Advocacy at the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)

CEERT’s Regulatory Counsel Sara Steck Myers and Associate Regulatory Attorney Megan Myers act as advocates and intervenors before the CPUC and other regulatory agencies to ensure fairly pricing for clean power, improve renewable energy procurement planning, and strengthen implementation of the state’s mandated climate and clean-energy goals. CEERT is helping lead the fight for innovative policies that reflect the true value, costs, and benefits of clean, renewable energy.

---

Recent Developments:

Summary of CEERT’s Advocacy at the CPUC

CEERT has been particularly active in the General Order 131-D (R.23-05-018), Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) (R.20-05-003), Resource Ade­quacy (RA) (R.21-10-002/R.23-10-011), Self-Generation Incentive Pro­gram (SGIP) (R.20-05-012), and the new Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) (R.24-01-017) pro­ceed­ings.  In addition, as discussed in more detail below, CEERT is participating in the new rule­making opened by a Petition (P.24-03-013) of the Public Advocates Office (Cal Advocates).

The CPUC also opened a new energization proceeding (R.24-01-018).  CEERT is not a party to this proceeding but is tracking it, and it is summarized below.

CPUC Proceedings that CEERT Has Actively Participated in Since the Last Quarterly Report

General Order 131-D (R.23-05-018)

On December 18, Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) Park and Mutialu issued a Ruling Inviting Com­ment on Phase 2 Issues.  Phase 2 will address additional needed changes to GO 131-D and a Staff Pro­posal on Phase 2 issues is expected in the first quarter of 2024.  On January 10, ALJ Park issued a Ruling that extended the due dates of Opening Comments to February 5 and Reply Com­ments to February 26.

On February 5, CEERT submitted Opening Comments on the ALJ Ruling, arguing that the timeliness of the CPUC’s implementation of SB 529 in D.23-12-035 should be continued in Phase 2 by prioritizing consideration of the 9/29/23 Joint Settlement Agreement.  The CPUC needs to define what constitutes a “fully developed” Phase 2 “record” and adopt a fair, public process applicable to parties and staff in devel­oping that record well before the issuance of the “Staff Proposal” in the “Second Quarter of 2024.”

On February 26, CEERT submitted Reply Comments, noting that most parties filing Open­ing Comments on the ALJ Ruling support consideration and adoption of the Joint Settlement Agreement in Phase 2.

The Public Advocates Office’s (Cal Advocates’) Opening Comments propose sweeping revi­sions to both the scope of this proceeding and the CPUC’s transmission permitting processes.  CEERT has numerous concerns with this proposal.  Although Cal Advocates’ Comments took a dramatically different ap­proach to making changes to GO 131-D, including a phased proceeding and prioritizing “policy” projects, the CPUC has taken no action to date following the filing of Reply Comments in February.  The next identi­fied step is a Staff Proposal due in the “second quarter of 2024,” as stated in the January 10 ALJ’s Ruling.

On January 17, the Protect Our Communities Foundation (PCF) submitted an Application for Rehearing (AFR) of D.23-12-035 (Decision Addressing Phase I Issues), arguing that the Decision violates SB 529 mandates because the opening clause of the added paragraph limits application of the Permit to Construct (PTC) process to projects of 200 KV or more that require a Certificate of Public Convenience and Neces­sity (CPCN).  The CPUC must adhere to legislative directives and must oversee the utilities’ construction projects.  Responses to the AFR were submitted on February 1.

On March 20, Assemblymembers Eduardo Garcia, Chris Holden, Pilar Schiavo, Damon Connolly, Rick Chavez Sbur, David Alvarez, Freddie Rodriguez, Devon Mathis, Greg Wallis, Heath Flora, and Lisa Calderon sent a letter to CPUC President Alice Reynolds requesting that the CPUC expeditiously grant the 18-party Joint Motion for Adoption of Phase 1 Settlement Agreement that was submitted on Septem­ber 29.  The letter stresses that D.23-12-035 does not go far enough and does not address most of the Settlement’s proposed streamlining measures, that streamlining is a priority for California, and that the Settlement’s proposed reforms are long overdue.  The Assemblymembers request that the CPUC act promptly to grant the Settlement.

Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) (R.20-05-003)

Proposed Decision Adopting 2023 Preferred System Plan and Related Matters, and Addressing PFMs

As previously reported, on January 10, ALJ Fitch issued a Proposed Decision (PD) that evaluates the 2022 IRP filings of all LSEs under the CPUC’s IRP purview.  Notably, the PD adopts a Preferred System Portfolio (PSP) that meets a statewide 25 MMT greenhouse gas (GHG) target for the electric sector in 2035.  The PD recommends to the CAISO that the 25 MMT PSP portfolio be used as both the reliability base case and the policy-driven base case for study in its 2024-2025 TPP, and further recommends that the CAISO analyze a policy-driven sensitivity case to test the transmission buildout needed for a grid stress case under which 15 gigawatts of gas-fired generation resources are retired by 2039.

The PD addresses two PFMs of earlier procurement decisions in this proceeding:  D.21-06-035 and D.23-02-040.  The PD also formally adopts high-level aspects of the reliability framework for IRP that has been used throughout the past two years, including a 0.1 loss of load expectation (LOLE) standard for deter­min­ing reliability need, a planning reserve margin (PRM) based on gross peak, and resource counting con­ventions using marginal effective load-carrying capability (ELCC) analysis that is updated periodi­cally.  The PD makes reimbursable funding available to CPUC staff for consulting re­sources to continue to support the IRP process for the next six years.

On January 30, CEERT submitted Opening Comments supporting the adoption of the 25 MMT core portfolio as the PSP to be used in the reliability and policy-driven base case for the 2024-2025 TPP and the high gas-retirement scenario as a policy-driven sensitivity for the 2024-2025 TPP.  CEERT also sup­ported maintaining 1.6 GW of offshore wind mapped to the North Coast (Humboldt) area.  We held that the PD correctly denies the Petition for Modification related to Diablo Canyon replacement resources and correctly grants compliance extension for long lead-time resources beyond 2028.

CEERT also supports the adoption of a 0.1 LOLE reliability standard, a PRM based on gross peak and the use of ELCC analysis, but only as an interim approach.  We continue to have concerns about using RESOLVE and SERVM for capacity expansion and production cost modeling.  We challenged Finding of Fact 19 that there is a reliability risk in the summer of 2025 because it is not supported by the record.

The PD denies two of CEERT’s recommendations—development of more granu­lar and deeper assump­tions for distributed energy resources (DERs) and addressing cost uncertainties for all resource types by modeling low, medium, and high sensitivities.  However, CEERT was pleased that the PD states that these recom­men­da­tions will be considered in the next IRP cycle.

On February 5, CEERT submitted Reply Comments and stated that CEERT is one of many parties who support the adoption of a 25 MMT core portfolio and the high gas retirement sensitivity.  We also contend that improvement in capacity expansion and production cost modeling in the IRP process is urgently needed and the use of RESOLVE and SERVM continues to be of concern to CEERT and others.

Final Decision D.24-02-047 was issued on February 20.

Amended Scoping Memo

On April 18, Assigned Commissioner Alice Reynolds issued an Amended Scoping Memo and Ruling Extending Statutory Deadline.  The issues to be addressed are as follows: (1) implementation of Assem­bly Bill (AB) 1373, (2) transmittal of portfolios to the California Independent System Operator (CAISO) for use in its annual Transmission Planning Process (TPP), (3)  development of the Reliable and Clean Power Procurement Program (RCPPP) and related coordination with the RA program and rulemaking, (4) periodic updates of the Inputs and Assumptions for IRP modeling for multiple purposes, (5) development and adoption of a 2026 Preferred System Plan (PSP), (6) crafting of any additional policies to encourage procurement of long lead-time resources, (7) compliance and monitoring of existing procurement require­ments, and (8) other continuing or remaining issues.  The schedule is reflected in the calendar above.

ALJ Ruling Seeking Comments on Need for Centralized Procurement of Long Lead-Time Resources

On April 26, ALJ Fitch issued a Ruling Seeking Comments on Need and Process for Centralized Pro­curement of Specified Long Lead-Time Resources.  The Ruling seeks feedback from parties on options for initial use of the centralized procurement mechanism created in AB 1373, where the CPUC may request that the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) procure electricity from certain types of resources, on behalf of customers of all LSEs under the CPUC’s IRP purview.  Opening Com­ments are due on May 24 and Reply Comments on June 5.

Resource Adequacy (RA) (R.21-10-002/R.23-10-011)

CLECA Petition for Modification (R.21-10-002)

On March 12, the CPUC issued D.24-03-004, a Decision Denying Petition for Modification of D.23-06-029 by the California Large Energy Consumers Association (CLECA).  CLECA submitted a Petition for Modification (PFM) of D.23-06-029 due to the changes made to Reliability DR Resources (RDRR), which led to issues with grid reliability on July 20.  D.24-03-004 states that “[c]onsidering both CLECA’s and CAISO’s assessment of the July 20 event, the Commission is not persuaded that CLECA has pro­vided sufficient basis to demonstrate that a modification of D.23-06-029 is warranted.”

CEERT and the Council Track 1 Proposal (R.23-10-011)

As previously reported, on January 19, CEERT and the California Efficiency + Demand Management Council submitted a Track 1 Proposal that urged the CPUC to address one of the most time-sensitive issues in this proceeding:  the treatment of DR resources, particularly those negatively impacted by D.23-06-029.  CEERT and the Council proposed that Track 1: (1) schedule testimony and evidentiary hearings to con­sider and address the negative impacts that D.23-06-029 has had on Supply-Side DR and DR pro­viders since issuance of the decision, (2) evaluate the merits of any other CPUC RA DR Supply-Side DR rule changes that the CPUC is planning to undertake in Track 1, and (3) permit parties to submit respon­sive proposals that identify, limit, and reverse negative effects of those rules.

A two-part workshop on Track 1 Proposals was held on February 14 and 28.  Megan M. Myers appeared at this Workshop to present CEERT and the Council’s Track 1 Proposal.  Parties submitted revised Track 1 proposals on February 23.

Parties submitted Opening Comments on the Track 1 Proposals on March 8 and Reply Comments on March 22.  CEERT submitted Reply Comments that supported the proposal of California Community Choice Association (CalCCA) to evaluate test year showing data to quantify the benefits of hourly trans­actability and commit to adopting hourly load obligation trading for slice-of-day.  In addition, CEERT supported proposals that urge the development of monthly planning reserve margins (PRMs) by 2026.  CEERT also agreed with CAISO’s recommendation that the CPUC implement programmatic long-term procurement.  We shared concerns outlined by Microsoft on the need for a loss of load probability study, which would be used to establish future PRMs.  We also supported modification of the rules on RA im­ports.  A Proposed Decision on Track 1 is expected in May.

Inputs & Assumptions

On March 18, ALJ Chiv issued a Ruling on Energy Division’s Proposed Inputs & Assumptions, attached to the Ruling as Attachment A.  Parties submitted Comments on these Inputs and Assumptions on April 2.

CAISO Reports

On April 4, CAISO submitted its Draft 2025 Local Capacity Technical Report.  Protect Our Commu­ni­ties Foundation was the only party to submit comments on April 18.  On May 1, CAISO sub­mitted its Final Local Capacity Technical Report.  Opening Comments were submitted on the Final Report, and Reply Comments were submitted on May 13.  CAISO also submitted its 2025 Flexible Capacity Report.

ALJ Ruling Modifying Track 2 Schedule

On May 2, ALJ Chiv issued a Ruling Modifying Track 2 Schedule, as reflected in the calendar above.

Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP) (R.20-05-012)

On March 22, CPUC issued D.24-03-071, a Decision Implementing Assembly Bill 209 and Improving Self-Generation Incentive Program Equity Outcomes.  The Decision and all attachments can be found here.  In part, D.24-03-071 required that Program Administrators for SGIP ensure that incentive appli­cants are required to enroll in an approved qualified utility DR program as described in Appendix E.

On April 19, CEERT joined Leapfrog Power, Inc., CPower, Nostromo Energy, Inc., OhmConnect, Inc., Qcells North America, Voltus, Inc., and the California Efficiency + Demand Management Council (the Joint Parties) to file and serve an Application for Rehearing of D.24-03-071.  The Joint Parties argued that D.24-03-071, in adopting the qualified DR programs provision, is contrary to applicable law, fact, and policy, and wrongly imposes significant and unsupported adverse impacts on DR, particularly as it per­tains to third-party and community choice aggregator (CCA) DR programs.  By adopting this pro­vi­sion, the CPUC improperly narrows the list of qualified DR programs that can participate in SGIP, fails to meet required legal standards for CPUC decisions, and fails to follow previous CPU decisions.  If enforced, it would negatively impact CCA and third-party DR programs that provide RA capacity and exacerbate the unequal treatment of third-party and CCA DR programs, compared to utility DR programs, by exclu­sively and discriminatorily focusing SGIP funds on utility DR programs.  Joint Community Choice Ag­gre­gators and Cal Advocates submitted Responses to the Application for Rehearing on May 6.

Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) (R.18-07-003 and R.24-01-017)

On February 1, the CPUC issued R.24-01-017, an Order Instituting Rulemaking to Continue Imple­men­tation and Administration, and Consider Further Development, of the California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program.  R.18-07-003 remains open only to consider filings related to the retail sellers’ final 2023 RPS Procurement Plans.

On March 14, CEERT joined American Clean Power – California and Solar Energy Industries Associa­tion (the Joint Parties) in submitting Joint Reply Comments on the OIR.  The Joint Parties urge the CPUC to increase the RPS targets because doing so is an administratively efficient way of effectuat­ing the CPUC’s blueprint in the 2022-2023 PSP.  A Prehear­ing Conference was held on April 4, and a transcript can be found here.

On April 17, ALJ Atamturk issued a Proposed Decision Closing Rulemaking 18-07-003.  The PD finds that all matters in R.18-07-003 have been decided or transferred to R.24-01-017, and R.18-07-003 should be closed.  Opening Comments were submitted on May 7 and Reply Comments on May 13.

Cal Advocates Petition for Rulemaking (P.24-03-013)

On March 18, Cal Advocates filed a Petition to Open a Rulemaking Pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 1708.5, and stated that the scope of the proposed rulemaking would allow the CPUC to consider the achievement of California’s greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals alongside concerns over rate affordability, reliability, and equity outcomes for demand-side programs associated with DR and energy efficiency, including Energy Savings Assistance (ESA).

On April 5, numerous parties submitted Responses to this Petition.  CEERT’s Response urged the CPUC to open two new separate energy efficiency and DR rulemakings because combining development of these resources into the same proceeding would limit their proper assessment.  We also argued that the Petition contains overlap with the new CPUC electrification rulemaking (R.24-01-018), and we urged that if the CPUC grants the Petition, or opens two separate energy efficiency and DR rulemakings, the pro­ceed­­ing(s) must be closely coordinated with the CEC’s Distributed Electricity Backup Assets (DEBA) Program and Distributed Support Grid Support (DSGS) Program.

On April 15, several parties submitted Replies to the Responses.  Cal Advocates’ Reply, in part, disagreed with CEERT and SCE’s argument that energy efficiency and DR are fundamentally different, and con­tended that these arguments are “inaccurate” because they “are indicative of the same siloed funding philosophy that the Commission has identified as a ‘major barrier’ currently impairing progress.”

On April 25, this proceeding was assigned to CPUC President Alice Reynolds and ALJ Sasha Goldberg.  The next step will most likely be the issuance of a Proposed Decision either adopting or denying Cal Advo­cates’ Petition.  CEERT plans to respond to any Proposed Decision that is issued and will continue to raise our concerns with this Petition.

Other CPUC Energy Planning and Procurement Proceedings 

Energization (R.24-01-018)

On January 30, the CPUC opened R.24-01-018 to establish energization timelines.  The order instituting rulemaking (OIR) was opened to allow the CPUC to provide guidelines and set timelines for the energiza­tion of electrical corporation customers. This rulemaking seeks to implement certain provisions of Senate Bill (SB) 410 and Assembly (AB) Bill 50, which require the CPUC to establish reasonable average and maximum target energization time periods, and a procedure for customers to report energization delays to the CPUC, among other requirements.  Opening Comments on the OIR were submitted on February 20 and Reply Comments were submitted on March 1.

A workshop on the OIR was held on February 2, and presentations from the workshop can be found here.

On March 21, ALJ Sisto issued a Ruling Directing Utility Responses to Questions Regarding Energiza­tion Timelines.  Thereafter, on April 8, ALJ Sisto issued a Ruling Adjusting Phase 1 Schedule, ex­tended the due date for the utilities to respond to the March 21 Ruling to April 22, and extended the due date of Opening Comments to the March 28 Scoping Memo and Ruling to May 3 and Reply Comments to May 17.  A Status Conference is set for May 21, and a Proposed Decision is scheduled to be issued in July.

Demand Flexibility (R.22-07-005)

Proposed Decision Addressing Assembly Bill (AB) 205 Requirements for Electric Utilities

On March 27, ALJ Wang issued a Proposed Decision that authorizes all investor-owned electric utilities (IOUs) to change the structure of residential customer bills in accordance with Assembly Bill (AB) 205.

As directed by AB 205, this PD authorizes all IOUs to change residential customer bills by shifting the recovery of a portion of fixed costs from volumetric rates to a separate, fixed amount on bills without changing the total costs that utilities may recover from customers.  As a result, this decision reduces the volumetric price of electricity (in cents per kilowatt hour) for all residential customers of IOUs.

The PD states that it adopts a gradual, incremental approach to implementing AB 205 requirements, including the requirement to offer income graduated fixed charge (IGFC) amounts.  The adopted billing structure will offer discounts based on the existing income-verification processes of the utilities’ Cali­for­nia Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE) and Family Electric Rate Assistance (FERA) programs.  The CPUC will consider improvements to the new billing structure based on the initial results of implemen­ta­tion and a working group proposal in the next phase of this proceeding.

The PD adopts elements of several party proposals rather than adopting one party’s proposal.  Southern California Edison Company (SCE) and San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) shall begin to apply the adopted changes to residential customer bills during the fourth quarter of 2025.  Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), Bear Valley Electric Service, Inc. (BVES), Liberty Utilities, and PacificCorp d/b/a Pacific Power shall begin to apply the adopted changes to residential customer bills during the first quarter of 2026.  The large electric utilities shall each implement the adopted billing structure changes through a Tier 3 advice letter as follows:

1. Tier 1: Customers enrolled in the CARE program shall automatically pay the lowest discounted fixed amount (approximately $6 per month).
2. Tier 2: Customers enrolled in the FERA program or who live in affordable housing restricted to residents with incomes at or below 80 percent of Area Median Income shall automatically pay a discounted fixed amount (approximately $12 per month).
3. Tier 3: All other customers will pay a fixed amount of $24.15 per month.

In accordance with AB 205, the revenues from the fixed charges will be used to (a) ensure that a low-income customer with average electricity usage will realize bill savings in each baseline territory without changes to usage, and (b) reduce volumetric rates for all residential customers.  The new billing structure shall apply to all residential rates of the IOUs, except for master-metered rates that are not sub-metered, separately-metered electric vehicle rates for customers whose primary meter has an IGFC, or rate sched­ules that are due to be eliminated by the second quarter of 2026.  The revenues from fixed charges will be applied to reduce volumetric rates equally across all time-of-use periods.

The PD approves an aggregate total of up to $35.6 million for the implementation costs of the three large utilities. Each of those utilities shall propose a plan and budget for customer education and outreach through a Tier 3 advice letter.  The PD also approves the settlement agreement on AB 205 implemen­ta­tion between BVES, Liberty Utilities, PacificCorp, and the Public Advocates Office (Cal Advocates), with exceptions to ensure compliance with statutory requirements.  The small and multijurisdictional utilities shall each file a Tier 3 advice letter to provide additional information about base revenues, pro­pose a customer education and outreach plan, and propose an implementation budget.

The PD adjusts the methodology for calculating the large utilities’ average effective discount for CARE in accordance with AB 205, and it addresses all Phase 1 Track A issues.  The proceeding remains open to address the remaining Phase 1 Track B issues.  Opening Comments were submitted on April 16 and Reply Comments on April 22.  The PD is on the Agenda for the May 9 CPUC Business Meeting.

Ruling On Track B Working Group 1 Proposals and Issue 5

On April 24, ALJ Wang issued a Ruling on Track B Working Group 1 Proposals and Issue 5.  The Ruling directs PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E to comment on each of the questions in Appendix A to this Ruling, and invites other parties to do so.  The questions in Appendix A relate to the Track B Working Group 1 Pro­posals and Issue 5 (Compliance with California Energy Commission (CEC) Load Management Stand­ards).  Opening Comments are due on May 22 and Reply Comments on June 12.

Demand Response (DR) Applications (A.22-05-002, et al.)

On April 12, Assigned Commissioner John Reynolds issued a Ruling Directing Release of the Aggre­gated Data and Modeling Code Associated with the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Phase 2 Demand Response Potential Study, and associated work products listed in Section 2 of Attachment 1.  Attachment 1 is the Development and Use of Cluster Load Shapes for the Phase 4 DR Potential Study.

On April 24, the CPUC issued D.24-04-006, which sunsets the Demand Response Auction Mechanism (DRAM) pilot programs of PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E by December 31, or sooner if the funding limits authorized for the pilot programs as set forth in D.23-01-006 are reached prior to that date.  This Decision also closes the proceeding.

Customer DER (R.22-11-013)

On January 9, SCE, on behalf of the parties, submitted a Meet and Confer Report which identified the disputed and stipulated facts about the updates to the Avoided Cost Calculator (ACC).  Evidentiary Hear­ings were held on the disputed issues on January 23-25, and transcripts can be found here: Day One, Day Two, and Day Three.  Opening Briefs were submitted on February 21 and Reply Briefs on March 13.

On April 11, ALJ Lau issued a Ruling Setting Oral Argument.  An oral argument on the issues related to the 2024 ACC Update will be held on Monday, June 17, from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. at the CPUC Audi­to­rium, 505 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, CA.  Parties who wish to address this issue at oral argu­ment shall send an e-mail to the assigned ALJ no later than May 17.

On April 19, the CPUC issued D.24-04-010, which authorizes $1.5 million in reimbursable ratepayer funds for an avoided transmission and distribution (T&D) costs study.  The primary purpose of the study is to examine how distributed energy resources (DERs) can help California defer or avoid building more T&D infrastructure and how to accurately estimate these avoided T&D costs. The study results are antici­pated to be incorporated into the 2026 ACC Update cycle to improve estimating avoided T&D costs.  Energy Division is authorized to hire a consultant to conduct the study.

On April 22, ALJ Lau issued a Ruling that orders the CPUC’s Energy Division to follow guidelines set forth by the CPUC’s Contracting Office to select and hire a consultant to lead the Data Working Group.

CPUC Gas System and Grid Initiatives

Aliso Canyon (I.17-02-002)

Parties submitted Opening Briefs on April 12 and Reply Briefs on May 3.

Gas Reliability and System Planning (R.20-01-007)

On February 22, Assigned Commissioner Douglas issued a Ruling Scheduling Phase 3 Prehearing Con­ference and Providing Joint Agency Staff Gas Transition White Paper and Draft Phase 3 Scope and Schedule for Party Comment.  The issues to be covered in Phase 3 are:  gas transition scenario analysis, long-term gas transition planning approaches, and opportunities for interim action reducing gas system costs.  Parties submitted comments on the draft Phase 3 Scope and Schedule on March 13 and parties submitted comments on the White Paper on April 15.  A Phase 3 Prehearing Conference was held on March 19 and a transcript of the Prehearing Conference can be found here.

Microgrids (R.19-09-009)

On March 27, ALJ Rizzo issued a Ruling Requesting Comment on Respondents and Stakeholder Pro­posals’ Alignment with the Commission’s Nine Environmental and Social Justice Action Plan Goals.  The Ruling seeks comment from interested parties on Scoping Topic 4 of Track 5 for this proceeding, which pertains to the Environmental and Social Justice Action Plan Goals.  Several parties submitted comments on April 19.  Reply comments must be filed and served no later than May 17.

Grid for High Distributed Energy Resources (DER) (R.21-06-017)

On March 13, ALJs Hymes and Lakhanpal issued a Ruling that introduces a staff proposal to improve the Distribution Planning and Execution Process and directs parties to comment on relevant sections to en­sure a complete record on all aspects of the proposal.  The comment period was extended, and Opening Comments are now due on May 28 and Reply Comments on June 18.

On April 19, SCE and SDG&E submitted a Motion to Temporarily Suspend Portions of the Distribution Investment Deferral Framework (DIDF) Process for 2024-2025.  They allege that the interconnection chal­lenges facing the 2024-2025 DIDF process are “daunting” and, “combined with the paucity of defer­ral contracts since DIDF’s inception, a temporary pause is advisable.”  Responses are due on May 6.

Other CPUC Proceedings CEERT Continues to Track

As noted in previous Quarterly Reports, CEERT is either a party to or on the service list for numerous CPUC proceedings that have required or could require CEERT participation, and we continue to track them in anticipation of participating now or in the future.  Information on events in these proceed­ings is provided in the Schedule of Upcoming Events on pages 1 – 2 of this Report.

Because these proceedings were not the focus of CEERT’s efforts in January – May of 2024, only limited information about them is provided here, but is available from CEERT’s regula­tory counsel, Megan Myers (meganmmyers@yahoo.com) or Sara Myers at (ssmyers@att.net.)  Please do not hesitate to con­tact them for information on any of the following proceedings as to status or next steps.

Net Energy Metering (NEM) (R.20-08-020)

As previously reported, on November 22 the CPUC issued D.23-11-068, a Decision Addressing Remain­ing Proceeding Issues.  There have been six Applications for Rehearing of this Decision that were all filed on December 22.  Responses to some of these Applications for Rehearing were submitted on January 8.

Diablo Canyon (R.23-01-007)

On January 16, PG&E submitted an Application for Rehearing (AFR) of D.23-12-036, arguing that D.23-12-036 commits legal error by requiring PG&E to obtain CPUC approval before spending operat­ing-risk compensation and by requiring operating-risk compensation to offset actual operating costs over 115% of forecasted costs.

On the same day, Californians for Renewable Energy (CARE) sub­mitted an AFR of the same decision, arguing that the CPUC failed to:  (1) deter­mine if there were adequate new renew­able and zero-carbon resources to replace Diablo Canyon by the end of 2023, (2) de­termine that extend­ing the operation of Diablo Canyon was prudent, (3) determine the true costs of ex­tending Diablo Canyon opera­tions, (4) analyze whether the project was reliable, and (5) de­termine if the project was safe.  Responses to both AFRs were submitted on January 31.

On February 7, ALJ Atamturk issued a Ruling Seeking Comments on Phase 2 Preliminary Scope.  Open­ing Comments were submitted on February 28 and Reply Comments were due on March 8.

Energy Efficiency (EE) (R.13-11-005)

On November 17, ALJ Kao issued a Ruling Inviting Comment on the Draft Revised Normalized Metered Energy Consumption (NMEC) Rulebook.  On November 30, ALJ Kao granted an extension request made by SDG&E to extend the due dates of Opening and Reply Comments on this Ruling.  Opening Comments were submitted on February 29 and Reply Comments on March 15.

On March 27, ALJ Kao issued a Ruling that provides an opportunity to comment on whether the CPUC should eliminate the evaluation, measurement, and verification (EM&V) dispute resolution pro­cess estab­lished in D.10-04-029.  The dispute resolution process was part of an “incentive mechanism” established for large IOUs running Commission energy efficiency programs.  The IOUs’ shareholders were eligible to receive compensation if the IOUs’ energy efficiency programs achieved certain pre-set goals estab­lished by EM&V.  Because the IOUs had an economic motive in the form of shareholder in­cen­tives linked to EM&V, they successfully sought a dispute resolution process related to EM&V.  This Ruling proposes to eliminate the EM&V dispute resolution process as it is not warranted by the current energy efficiency framework.  Opening Comments were submitted on April 29 and Reply Comments on May 13.

On April 4, ALJ Kao issued a Ruling Providing Notice of Audit Completed Pursuant to D.22-03-010 and D.22-04-034.  Opening comments on whether the Energy Efficiency Codes & Standards Performance Audit should be approved were submitted on May 1 and Reply Comments are due on May 22.

Transportation Electrification (R.18-12-006/R.23-12-008)

As previously reported, on December 20 the CPUC issued an Order Instituting Rulemaking (OIR) Re­garding Transportation Electrification Policy and Infrastructure and Closing Rulemaking 18-12-006.  Opening Comments on the OIR were submitted on January 19 and Reply Comments on February 5.  Parties submitted Prehearing Conference Statements, and a Prehearing Confer­ence was held on February 29.  The Transcript for the February 29 Prehearing Conference can be found here.

In R.18-12-006, on April 26, Commissioner Alice Reynolds issued a Proposed Decision Denying CLECA and Energy Producers and Users Coalition’s (EPUC’s) Petition for Modification of D.22-11-040 (Deci­sion on Transportation Electrification Policy and Investment).  CLECA and EPUC sought to modify D.22-11-040 to authorize the IOUs to allocate costs via a system average percentage change which would increase rates by different amounts for each customer class.  The CPUC denies the Petition for Modifica­tion, claiming that CLECA and EPUC “rehash the same arguments that were made during the litigation of the proceeding; have not raised any new information or justification for modifying D.22-11-040.”  Open­ing Comments on the Proposed Decision are due on May 16 and Reply Comments on May 21.

In R.23-12-008, on April 12, Assigned Commissioner Alice Reynolds issued a Scoping Memo and Ruling.  The Scoping Memo declares that the proceeding is the venue where the CPUC will comprehen­sively assess the needs for transportation electrification policy and infrastructure.  Issues include the fol­lowing: (1) proactive planning to accelerate transportation electrification, (2) refocusing ratepayer support in transportation electrification framework, and (3) other topic areas such as vehicle-grid integration, low-carbon fuel standard, and timely energization of vehicle charging.  Subsequent Rulings will be issued that will provide the scope and schedule of each issue.

Disconnections (R.18-07-005)

On February 20, the CPUC issued D.24-02-046 that approves a CBO Arrears Case Management Pilot Program to reduce residential energy service disconnections by PG&E, SCE, SDG&E, and SoCalGas.  The utilities shall contract with community-based organizations (CBOs) to provide case management services to assist up to 12,000 custom­ers with managing their unpaid bills, enrolling in energy assistance and energy efficiency programs, and arranging bill payment plans.  Within 180 days of the effective date of this decision, the utilities shall award contracts for such assistance CBOs.  The pilot program shall conclude 790 days after the effective date of this decision.

On March 22, ALJ Wang issued a Ruling requesting party comments on disconnection caps and the allocation of payments of past-due bills between community choice aggregators (CCAs) and utilities.  Opening Comments were submitted on April 19 and Reply Comments on May 3.

PG&E Clean Energy Optimization Pilot (CEOP) (A.22-03-006)

On April 4, ALJ Wang directed PG&E to work with parties to file and serve a Motion to Admit Exhibits into Evidence on May 10.  Parties may file and serve Responses to the Exhibits Motion by May 24 and Replies to Responses by June 7.

Additional proceedings tracked, but where there has been little or no activity since our last Quarterly Report, or the proceeding has been closed:

• 18-07-006 (Affordability)
• 19-01-011 (Building Decarbonization)
• 17-07-007 (Improvements to Rule 21)