A. CCA Program Phase-In
LGCC, CCSF and other prospective CCAs suggest that a CCA should be able to phase in their programs, that is, offer service to some customers or customer classes before others. PG&E supports this concept to a limited extent as long as it does not lead to cost-shifting. SCE and SDG&E propose that the CCAs cut-over all customers concurrently to avoid the administrative costs of phasing and to avoid "cherry picking" of most valuable customers and thereby undermine those portions of AB 117 that refer to universal service and equitable treatment of customers. PG&E proposes to permit phasing, as long as the cut-over is accomplished within six months, in order to ease the administrative burdens of the transfer.
Discussion. AB 117 does not prohibit a phase-in of the CCA's program or customer cut-overs. In advocating for a prohibition on a phase-in, SCE relies on Section 366.2(c)(4)(A)(B) which directs CCAs to develop an implementation plan that "shall provide for...universal service" and "equitable treatment of all customers." SCE appears to argue that these terms require that all customers be treated equally in all respects. We do not agree that this is what the statute requires. The terms are not defined or discussed in any other portion of the statute and, alone, are so broad that they are subject to considerable interpretation. Indeed, "universal service" and "equitable treatment" are concepts that have been subjects of debate and policy decisions in numerous Commission dockets over the years. Without more guidance from the statute, we cannot assume these terms preclude a phase-in.
However, we need not delve further into statutory interpretation on this issue. Rather, we leave the matter to the CCAs. We note that a pilot program may facilitate a CCA's program implementation in some respects by, for example, allowing it to develop its administrative structure incrementally or to purchase power supplies in specified quantities. Thus, the barrier to a pilot program or phase-in would not be the law but the possible additional costs of administering the cut-over of customers from the utilities to the CCAs that might occur, for example, as a result of differing load profiles and shifting procurement requirements, as ORA suggests. PG&E proposes a limited phase-in that might actually mitigate costs. We direct the utilities to propose tariffs that offer a phase-in at rates and charges that would recover such costs, consistent with other portions of this order addressing implementation and transaction costs. Their tariffs should permit the utilities to negotiate with the CCA to phase-in the CCA's program in ways that promote cost-savings, as PG&E suggests, and the associated cost savings should be reflected in the negotiated outcomes.
B. CCA Requirements to Offer Service
LA/CV and other CCAs believe CCAs should be permitted to offer service to a portion of local customers. The utilities argue that AB 117 requires CCAs to offer service to all customers.
Section 366.2(b) requires the CCA to "offer the opportunity to purchase electricity to all residential customers within its jurisdiction." (Emphasis added.) A general rule of statutory construction provides that where the language of a statute is specific, all other things not specified are excluded from the application of the rule unless other terms of the statute clarify or conflict with the rule. Here, the statute requires service offering to all residential customers and does not mention a similar requirement for commercial or industrial customers. The reference to residential customers does not conflict with any other provision of the statute. We therefore find that AB 117 does not prohibit the CCA from offering service to a portion of customers in its territory, with the exception that it must offer service to all residential customers. As long as the utilities' tariffs reflect the costs of serving the CCA and the requirements of the utilities' tasks are reasonable and otherwise lawful, this Commission is indifferent to whether a CCA offers service to a portion of the community or all of it.
C. CCA-Specific Load Profiles
Some parties propose that the Commission use load profiles specific to individual CCAs in computing the CRS and for scheduling and settlements with the California ISO. CCSF observes that CCAs would have differing load profiles according to regional climate and economy. LA/CV proposes a relatively easy way to develop load profiles that may be useful for various purposes.
The utilities oppose this on the basis that the ISO still uses system average load profiles. If the Commission were to permit some but not all CCAs use specific load profiles, the utilities would realize a revenue shortfall which would have to be passed along to other ratepayers in contravention of the AB 117 ban on cost-shifting. The utilities also raise concerns that they do not have the data bases for creating CCA-specific load profiles and creating them could be expensive.
Discussion. We agree with the utilities that adopting CCA-specific load profiles would be costly and likely lead to cost-shifting. Even if we were to apply CCA-specific load profiles to all CCAs, cost shifting could occur if the bulk of CCAs had favorable load profiles compared to the average of the utilities' systems. While load profiling may make sense conceptually, the effects of its implementation under the current circumstances are unknown and potentially harmful to utility bundled customers. We may reconsider this proposal if the Commission or the FERC eventually unbundle utility systems by region.
Load profiles may be useful to CCAs for other purposes. The utilities believe they may be difficult and costly to develop, although SDG&E addressed a simplified method for developing a load profile that would adjust the system average according to local usage and climate. The utilities' tariffs may offer at cost the development of CCA-specific load profiles or a modified approach based on the system average.
D. Boundary Metering
Local Power suggested that the Commission order the utilities to install an additional CCA meter at every point at which a meter installed by the utility currently exists. SCE maintains concerns that this proposal is expensive and impractical, although it suggests considering the matter one case at a time. PG&E and SDG&E would also support boundary metering if it were offered on a time and materials basis.
Discussion. Section 366.2(c)(18) provides that "at the request and expense of any community choice aggregator, electrical corporations shall install, maintain and calibrate metering devices at mutually agreeable locations within or adjacent to the community choice aggregator's political boundaries." Again, we read the plain language of this section and, as the utilities suggest, require that they include an option in their tariffs for boundary metering that would be provided at the cost of time and materials.