personnel, they should explain why this continues to be necessary.” D.17-09-025: EE Goals for 1. Potentials Scenario Verified 2018 and Beyond D.17-09-025, p [Ph3-P&G] pp. 19-20 (adopting a scenario with a GHG adder now) 1. Potentials Scenario pp. 20-21 (basing the GHG TURN recommended that the adder on the CARB Commission use the Navigant APCR Price) scenario called “mTRC (GHG to set p. 21 (adopting a TRC Adder #1) Reference” EE goals for 2018-2030. That scenario, not a PAC-based scenario estimates economic scenario, in part due to the potential using the TRC, as asymmetry problem cited by modified to include a GHG TURN and others) adder based on CARB’s TURN Cmts Responding to the price ceiling Ruling Inviting Comments ALJ’s TURN argued against on Draft Potential and Goals using a PAC-based scenario as Study for 2018 and Beyond long as the Commission [Phase III], 7/7/17, measures portfolio using the TRC pp. 3-5 (GHG adder using and PAC, because the resulting Cap-and-Trade CARB’s goals would include price ceiling) uneconomic savings from the pp. 6-7 (TRC not TRC perspective. TURN scenario); further noted that the TRC pp. 8-9 (adopt a GHG adder appropriately recognizes that even without a resolution of the PA and program the pending issue in participants are jointly investing in EE, and thus serves as a meaningful consumer protection in EE 2. Cumulative Savings Goals policy. D.17-09-025, pp. 26-27. The Commission in agreed with TURN (and TURN Cmts Responding to the ALJ’s others) that the EE goals for Ruling Inviting Comments on Draft 2018 and beyond should be Potential and Goals Study for 2018 and based on this scenario. Beyond [Phase III], 7/7/17, pp. 11-12. TURN additionally argued that
personnel, they should explain why this continues to be necessary.” D.17-09-025: EE Goals for 2018 and Beyond [Ph3-P&G] 1. Potentials Scenario TURN recommended that the Commission use the Navigant scenario called “mTRC (GHG Adder #1) Reference” to set EE goals for 2018-2030. That scenario estimates economic potential using the TRC, as modified to include a GHG adder based on CARB’s price ceiling TURN argued against using a PAC-based scenario as long as the Commission measures portfolio using the TRC and PAC, because the resulting goals would include uneconomic savings from the TRC perspective. TURN further noted that the TRC appropriately recognizes that the PA and program participants are jointly investing in EE, and thus serves as a meaningful consumer protection in EE policy. The Commission in agreed with TURN (and others) that the EE goals for 2018 and beyond should be based on this scenario. TURN additionally argued that 1. Potentials Scenario D.17-09-025, p pp. 19-20 (adopting a scenario with a GHG adder now) pp. 20-21 (basing the GHG adder on the CARB APCR Price) p. 21 (adopting a TRC scenario, not a PAC-based scenario, in part due to the asymmetry problem cited by TURN and others) TURN Cmts Responding to the ALJ’s Ruling Inviting Comments on Draft Potential and Goals Study for 2018 and Beyond [Phase III], 7/7/17, pp. 3-5 (GHG adder using CARB’s Cap-and-Trade price ceiling) pp. 6-7 (TRC not scenario); pp. 8-9 (adopt a GHG adder even without a resolution of the pending issue in 2. Cumulative Savings Goals D.17-09-025, pp. 26-27. TURN Cmts Responding to the ALJ’s Ruling Inviting Comments on Draft Potential and Goals Study for 2018 and Beyond [Phase III], 7/7/17, pp. 11-12. Verified
212622197.docx