5. Other Issues
5.1. Revision of SCE's Agricultural Criteria
Under SCE's current agricultural criteria, some, but not all, packing facilities are eligible to receive service under the agricultural rate schedules.40 Citrus Packers assert that SCE's criteria are outdated, inaccurate and arbitrary, and inconsistent with the agricultural definition adopted by PG&E. They further assert that SCE's current criteria are contrary to Pub. Util. Code §§ 740.11 and 744. Finally, they contend that SCE's agricultural criteria have not been applied consistently in practice. Accordingly, they request that SCE's agricultural criteria be revised so that all packing facilities are eligible to receive service under the agricultural rate schedules. Specifically, they request that the definition of agricultural power service under Tariff Rule 1 be modified to include packing facilities and that the applicability of SCE's agricultural rate schedules be revised to remove the maximum monthly demand of 500 kW.
SCE's agriculture and pumping rate group consists of customers with demands 500 kW or less who receive service under Schedules PA-1, PA-2, TOU-PA, TOU-PA-5, TOU-PA-SOP, and PA-RTP. A customer may receive service under these tariffs if
SCE determines that 70% or more of the customer's electrical usage is for general agricultural purposes or for general water or sewerage pumping and none of any remaining electrical usage is for purposes for which a domestic schedule is applicable. The customer whose monthly Maximum Demand, in the opinion of SCE, is expected to exceed 500 kW or has exceeded 500 kW for any three months during the preceding 12 months is ineligible for service under this Schedule. Effective with the date of ineligibility, the customer's account shall be transferred to Schedule TOU-8. However, in accordance with Schedule TOU-8, a large individual water agency or other large water pumping account with 70% or more of the water pumped used for agricultural purposes must take service on an agricultural class rate schedule. This Schedule is subject to meter availability.
Tariff Rule 1 defines "Agricultural Power Service" as:
that portion of electric energy and service used by a person in connection with the production, harvesting, and preparation for market of agricultural and horticultural products, including poultry and livestock, on land owned and/or operated by such person for the production of agricultural products, but does not apply to processing of products raised by others.
Citrus Packers present various reasons why SCE's agricultural criteria need to be revised. First, they maintain that SCE's definition in Tariff Rule 1 has been in place for over 50 years and does not reflect changes in the agricultural industry, including mechanized packing facilities. They discuss the various economic, social, demographic, technological and political factors that have contributed to the consolidation of the packing function.41 Citrus Packers note that while the fundamental objective of packing remains the same, the move from packing of agricultural products on the farm to packing of these same products at a highly mechanized, large, centralized facility has resulted in modern packing facilities failing to meet the eligibility criteria for agricultural rates.42 Citrus Packers state that under SCE's existing definition, modern packing facilities fail to meet all but one of the criteria necessary to be eligible to receive agricultural rates.43
Citrus Packers next assert that SCE's definition does not define "agriculture" accurately because they believe packing facilities are integral to farm operations. They maintain that packing is an extension of the harvesting process, even if someone other than the farmer performs this function. Further, they note that the existing definition places limitations on the location of the activity (on-the-farm vs. off-the-farm) and the owner of the product, rather than the activity itself. Citrus Packers argue that it is arbitrary and unfair to use these distinctions to define agriculture, when these distinctions no longer reflect modern agriculture business.44
Additionally, Citrus Packers contend that continued use of the existing criteria perpetuates the intra-state inconsistency with PG&E's agricultural definition. Citrus Packers state that since the SCE-PG&E service territories cut across regions of the state with high concentrations of agricultural production, inconsistent treatment of packing facilities between the two utilities would create a situation where neighboring, competing packing facilities will pay disparate electricity rates. They further note that this disparity in rates is harmful to competition, as well as agricultural producers and consumers.45 Finally, Citrus Packers state that the Commission had previously expressed its desire for intra-state consistency in agricultural rate design and that the evidence they have provided supports revising SCE's agricultural criteria so that they are consistent with PG&E's agricultural definition.46
Based on these reasons, Citrus Packers request that the definition of "agricultural power service" in Tariff Rule 1 be modified to include the following sentence:
Notwithstanding the foregoing, agricultural power service include electric energy and service used by a person in connection with the packing, grading, sorting, washing or storage of whole, fresh agricultural or horticultural products.
Citrus Packers additionally argue that the 500 kW limitation is outdated. They contend that this limitation was originally imposed when Schedule TOU-8 was the only available TOU rate and the Commission wanted to extend the applicability of mandatory TOU rates to more customers.47 Citrus Packers believe that since SCE now has TOU rates available for all customer classes including large agricultural users, it is no longer necessary to have this limitation in the agricultural rate schedules. They further contend that this limitation was not intended to define the term "agriculture." As such, they maintain that the 500 kW limitation should be eliminated and that large agricultural customers should be allowed to select an appropriate agricultural TOU schedule.
Further, Citrus Packers contend that SCE's current agricultural criteria are contrary to Pub. Util. Code §§ 744 and 740.11 because they do not distinguish between agricultural production and agricultural processing and force packers to choose between sound business and lower agricultural rates.48 Citrus Packers point to prior Commission decisions which had determined that dairy producers and almond hullers should receive lower agricultural rates, rather than seek less viable markets for their products.49
SCE opposes both the proposed modification to Tariff Rule 1 and the elimination of the 500 kW limitation. Among other things, SCE states that the term "packer" is ambiguous and would result in litigation over the meaning of the phrase. Further, it believes that the modifications could allow all commercial intermediaries between the farmer and the retailer, not just packers, on the agricultural rate schedules. Additionally, SCE points out that Citrus Packers' proposal to remove the 500 kW limitation has not been clearly articulated and could result in including entities other than packers in receiving agricultural service. SCE believes that the on-the-farm requirement in its existing definition of "agricultural power service" creates an unambiguous, bright line indicating which customers would qualify for agricultural service.50 It further believes that the 500 kW limitation should not be eliminated.
SCE further asserts that Citrus Packers' proposal would violate Pub. Util. Code § 453(c), since only certain off-the-farm commercial entities that touch agricultural products would be allowed to obtain agricultural service.51 In particular, SCE states that Citrus Packers fail to provide any reason why off-the-farm commercial entities who cut, chop, crush, cook, peel, process or possibly dry farm products and certain customers whose demands exceed 500 kW should not be allowed to receive (or continue to receive) service under the agricultural rate schedules. SCE further points out that packers are classified as commercial entities under the California Energy Commission's Regulations and the
North American Industry Classification System.52 Thus, SCE contends that including packers, but excluding other commercial entities under the same classification, results in discriminatory treatment of similarly-situated customers.
Finally, SCE states that Citrus Packers' proposal would increase rates to customers presently in the agricultural class in the long term. As support, it points to the increase in Schedule TOU-GS-2 rates as a result of migration of customers formerly on GS-2 to TOU-GS-2. SCE further notes that since Citrus Packers have loads greater than 500 kW, their load profiles are more like commercial customers than agricultural customers.
The issue at hand is whether the applicability of SCE's agricultural tariffs should be extended to all packers. We agree with Citrus Packers that our determination of this issue should not focus on the suggested modifications to the tariff language, but rather on the merits of the request.
Under SCE's current tariffs, a customer must meet specific criteria in order to receive service under the agricultural tariffs. As a result, some, but not all, packers could receive service under the tariffs. However, this situation is true for all customers. For example, customers who use up to 500 kW to produce, harvest and prepare agricultural products for market are eligible, while customers performing the same activities, but using over 500 kW, are not.
Citrus Packers justify their request to modify SCE's agricultural criteria to allow all packers to be eligible for service on agricultural rate schedules on numerous grounds. First, they contend that the current criteria are outdated and do not take into consideration the economic and market changes in the agricultural industry that have led to the modernization of packing facilities. Next, they maintain that packing facilities are integral to farm operations and part of the harvesting process. However, these arguments could similarly be used to justify modifying SCE's tariffs to allow customers who process agricultural products on land other than where the products were grown or raised or producers of agricultural products who use more than 500 kW to receive service under agricultural tariffs. Yet Citrus Packers' proposed changes to Tariff Rule 1 would only apply to packers.
Citrus Packers further argue that the 500 kW limitation has nothing to do with determining whether a customer is "agricultural" and should be eliminated. We disagree. As an initial matter, the load limitation is not part of the Tariff Rule 1, which defines "agricultural power service," but rather a limitation on the customer who may take service under the pumping and agricultural tariffs. This limitation would apply equally to customers who are defined as "agricultural" customers and as "general water and sewerage pumping" customers. Moreover, it is not unusual for SCE's tariffs to contain load limitations (see, e.g., Schedule GS-2). In this instance, SCE has set the load limitation for agricultural and pumping customers at 500 kW.
SCE's criteria draw a line as to when customers would be eligible for pumping and agricultural rates. The criteria have also been applied in a consistent and non-discriminatory manner. As long as a customer meets the criteria specified in Tariff Rule 1 and the pumping and agricultural tariffs, it is eligible to receive service under the pumping and agricultural tariffs. This is true regardless of whether the customer is a producer, packer or processor of agricultural products. While application of the criteria has resulted in certain customers involved in agricultural operations, such as the large packers at issue here, not receiving the pumping and agricultural rates, this result is neither unlawful nor unreasonable.
On the other hand, Citrus Packers' requested change would allow all packers to be eligible to receive service under the pumping and agricultural tariffs by eliminating the on-the-farm and kW limitations. We are unpersuaded that the existing agricultural criteria should be modified to allow only this particular category of customers to always be eligible for agricultural rates. We find no grounds to conclude that this particular group of customers should always qualify for agricultural rates while preventing other customers in agricultural production that do not meet the on-the-farm, ownership or
kW limitations of SCE's agricultural criteria from receiving agricultural rates. Adopting Citrus Packers' request would be an unreasonable distinction among customers.
We also do not find that SCE's agricultural criteria result in tariffs that are contrary to Pub. Util. Code § 740.11. Nothing in § 740.11 requires that an IOU's agricultural tariffs define agricultural production and agricultural processing. Rather, the statute requires the Commission to consider including agricultural commodity processing customers in an IOU's definition of customers eligible to be served under agricultural tariffs, provided there is no cost-shifting. In this instance, SCE's Tariff Rule 1 allows agricultural processing customers to receive service under the agricultural rate schedules. The agricultural tariffs limit these customers to those with loads up to 500 kW. As SCE notes, including customers with loads above 500 kW would result in "rate pollution and destabilize rate group definitions for revenue allocation purposes."53 Thus, the 500 kW limitation in the agricultural criteria ensures that there is no cost-shifting. Accordingly, SCE has complied with Pub. Util. Code § 740.11, as its agricultural criteria include agricultural processing customers to the extent there is no cost-shifting.
Furthermore, we disagree with Citrus Packers' assertion that SCE's agricultural criteria cause packers to choose between sound business and lower agricultural rates in violation of Pub. Util. Code § 744. Citrus Packers rely on D.97-09-043 and D.05-05-048 to support their arguments. This reliance is misplaced. Both of these decisions focused on whether processing raw milk and hulling almonds constituted a "change in form" under PG&E's agricultural tariff. Our rationale for determining that there was no change in form was based, in part, on the fact that customers would have had to sell their products into a less viable market to benefit from PG&E's agricultural rates unless these activities were performed. In this instance, whether products are packed on-the-farm or off-the-farm does not affect their form, or make them more or less marketable. More importantly, SCE's current agricultural criteria are intended to allow farmers to be eligible for agricultural rates, even if they engage in some packing or processing on the farm. On the other hand, packing facilities are not farmers, but rather commercial entities operating in the agricultural industry. While some of these entities may be able to receive agricultural rates, we find no compelling reasons to extend agricultural rates to entities that are primarily commercial in nature, even though they are in the agricultural industry.
Finally, while we continue to believe that reasonable rate consistency between SCE's and PG&E's agricultural rate designs is desirable, we are not persuaded that the desired agricultural definition is the one adopted for PG&E in D.06-11-030. Indeed, that agricultural definition had been the result of a settlement, and should not be considered precedent for changing SCE's current criteria. More importantly, PG&E's determination to not adopt an on-the-farm definition was based on a determination that such a definition did not appear workable based on the diverse nature of the agricultural industry in PG&E's territory.54
For these reasons, we deny Citrus Packers' request to modify SCE's agricultural criteria to allow all packers to be eligible to receive service under the agricultural rate schedule.
5.2. Assigned Commissioner's Ruling on Dynamic Pricing
On March 4, 2009, the assigned Commissioner issued a ruling seeking comments on a schedule to design and adopt dynamic pricing rates for SCE (March 4 ACR). The March 4 ACR pointed to the Commission's broad demand response objectives and sought comments on how to establish a plan to ensure that SCE has dynamic pricing proposals for all customer classes when it files its 2012 GRC Phase 2 application. As reference, the March 4 ACR looked at
D.08-07-045, which adopted a timetable for PG&E to propose dynamic pricing rates. The March 4 ACR further asked whether the principles and rate design guidance adopted for PG&E in D.08-07-045 should be changed before they were applied to SCE. Comments responding to the March 4 ACR were filed by SCE, DRA, and WMA.
A subsequent ACR was issued on June 5, 2009, asking parties to comment on delaying SCE's 2009 Rate Design Window (RDW) application to September 1, 2010. Comments responding to the June 5 ACR were filed on June 16, 2009 by SCE and WMA.
SCE contends that, with few exceptions, the proposed settlement agreements already provide dynamic pricing options that will be available for most of its customers by October 1, 2009. These options are summarized below:
TABLE 3 | ||
Customer Group |
Default |
Optional |
Residential |
Tiered, flat PTR for customers with advanced meters |
CPP overlay for customers with advanced meters TOU for customers with solar roofs (TOU-D-T) and electric vehicles (TOU-TEV and TOU-EV-1) |
Small Commercial |
Seasonal, non-time-differentiated rate structure |
TOU - TOU-GS-1 and TOU-EV-3 CPP overlay for customers with advanced meters |
Medium Commercial |
Existing non-TOU rate structure consisting of customer charge, seasonal energy charges and demand charges |
TOU - GS-2 (TOU, Option A), GS-2 (TOU, Option B), GS-2 (TOU, Option R). CPP overlay for GS-2 and GS-2 (TOU Option B) |
Large Commercial |
Mandatory TOU Default TOU/CPP on TOU-GS-3 (Option B) and |
TOU with no CPP overlay - TOU-8, Option A, Option B and Option R. Real Time Pricing (RTP) - Customers over 500 kW. |
Small/Medium Agricultural (< 200 kW) |
Non-TOU Schedules PA-1 and PA-2 |
TOU - TOU-PA CPP Overlay for all TOU and non-TOU schedules RTP - available to customers qualified for TOU-PA-B |
Large Agricultural |
TOU (TOU-PA-B) |
TOU-PA (Rate A), CPP overlay to all schedules RTP available provided customer qualifies for TOU-PA-B |
SCE states that it will propose more dynamic pricing options to its customers as part of its 2012 GRC Phase 2 application. These will include:
· Default TOU/CPP and mandatory TOU for small and medium commercial customers with advanced meters.
· Mandatory TOU for small and medium agricultural customers with advanced meters, with optional CPP overlay.
· Default TOU/CPP for large agricultural customers with advanced meters.
In addition to these proposals, SCE states that it may also propose a real time pricing (RTP) option for customers on CPP/TOU tariffs, depending on its experience with the California Independent System Operator's Market Redesign and Technology Upgrade (MRTU) day-ahead market.
SCE notes that PG&E has been ordered to implement default dynamic pricing for its commercial and industrial customers above 200 kW and optional rates for all customers by May 2010 and default TOU/CPP rates for all customer classes by 2011.55 SCE argues that proposing additional dynamic pricing options as part of its 2012 GRC Phase 2 application does not differ materially from PG&E's schedule, since its proposals would be filed in early 2011 and implemented in 2012. While SCE acknowledges that it could propose additional dynamic pricing proposals as part of an RDW application, it does not believe any additional dynamic pricing rate proposals should be filed prior to its 2012 GRC Phase 2 application. It notes that any mandatory price changes made prior to 2012 would be inconsistent with the intent of the settlement agreements and that waiting to file its proposals in 2011 would coincide with its schedule to install advanced meters for residential and small commercial customers.
SCE next notes that many of the principles and rate design guidance adopted in D.08-07-045 are currently reflected in the proposed settlement agreements or can be applied as part of its 2012 GRC Phase 2 application. SCE also highlights the following three areas that it believes should be given additional review as part of its 2012 GRC Phase 2 application:
1. the timing of CPP events;
2. the requirement that CPP rates should not have summer generation demand charges; and
3. the timing for implementation of new RTP options based on experience with MRTU.
DRA states that SCE should not offer additional dynamic pricing options until it has completed deployment of its advanced meters since dynamic pricing would require an advanced meter. Therefore, it recommends that SCE propose new dynamic pricing tariffs as part of its 2012 GRC Phase 2 application. DRA echoes SCE's comments that waiting until then would allow sufficient time for SCE to educate its customers on the new meters and to conduct bill impact studies.
WMA states that since residents in master-metered mobilehome parks are not directly served by the utility and owners of mobilehome parks do not have the resources to implement dynamic pricing, this group of customers would not be able to benefit from dynamic rates. It points out that PG&E specifically excluded residential master-metered parks in its rate design application concerning dynamic pricing (A.09-02-022). Therefore, it proposes that the Commission move towards allowing residents of mobilehome parks to be directly served by the IOU.
Under the schedule adopted in D.08-07-045, PG&E will propose rates that, if adopted, would begin transitioning its customers to default TOU/CPP rates as it implements its advanced metering infrastructure program and would have default TOU/CPP rates for all customer groups by 2012. While SCE's comments state that default TOU rates will be available for all customer classes by 2012, we anticipate that there will be some transition period before these rates are fully implemented. Among other things, SCE will likely need some period of time to modify its current billing system to accommodate the TOU, CPP and RTP schedules adopted in such a decision. Even more time would be required so that SCE's customers would not be defaulted to TOU/CPP or TOU rates until after the customer has had an advanced meter for 12 months. Thus, if SCE were allowed to wait until its GRC Phase 2 application to propose the balance of its dynamic pricing options, its customers would likely not be able to take advantage of dynamic pricing rate schedules until after 2013. We feel that such a delay is unreasonable and unnecessary. Moreover, we are concerned that if new dynamic pricing proposals were included in SCE's 2012 GRC Phase 2 application, parties would not be able to fully consider the proposals in light of the other issues normally occurring in a GRC.
SCE's concerns about filing dynamic pricing proposals in a separate RDW application primarily focus on the timing of these filings and the implementation date for any rates adopted as a result of the application. However, in D.08-07-045, we modified the RDW filing schedule for PG&E to propose dynamic prices for various customer groups. This included delaying both the filing dates and the effective dates of the rates. In light of these comments, the assigned Commissioner issued a ruling on June 5 which sought additional comments on whether SCE's 2009 RDW application should be delayed. SCE and WMA responded to the June 5 ruling. WMA did not object to having SCE file its 2009 RDW application on September 1, 2010. SCE also did not oppose an order directing it to file an application to implement additional dynamic pricing options on September 1, 2010. However, it noted that due to the scope and schedule of the proceeding, it should not be characterized as an RDW application. As an example of the controversy that could arise, SCE lists some of the issues currently under consideration in PG&E's current dynamic pricing proceeding, A.09-02-022.
The issues identified by SCE as being currently under consideration in A.09-02-022 highlight our concerns about including the additional dynamic pricing proposals as part of SCE's 2012 Phase 2 GRC application. Given the number of issues that could arise, we believe that the dynamic pricing proposals should be addressed in a separate application. Accordingly, SCE shall file an application proposing the following dynamic pricing rates no later than September 1, 2010:
· Optional CPP rates that include TOU rates during non-CPP periods for residential customers.56
· One or more default TOU/CPP rates for commercial customers with maximum loads less than 200 kW that have had an advanced meter for 12 months or more; SCE's proposal shall not offer non-time-differentiated rates to customers with maximum load less than 200 kW that have had an advanced meter for 12 months or more.
· Mandatory TOU, with optional CPP, for agricultural customers with maximum loads less than 200 kW that have had an advanced meter for 12 months or more.
· One or more default TOU/CPP rates for agricultural customers with maximum loads equal to or greater than 200 kW that have had an advanced meter for 12 months or more.
· Optional RTP rates for all customer classes.
The rates shall be proposed to be effective on January 1, 2012.
In D.08-07-045, we stated that we may require SCE and San Diego Gas & Electric Company to follow the rate design guidance adopted in that decision in their rate design proceedings.57 We believe that SCE should follow this guidance, which is included as Attachment H of this decision. As noted in D.08-07-045, the rate design guidance should be read in the context of the overall decision. Further, SCE's proposal shall address the three areas it had identified as needing additional review.
As in D.08-07-045, SCE's proposed rates should provide that no customer is defaulted to a CPP or TOU rate until the customer has had access to 12 months of the customer's energy usage data from an advanced meter. In effect, customers who receive advanced meters and start getting access to their energy data by the beginning of 2011 would be defaulted to a CPP or TOU rate on January 1, 2012. However, customers that receive their advanced meters in 2011 or 2012 would not be defaulted until 2012 or 2013, respectively.
Additionally, we will require that SCE's proposed default dynamic pricing rates include one year of bill protection, as was required of PG&E. As described in D.08-07-045, if a rate offers bill protection, a customer's bill would generally be calculated under both the new dynamic rate and the prior rate during the year. If the customer pays more during the year under the new dynamic rate than the customer would have paid under the old rate, then the customer receives a refund for the difference at the end of the year. If the customer pays less under the new dynamic rate then there is no refund at the end of the year. The experience during the year could help a customer who is not required to take TOU service determine whether to stay on the new dynamic rate or opt out to another rate.
We believe that the 12 months of data and one year bill protection serve as important consumer protection measures by giving customers an opportunity to understand how and when they use energy and how they can make adjustments in response to time-variant rates and save money. The timeline will also give SCE time to conduct thorough consumer education and outreach.
Although we recognize the practicality of not defaulting customers to TOU/CPP or TOU until the customer has had the advanced meter for a certain period of time and has been educated on the benefits of dynamic pricing, we also believe it is important for SCE to educate customers who currently have advanced meters and to inform them of the option to receive service under a TOU schedule. Therefore, SCE shall work with the appropriate community-based and consumer organizations to develop educational materials and programs for customers.
Finally, although providing dynamic pricing options to residents of mobilehome parks presents challenges, we agree with WMA that it is important to determine how these consumers could benefit from dynamic rates. Thus, we encourage SCE to work with WMA to determine whether and how residents of mobilehome parks could be provided the option to receive service under a TOU tariff.
5.3. SCE Motion to Update Settlement Agreements
On June 30, 2009, SCE sent a letter to the assigned ALJ with a revised Appendix B of the RA settlement agreement, which reflects updated, estimated revenue requirements and average rates and revised proposed rates for all customer rate groups consistent with the updated revenue requirements. These updates, contained in Attachment I of this decision, consist of the following:
· Revised Appendix B to the RA settlement Agreement
· Attachment One - Revised Forecast of October 1, 2009 and Adjusted Consolidated Revenue Requirements
· Attachment Two - Revised Proposed Rates Effective October 1, 2009.
SCE requested that this information be incorporated into the record of the proceeding. On July 6, 2009, pursuant to directions from the assigned ALJ, SCE filed a motion to update the settlement agreements to reflect updated revenue requirements and proposed rates. SCE's motion states that the RA settlement agreement authorized SCE to provide changes in revenue requirements to the ALJ and that settling parties had reviewed and accepted the updated, illustrative allocated revenues and average provided in "Revised Appendix B to the Revenue Allocation Settlement Agreement."
Under the RA settlement agreement, SCE is authorized to provide updates of changes in its revenue requirements to the assigned ALJ in this proceeding and to the Commission if the changes occur prior to the issuance of a Commission decision adopting the RA settlement agreement. SCE's motion was received before this decision was adopted by the Commission. Since the updates were submitted in accordance with the terms of the RA settlement agreement and the motion was unopposed, SCE's motion is granted. Attachment I shall be made a part of the record and the settlement agreements are updated to reflect changes contained in that attachment.
40 The "agricultural rate schedules" referred to in this decision are Schedules PA-1, PA-2, TOU-PA, TOU-PA-5, TOU-PA-SOP, and PA-RTP.
41 See Exhibit 12, pp. 2-6.
42 Citrus Packers Opening Brief, p. 8.
43 Citrus Packers Opening Brief, pp. 9-12 (citing testimony in Exhibits 12 and 13). Citrus Packers state that modern packing facilities would only meet the requirement that the energy is used in connection with preparing the product for market.
44 Citrus Packers Opening Brief, p. 18.
45 Citrus Packers Opening Brief, p. 22 (citing Exhibit 12, pp. 9-10).
46 Citrus Packers Opening Brief, p. 20 (citing D.88-04-026 at *19-20).
47 Citrus Packers Opening Brief, p. 13.
48 Section 740.11 directs the Commission to "consider providing the option to all agricultural commodity processing customers to be included in the definition of customers eligible to be served under agricultural tariffs" to the extent it does not result in cost-shifting. Section 744 directs the investor-owned utilities (IOUs) to provide optional alternative interruptible and off-peak demand service to agricultural producers where economically and technologically feasible.
49 Citrus Packers Opening Brief, pp. 24-25 (citing D.05-05-048; D.97-09-043).
50 SCE Opening Brief, pp. 8-9.
51 Pub. Util. Code § 453(c) states "No public utility shall establish or maintain any unreasonable difference as to rates, charges, service, facilities, or in any other respect, either as between localities or as between classes of service."
52 SCE Opening Brief, p. 11.
53 SCE Reply Brief, p. 28.
54 See D.06-11-030 at pp. 16-17.
55 This assumes that the AB 1X rate protection is no longer in place. If the AB 1X rate protection is still in place, TOU and CPP would be offered to residential customers on a voluntary basis.
56 If the AB 1X rate protections have been removed or have been materially changed to allow default or mandatory time-variant rates at the time the application is filed, SCE shall propose default TOU and CPP for residential customers.
57 D.08-07-045 at p. 83.
