PUC Gets Energy-Saving Plan With Built-In Bonus for All : Conservation: Approval expected in March on coalition’s proposal to benefit both consumers and utility firms.

A proposal to spend $550 million on energy-efficient products and techniques, boosting California back into a lead role in conservation, was unveiled at the state Public Utilities Commission on Wednesday by a coalition of utility, environmental, consumer and industrial groups.

If approved, the innovative plan would, by 1991, double the amount California’s four big utility companies spend on conservation and would put rebate money in the pockets of homeowners, businesses and industries for installing a wide range of futuristic energy-saving devices. Proponents said Californians also would save more than $1 billion in lower energy bills, most of it in this decade.

The PUC is expected to approve the plan in March.

“This is a win-win situation for consumers, utility companies and for the state and the nation,” said Southern California Edison Corp. chairman and CEO Howard P. Allen, who predicted that the plan will spark a national move toward aggressive energy-efficiency programs.

The so-called “blueprint” for energy-efficiency was requested by the PUC last July, after a study by an environmental group, the Natural Resources Defense Council, revealed that California utilities had slashed conservation programs in half since the early 1980s.

Pointing to problems of global warming and pollution and to the competition California businesses have with energy-efficient Japan, the PUC ordered interested groups to work out a consensus on how to revive lagging conservation efforts.

“I believe we will look back on this as a milepost . . . that significantly advances the economy of (California),” said PUC Commissioner Frederick P. Duda on hearing the proposal. “We have some countries to catch up with that are twice as efficient (in energy use.)”

The environment will be another big winner, said Ralph Cavanagh of the Natural Resources Defense Council. “We won’t try to assign a dollar value to the environmental benefits but they are very, very significant,” Cavanagh said, pointing to expected reductions in burning of fossil fuels.

Several participants said it required unprecedented cooperation for groups as different as utilities and consumer groups to come up with the plan.

“This process has never occurred anywhere,” said John Phillips of the California Energy Coalition, representing large power consumers. “For the first time in my life in this work, I have seen divergent viewpoints dealt with . . . around a table rather than in litigation.”

The broad-based support produced a host of proposals almost unthinkable a short time ago, participants said. They include the following:

- Utilities will be assured a profit when they promote programs that result in reduced energy demands. The utilities will return most of the savings created by conservation to consumers, but will keep a portion for themselves.

- Utilities will give incentives to commercial and residential builders to construct offices, factories and homes that go beyond California’s already tough energy-efficiency standards. State-of-the art technology, such as insulating windows, low-energy lamps and polarized lighting are just some of the innovations.

- Rebates to consumers will be offered on a wide range of proven, but long ignored devices, such as light bulbs that last 10 times as long as normal, but use only one-quarter the energy. Such bulbs currently cost $11.50 each.

- A number of unique test programs will be launched, including one by the Southern California Gas Co. to “super-weatherize” a sampling of homes in the Los Angeles area to determine how far energy bills can be reduced. Two California companies already have documented savings of 30% to 50% when a typical, older California home is heavily weatherized and insulated.

But even bigger savings are expected from programs aimed at new construction. In trying to construct buildings as inexpensively as possible, builders often create energy-guzzling structures that ultimately cost far more, said Edison spokesman Ziyad Awad.

“Once a building goes up, without energy-efficient planning, it is essentially a lost opportunity,” Awad said.

With the various proposals, every dollar spent on energy-efficient materials and techniques will save consumers or businesses $1.60 to $4, said John Fox, manager of market planning for Pacific Gas & Electric in Northern California.

“We’re frankly confident that all the new programs will work,” said Fox. “If the public accepts it, we are on our way.”