Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Npa Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Stakeholders press CPUC for clear NPA screening, benefit‑cost rules and cost‑recovery for pilots
Summary
Advocates, utilities, local governments and CCAs outlined near‑term recommendations for nonpipeline alternatives: transparent screening metrics, a staged benefit‑cost framework, pilot identification approaches and explicit cost‑recovery rules (regulatory asset treatment, performance incentives).
San Francisco — A multistakeholder panel at the CPUC workshop homed in on how California should operationalize nonpipeline alternatives (NPAs) and SB 12-21 pilots. Presenters from NRDC, Tern, Earthjustice, utilities and community groups proposed concrete steps for test projects and data disclosure.
Tern proposed a four‑step benefit‑cost assessment for NPAs: (0) rapid pre‑screening for short‑term authorized projects; (1) preliminary identification using risk metrics, electric headroom and customer density; (2) portfolio development either via utility offerings or competitive solicitations; and (3) present‑value comparison of the adopted revenue requirement for the pipeline project versus the NPA portfolio. Tern called for census‑tract level risk data from utilities (under nondisclosure when needed) and for common definitions of what constitutes a ‘gas project’ for evaluation.
NRDC urged immediate action on threshold issues: adopt a streamlined NPA definition, a simplified BCA for NBAs and a cost‑recovery approach (NRDC recommended regulatory‑asset treatment for behind‑the‑meter costs for 5–10 years, subject to later revision). Earthjustice recommended similar near‑term clarity and suggested a 10‑year regulatory‑asset window for non‑SB12‑21 MPAs to align incentives.
Utility representatives warned pilot design must preserve safety and reliability and stressed that many distribution investments arise from asset condition and O&M needs rather than forecasted throughput declines. PG&E presented two program models (Alternative Energy Program, Zonal Equity Electrification Program) and reported early outreach results showing roughly 25% opt‑in rates in initial contacts; PG&E staff emphasized that projects require flexible local approaches and trusted messengers to maximize participation.
Local government and CCA speakers emphasized community consent and equity. Long Beach said it will pilot microzones in disadvantaged neighborhoods and flagged the difficulty of electrifying older housing stock. CCAs described outreach capacity and willingness to partner on community‑led consensus and program delivery.
Open questions remained: whether gas or electric ratepayers should bear NPA costs, how to structure incentives and performance rewards (New York’s 30% shared‑savings incentive was cited as an example), the appropriate depreciation period for regulatory assets for NPAs, and how to measure non‑energy benefits without violating statutory constraints for SB 12‑21. CPUC staff said the commission will circulate a workshop summary and expects further comments and staff proposals before formal rule changes.
Next steps: parties were urged to submit comments on workshop materials; CPUC staff will follow up with more detailed guidance and timing for bringing recommendations into the long‑term gas planning proceeding and related rulemakings.
