in reference to pilot programs, See Consumer Federation of CFC asked the Commission to California Reply to Phase Two consider whether the state’s Foundational Questions electricity consumers should, (December Question Responses through payment of electricity bills, 31, 2013), pages 7 and 8. fund another round of pilots, when previous pilots have been costly and produced questionable results. From the earliest stages of this Consumer Federation of proceeding CFC argued that the California Reply Commission take a very critical look Comments Relating to the at pilots, in terms of past Proposed Decision Approving performance and in terms of, Demand Response Program specifically, ratepayer money spent Improvements and 2015-2016 to fund these pilots. Bridge Funding Requirements (April 15, 2014), page 3. As such, CFC applauded the Consumer Federation of Commission when it decided to California Response to make a much more critical Questions from OIR to Enhance assessment of future pilot programs the Role of Demand Response than it had in the past. in meeting the Resource Planning Needs and Operation (October, 21, Requirements 2013, pages 3 and 4, critical of continuing pilots, without improvements (especially improvements in reporting.) As advocated by CFC, in D.1405025 D.1405025 (May 15, 2014), page 22. Approves Demand Response Program Improvements and the Bridge Funding Budget, Commission took a much more critical look at proposed programs than it had in previous, similar matters. Also, In D.1405025 D.1405025 Approves Approves Demand Demand Response Program Response Program Improvements and 2015-2016 Improvements and 2015-2016 the (May Bridge Funding Budget, Bridge Funding Budget Commission approved, in general, 15, 2014), page 20. further ratepayer funded pilots, but limited that funding to the
in reference to pilot programs, CFC asked the Commission to consider whether the state’s electricity consumers should, through payment of electricity bills, fund another round of pilots, when previous pilots have been costly and produced questionable results. From the earliest stages of this proceeding CFC argued that the Commission take a very critical look at pilots, in terms of past performance and in terms of, specifically, ratepayer money spent to fund these pilots. As such, CFC applauded the Commission when it decided to make a much more critical assessment of future pilot programs than it had in the past. As advocated by CFC, in D.1405025 Approves Demand Response Program Improvements and Bridge Funding Budget, the Commission took a much more critical look at proposed programs than it had in previous, similar matters. Also, In D.1405025 Approves Demand Response Program Improvements and 2015-2016 Bridge Funding Budget, the Commission approved, in general, further ratepayer funded pilots, but limited that funding to the See Consumer Federation of California Reply to Phase Two Foundational Questions Question Responses (December 31, 2013), pages 7 and 8. Consumer Federation of California Reply Comments Relating to the Proposed Decision Approving Demand Response Program Improvements and 2015-2016 Bridge Funding Requirements (April 15, 2014), page 3. Consumer Federation of California Response to Questions from OIR to Enhance the Role of Demand Response in meeting the Resource Planning Needs and Operation Requirements (October, 21, 2013, pages 3 and 4, critical of continuing pilots, without improvements (especially improvements in reporting.) D.1405025 (May 15, 2014), page 22. D.1405025 Approves Demand Response Program Improvements and 2015-2016 Bridge Funding Budget (May 15, 2014), page 20.