FEI-FEVI 2010 EEC Report filed March 31, 2011 - FortisBC

20
BCSEA‐SCBC submitted the evidence of John J. Plunkett of Green Energy Economics Group, Inc. The
Commission Panel reviewed Mr. Plunkett’s qualifications and experience and accepts him as an
expert with respect to the matters his testimony addresses in this Application.
Mr. Plunkett proposes that the CEO should be reduced by 50 percent, and the amount by which the
funding is reduced be redirected to the residential and commercial efficiency programs.
Mr. Plunkett notes that while building a conservation ‘ethic’ in British Columbia is laudable, the
primary purpose of the CEO expenditures should be to support the efficiency programs.
(Exhibit C5‐5, pp. 18, 19)
Commission Determination
The Commission Panel finds that Terasen has not provided sufficient evidence to support either the
$13.835 million total proposed EEC expenditures, or the allocation of some 84 percent of that
amount to mass media advertising and production. The Commission Panel notes that the
Commercial component comprises some 70 percent of the total expenditures in the combined
Residential and Commercial Energy Efficiency program areas, to which the CEO costs have been
attributed equally. The Commission Panel also notes Terasen’s comments, quoted above, with
respect to the key decision makers in both the new and retrofit commercial markets. The
Commission Panel considers both these markets to be significantly more narrow and focused than
markets which may warrant the use of mass media approaches to communication.
The Commission Panel also notes that Terasen’s evidence did not include any discussion of bill
stuffers or other communication methods.
The Commission Panel agrees in part with Mr. Plunkett’s proposal, and considers that, while public
education is an appropriate activity in support of the EEC objectives, the evidence is not sufficient
to support either the full amount proposed or the allocation of the proposed CEO expenditures.
The Commission panel does not agree with Mr. Plunkett’s suggestion that the funding reduction of