Rolling Portfolio. TURN per TURN's suggestion to include the following language: offered, “One approach could be to authorize EE funding for "IOUs are to collect in rates the 2015 as an extension of the annual authorized budget levels 2013-2014 portfolio cycle, and for the program administrators in additionally authorize the their service territory at the 2015 continuation of that same level, less carry-forward of funding beyond 2015 unless or unspent funds from prior until superseded by a portfolio cycles, until the earlier Commission decision of 2025 or when the approving the Rolling Portfolio Commission issues a In D.14-10-046, the superseding decision on funding.” Commission authorized this funding."). PD, Compare with approach. Ordering Paragraph 20. The Commission also modified TURN Cmts on Ph1 PD, the Proposed Decision, 10/6/14, pp. 3-4; TURN Rep consistent with Cmts on Ph1 PD, 10/13/14, p. 5 TURN’s recommendation, to clarify that existing unspent, uncommitted funds from pre-2013 program cycles be used to offset the revenue requirement to be collected in rates each year, to the extent that any such funds are available. D.14-10-046: 2015 Programs 1. Home Upgrade Verified [Code: Ph1-2015] D.14-10-046, p. 94 (HUP design) TURN Cmts on 2015 Filings, 1. Home Upgrade 4/2/14, pp. 5-6 (avoid major TURN recommended that the changes to EUC-HUP) Commission not take further D.14-10-046, p. 100 (concluding action on the Energy Upgrade that "the concept of removing California - Home Upgrade project-related, non-efficiency Program (EUC-HUP) for 2015, related from the total costs … other than to authorize the cost calculation has merit" program administrator’s because including these costs planned activities through "creates a misleading picture of a 2015. The Commission agreed measure's and project's that not the time for “this is while rejecting another redesign of residential the specific proposal as lacking Home Upgrade programs.” in "empirical support for the TURN also recommended that [25% cost reduction] value", and the Commission adopt PG&E’s instead encouraging a working
Rolling Portfolio. TURN offered, “One approach could be to authorize EE funding for 2015 as an extension of the 2013-2014 portfolio cycle, and additionally authorize the continuation of that same funding beyond 2015 unless or until superseded by a Commission decision approving the Rolling Portfolio funding.” In D.14-10-046, the Commission authorized this approach. The Commission also modified the Proposed Decision, consistent with TURN’s recommendation, to clarify that existing unspent, uncommitted funds from pre-2013 program cycles be used to offset the revenue requirement to be collected in rates each year, to the extent that any such funds are available. per TURN's suggestion to include the following language: "IOUs are to collect in rates the annual authorized budget levels for the program administrators in their service territory at the 2015 level, less carry-forward of unspent funds from prior portfolio cycles, until the earlier of 2025 or when the Commission issues a superseding decision on funding."). Compare with PD, Ordering Paragraph 20. TURN Cmts on Ph1 PD, 10/6/14, pp. 3-4; TURN Rep Cmts on Ph1 PD, 10/13/14, p. 5 D.14-10-046: 2015 Programs [Code: Ph1-2015] 1. Home Upgrade TURN recommended that the Commission not take further action on the Energy Upgrade California - Home Upgrade Program (EUC-HUP) for 2015, other than to authorize the program administrator’s planned activities through 2015. The Commission agreed that “this is not the time for another redesign of residential Home Upgrade programs.” TURN also recommended that the Commission adopt PG&E’s 1. Home Upgrade D.14-10-046, p. 94 (HUP design) TURN Cmts on 2015 Filings, 4/2/14, pp. 5-6 (avoid major changes to EUC-HUP) D.14-10-046, p. 100 (concluding that "the concept of removing project-related, non-efficiency related costs … from the total cost calculation has merit" because including these costs "creates a misleading picture of a measure's and project's while rejecting the specific proposal as lacking in "empirical support for the [25% cost reduction] value", and instead encouraging a working Verified
212622197.docx