5. Comments on Draft Decision
On December 21, 2001, the draft decision of Presiding Officer and Assigned Commissioner Wood on this matter was served on parties in accordance with Section 311(g)(1) of the Public Utilities Code and Rule 77.7 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure. Comments were filed and served on _______________. Reply comments were filed and served on _______________.
1. Each EDR customer agreed to locate, retain or expand load within SCE's service area for a minimum of seven years in return for a discount from charges that would otherwise apply under the customer's OAT.
2. The EDR is subject to a minimum charge, and the minimum charge has resulted in all EDR customers paying monthly bills in excess of what they would have paid under their OAT since about the middle of 2000.
3. Resolution E-3707 modified the minimum charge effective December 7, 2000, but declined to limit the minimum charge to charges that would apply under the OAT.
4. Applicant's petition that the Commission modify Resolution E-3707 is unopposed, and is affirmatively supported by SCE and several customers.
5. On January 17, 2001, Governor Gray Davis proclaimed a State of Emergency based on a dysfunctional electricity market, and the State of Emergency continues.
6. By emergency order on January 26, 2001, the Commission addressed potential jeopardy to public health, safety and welfare by temporarily waiving the tolling of hours and number of curtailment events against interruptible program maximums, along with temporarily waiving penalties otherwise payable for failure to curtail when requested.
7. By order on April 3, 2001, the Commission permitted SCE interruptible customers to opt-out of interruptible rate schedules back to November 1, 2000 without penalty.
8. The same large number of interruptions, and large penalties for failing to curtail, that affected interruptible customers also affected EDR customers who, in addition, were subject to minimum charges which exceeded bills under their OAT.
9. The profound dysfunction of the electricity market in 2000 and 2001 caused effects that no reasonable person could have foreseen when making the decision to subscribe to an EDR tariff, including the frequent operation of the minimum charge provision since the middle of 2000.
10. Enforcing the liquidated damages provision in EDR agreements would frustrate the fundamental purpose of the EDR, and make the opt-out option meaningless.
11. At least two customers have terminated their EDR agreements and paid liquidated damages.
12. Adopting no special or unique ratemaking treatment means not authorizing recovery from ratepayers of any revenue adjustments that result from this decision.
13. During its duration, the rate freeze prevents recovery from ratepayers of any revenue adjustments that result from this decision.
14. Revenue shortfalls in this case include any revenue adjustments resulting from this decision.
15. No hearing is necessary.
1. The application should be granted to the extent provided herein, and denied in all other respects.
2. An EDR customer who terminated its EDR agreement on or after July 1, 2000, and paid, or incurred obligation for, liquidated damages up to the date of notification by SCE of this decision, should be permitted to terminate its EDR agreement on December 7, 2000 with a refund of, or waiver of the obligation for, liquidated damages.
3. SCE should notify candidate EDR customers, and those who terminated their EDR agreements on or after July 1, 2000, of the decisions made herein within 30 days of the date that revised tariffs are effective.
4. EDR customers, and those who terminated their EDR agreements on or after July 1, 2000, should have up to 30 days from the date of the notification from SCE to make the election whether or not to opt-out effective December 7, 2000, with liquidated damage provisions waived.
5. No special or unique ratemaking treatment should be adopted that would otherwise permit recovery from ratepayers of any revenue adjustments that result from this decision.
6. Revenue shortfalls should be excluded from costs to be subtracted or netted out before sharing.
7. Rule 6.3 should be waived.
8. This order should be effective today so that this unintended consequence of the energy crisis can be resolved expeditiously, and EDR customers can reasonably soon make the decision whether or not to opt-out effective December 7, 2000.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The August 1, 2001 application of Poly-Tainer, Inc. petitioning for modification of Resolution E-3707 is granted to the extent provided herein, and denied in all other respects. Resolution E-3707 is replaced with Resolution E-3707-A. Resolution E-3707-A is contained in Attachment A.
2. Southern California Edison Company shall notify all economic development rate (EDR) customers affected, or potentially affected, by this order, including EDR customers who terminated their EDR agreement on or after July 1, 2000, of the decisions made herein. The notification shall be made within 30 days of the date that revised tariffs are effective. The notice shall clearly state the available relief, and that the option expires 30 days after the date of notification.
3. Rule 6.3 is waived.
4. This proceeding is closed.
This order is effective today.
Dated , at San Francisco, California.
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
RESOLUTION E-3707-A
Adopted January __, 2002
Effective December 7, 2000
RESOLUTION
Resolution E-3707-A. Southern California Edison Company (SCE) requests modification to its Economic Development Rate (EDR) Agreements to reduce the minimum charge provision. Approved with modification.
By Advice Letter 1461-E, filed on July 3, 2000.
__________________________________________________________
