6. Stipulation of PG&E and DRA
At the conclusion of discovery, PG&E and DRA filed a stipulation regarding the record and issues. As relevant herein, PG&E and DRA stipulated that the record in this proceeding should be comprised of the pleadings of the parties, the PHC transcript, and PG&E's data request responses to DRA.
PG&E also agreed that if PG&E subsequently requested a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity or power purchase agreement for Phases 2 or 3 of the CAES Project, it would file a report with the results and data from Phase 1 with the Commission. PG&E agreed to supplement its DOE report with information requested by DRA (as shown in Attachment A to this decision) if the DOE report did not include this information. PG&E agreed to meet informally with DRA at any time to discuss the Phase 1 report and results to obtain input on the scope and structure of subsequent phases of the CAES Project prior to filing an application with the Commission for approval of subsequent phases.47 DRA requested that after PG&E submitted the information to the Commission, DRA and other parties be given 60 days for review and comment.
Although we agree that PG&E should be required to submit a report with data and analysis of Phase 1 at the conclusion of Phase 1, we believe any such report should come to a conclusion as to whether or not it is technically and economically feasible to proceed to subsequent phases. As a result, we add to the issues PG&E is to address in its final report to the Commission, the requirement that PG&E propose why it is reasonable to proceed to Phases 2 and 3. Finally, with respect to the report, we do not see the need to provide 60 days for a review and comment period. It is unclear what DRA wants the Commission to do with such comments. If PG&E decides to proceed to subsequent phases of the CAES project, it will be required to file a new application with the Commission which would then be the subject of a new proceeding. Comments on the final report would be more appropriately filed and considered by the Commission during a subsequent proceeding if PG&E decides to proceed with Phase 2 and 3.
47 The Stipulation also set forth DRA's separate position on efficiency of the CAES project. DRA argued that PG&E must show that the CAES project is cost effective and efficient in order to receive ratepayer funding. Although this may be an accurate statement, we note that only Phase 1 is before the Commission. As a result, it would be premature to require PG&E to show that the CAES project as a whole is cost effective and efficient until PG&E determines whether or not it will proceed to Phases 2 and 3.
