concerns over the structure of the program portfolio all create a heightened risk of losing existing levels of customer enrollment and demand response performance. From the perspective of the demand response providers contracting with the utilities, the Joint Demand Response Parties stated that negotiating a two-year contract extension versus two one-year extensions provides more stability for the customers and aggregators and reduces the amount of administration and paperwork necessary for such extensions. They caution that “all changes, small or large, have an impact on a third party’s ability to re-enroll customers and, therefore, increase the risk of attrition.” CLECA also claims that the deliberate process of review and refinement that would take place during a two-year bridge funding would provide further reassurances to participating customers. The Utility Reform Network (TURN) and the Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) also support bridge funding but only if it includes reforms. For TURN, its recommendation for reform focuses on reductions in funding. TURN states that according to the utilities’ demand response monthly reports, the utilities have only spent between 19 percent and 23 percent of the authorized funding. TURN claims that the 2012-2014 adopted budgets are much higher than necessary to support existing programs and customer participation. ORA recommends that the Commission require reforms to certain programs “to clarify the administration of the programs and ensure that the programs provide the benefits that were expected from them when the Commission approved these programs.” During the PHC, CLECA and the Joint Demand Response Parties expressed support for two years of bridge funding with improvements noting that “if we are going to do a longer period of bridge funding then it makes sense
concerns over the structure of the program portfolio all create a heightened risk of losing existing levels of customer enrollment and demand response performance. From the perspective of the demand response providers contracting with the utilities, the Joint Demand Response Parties stated that negotiating a two-year contract extension versus two one-year extensions provides more stability for the customers and aggregators and reduces the amount of administration and paperwork necessary for such extensions. They caution that “all changes, small or large, have an impact on a third party’s ability to re-enroll customers and, therefore, increase the risk of attrition.” CLECA also claims that the deliberate process of review and refinement that would take place during a two-year bridge funding would provide further reassurances to participating customers. The Utility Reform Network (TURN) and the Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) also support bridge funding but only if it includes reforms. For TURN, its recommendation for reform focuses on reductions in funding. TURN states that according to the utilities’ demand response monthly reports, the utilities have only spent between 19 percent and 23 percent of the authorized funding. TURN claims that the 2012-2014 adopted budgets are much higher than necessary to support existing programs and customer participation. ORA recommends that the Commission require reforms to certain programs “to clarify the administration of the programs and ensure that the programs provide the benefits that were expected from them when the Commission approved these programs.” During the PHC, CLECA and the Joint Demand Response Parties expressed support for two years of bridge funding with improvements noting that “if we are going to do a longer period of bridge funding then it makes sense
86608147.docx