. This was in keeping with the CFC position. We would also note that, in taking a more critical approach at the urging of CFC, the Commission identified at least one pilot as “duplicative.” Though the pilots were allowed to continue, the Commission, in keeping with arguments propounded by CFC, specifically questioned the efficacy of continued programs. D.1405025, Approves Demand Response Program Improvements and 2015-2016 Bridge Funding Budget (May 15, 2014), page 11. 4. Bifurcation CFC generally supported bifurcation and was cited for doing so. CFC supported bifurcation in terms of improving resource adequacy and planning, as well as for improving administrative efficiencies. CFC did not object to the use of the terms “supply-side” and to categorize the various types of DR resources. However, CFC pointed out that, “. . . the definitions of these terms need to be made more specific than those suggested by the Commission.” In its Response to Questions set forth in the Order Instituting Ratemaking (October 21, 2013), page 3. In D.1403026, Addresses Foundational Issues of the Bifurcation of Demand Response Programs. (March 27, 2014), at page 12, fn. 27, the commission cited CFC’s Response to Questions from Order Instituting Ratemaking (October 21, 2013) page 3 as supportive of bifurcation in general. Also in its Response to Questions set forth in the Order Instituting Ratemaking (October 21, 2013), page 3. In D.1403026 - Addresses Foundational Issues of the Bifurcation of Demand Response Programs. (March 27, 2014), page 14, the Commission found it reasonable to revise the terms proposed in the OIR and adopt more specific definitions, in accord with CFC concerns. Verified, but we note CFC put arguments that were duplicative of other parties, including Sierra Club and The Utility Reform Network, on this issue. This demonstrates that the parties failed to adequately coordinate on this issue, which resulted in a duplicative effort.