Table A-1. Summary of Ratepayer-Funded Energy-Efficiency Program
Recommendations
| Question for Program Design |
Recommendations |
| Rationale for Ratepayer Funding |
Capture cost-effective energy-efficiency opportunities that will be missed
by the competitive market |
|
Facilitate transition to more competitive markets |
|
Ensure benefits of restructuring are shared broadly among all customers |
| Creation of a Public-Benefit Charge |
Ensure competitively neutral mechanism for collecting funds |
|
Establish funding based on bottom-up analysis of cost-effective
energy-efficiency opportunities remaining after restructuring and an assessment
of likely private-sector activities in the absences of ratepayer funding;
at a minimum, continue funding at historic levels |
|
Decouple sunset date from recovery of competition transition charges;
establish a five-year review period over which to assess accomplishments
and determine continuing need for programs. |
|
Collect funds through a nonbypassable, volumetric charge. |
| Objectives of Energy-Efficiency Policy |
Ensure that benefits to society exceed cost |
|
Target activities to areas not adequately addressed by private sector |
|
Design programs to effect lasting beneficial changes in the market |
| Administration and Governance of Programs |
Systematically assess desirability of utilities, state agencies, and
independent institutions to manage public-benefits funds based on: (1)
institutions' past performance, current ability, and level of interest; (2)
geographic scope need to implement policies; (3) duration of funding; (4)
utility conflicts of interest and ability to manage these conflicts; (5)
flexibility of state procurement and hiring procedures; and (6) degree
of political support for creation of new, nonutility institutions. |
