ALJ/TRP/avs Date of Issuance 11/2/2010
Decision 10-10-024 October 28, 2010
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Rulemaking Regarding Whether, or Subject to What Conditions, the Suspension of Direct Access May Be Lifted Consistent with Assembly Bill 1X and Decision 01-09-060. |
Rulemaking 07-05-025 (Filed May 24, 2007) |
DECISION REGARDING PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF
DECISION 10-03-022 REGARDING DIRECT ACCESS TRANSACTIONS
We hereby deny the California State University Petition for Modification of Decision 10-03-022 which addressed issues relating to the limited reopening of direct access in accordance with provisions of Senate Bill 695 (Stats. 2009, ch. 337).
1. Parties Positions
By its Petition filed June 23, 2010, California State University (CSU) seeks a Commission order modifying Decision (D.) 10-03-0221 to give priority for direct access (DA) service to customers that were previously eligible for DA service under the switching rules in place prior to D.10-03-022. A response in opposition to the CSU Petition was jointly filed on July 19, 2010, by Southern California Edison Company (SCE) and The Utility Reform Network (TURN). A further response was filed by San Diego Gas & Electric Company on July 23, 2010. CSU seeks a Commission order modifying D.10-03-022 to affirm that customers that were previously eligible for DA service under provisions of Assembly Bill (AB) 1X (which CSU calls "grandfathered DA customers") should have priority to transfer to DA service under the switching rules in place prior to D.10-03-022. The Commission adopted procedures in D.10-03-022 for the limited reopening of DA pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 695 whereby qualifying customers could apply for DA service, up to a new maximum cap subject to applicable conditions. CSU argues that D.10-03-022 needs to be modified to clarify that grandfathered DA customers who are currently fulfilling, or have fulfilled the three-year Bundled Portfolio Service (BPS) commitment have the option to return to DA service with the required six-month notice as long as room exists under the overall cap.
The CSU Cal Poly Pomona campus (described as "grandfathered DA customer") filed a six-month notice with SCE, to resume DA service on December 8, 2010 (based on Rule 22.1 established under D.03-05-034 and Resolution E-4006). SCE declined the six-month notice for CSU Cal Poly Pomona's return to DA service, and advised that the notice was submitted outside of the designated submission period. SCE advised CSU that grandfathered customers could no longer resume DA service under rules previously established and must participate in the new annual enrollment periods established in D.10-03-022 under SB 695 in order to return to DA service.
CSU disagrees with SCE's interpretation of the applicable rules, and thus seeks a Commission order resolving parties' differences. CSU proposes that D.10-03-022 be modified to affirm as follows:
i) that the DA rules for switching remain in effect for those temporary, one time changes utilized during the initial open enrollment window (OEW), for which enrollment has already closed; and
ii) that grandfathered DA customers who are currently fulfilling, or have already fulfilled, their three-year BPS commitment may return to DA service under existing switching rules by giving their six-month advanced notice as long as room exists under the overall cap.
TURN and SCE oppose CSU's requested modification in D.10-03-022 to provide customers previously eligible for DA under AB 1X the right to transfer to DA service pursuant to the switching rules in place prior to the issuance of D.10-03-022. TURN and SCE argue that there is no "grandfathered" right to switch to DA service under AB 1X, but that SB 695 repealed the DA suspension under AB 1X, and reinstated the suspension of DA except as permitted in SB 695. They argue that D.10-03-022 provides no preference under the switching rules or set-aside under the annual load limits for any DA-eligible customers.
They argue that there is no longer any basis for grounding the term "DA eligible" in the DA suspension under AB 1X, which was repealed by SB 695. The term "DA eligible" previously applied to those customers eligible to take DA service under the AB 1X suspension. SCE and TURN argue that "DA eligible" now identifies all customers eligible to switch to DA service under SB 695.
TURN and SCE argue that CSU had the opportunity along with all other DA-eligible customers to submit a notice of intent (NOI) to switch to DA service during the OEW beginning on April 16, 2010. CSU did not have a NOI accepted before SCE's 2010 load limit and wait-list allocation under D.10-03-022 were completely subscribed. CSU attempted to submit a six-month notice during the OEW to switch to DA service, but this was rejected because the 2010 load limit and wait-list were fully subscribed, and the six-month notice was premature for securing a spot under the 2011 load limit. SCE and TURN argue that the Commission, in using the term "existing DA-eligible customers" in D.10-03-022, intended to refer to customers previously eligible for DA service under AB 1X.
San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) supports SCE/TURN's opposition, asserting that D.10-03-022 provides no preference under the switching rules or set-aside under the annual load limits for any DA-eligible customers. If approved, CSU's requested changes would impact all three of the California electric investor-owned utilities (IOUs) as well as DA-eligible customers, by artificially creating two distinct classes of DA eligible customers, further exacerbating the potential for undue customer confusion. In addition, such a modification would unnecessarily create additional administrative burdens and costs. SDG&E's computer systems would need to be reprogrammed and other utilities' systems could be similarly impacted.
SDG&E indicates that the IOUs have already fully implemented the processes described in the DA decision. DA-eligible customers have been operating under such processes for over 3 months and the majority of such parties appear to be ready to move on to the next phase of the proceeding. Given these facts, SDG&E believes the need for finality of D.10-03-022 is imperative.
Accordingly, SDG&E argues that the CSU Petition to modify D.10-03-022 would be potentially detrimental to the other IOUs or their DA-eligible customers, and should be denied.
1 The Commission modified D.10-03-022 in D.10-05-039, subsequent reference to D.10-03-022 are as modified by D.10-05-039.
