1. Background
On June 24, 2009, the Modesto Irrigation District and the Merced Irrigation District (jointly, the Districts) and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) (collectively, the Applicants) filed Application (A.) 09-06-023 (Application) requesting Commission approval of the nonbypassable charge agreement (NBC Agreement) between Applicants whereby the Districts will pay mutually agreed upon amounts which PG&E may apply to nonbypassable charges (NBCs) under PG&E's Electric Rate Schedule for New Municipal Departing Load customers (NMDL Customers) served by the Districts.1
Notice of the Application appeared in the Commission's July 1, 2009 Daily Calendar. No protests or responses to the Application were filed, and no evidentiary hearings are necessary.
On June 30, 2009, PG&E filed a motion for authority to suspend billing NBCs to NMDL Customers served by the Districts pending the Commission's consideration of the Application (Motion). The August 21, 2009 ruling granted the unopposed Motion.2
The February 26, 2010 ruling (February 26 Ruling) directed Applicants to file and serve comments on issues raised by the Application, and invited parties to A.09-06-023, Rulemaking (R.) 02-01-011 and R.06-07-010 to submit comments on the same.
On March 15, 2010, Kurt Danziger submitted a letter to the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in response to the February 26 Ruling on behalf of the Publicly Owned Utility Customer Association recommending approval of the Application (Danziger Letter), and the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) served a memorandum response (DWR Memorandum Response).3
On March 18, 2010, the Applicants filed and served comments, and on March 26, 2010, Applicants filed and served reply comments. On March 29, 2010, Southern California Edison Company (SCE) filed and served reply comments.
The August 12, 2010 ALJ ruling (August 12 Ruling) directed Applicants and invited DWR to submit additional information in connection with Applicants' and DWR's responses to the February 26 Ruling concerning a specific exemption from the remittance procedure in the Servicing Order adopted in Decision (D.) 07-03-025. The August 12 Ruling also directed PG&E to provide an estimate of the current and expected future legal and other costs it will incur to collect the amounts that have accrued and will accrue to the Districts' NMDL Customers, and directed Applicants to provide a description of the Westley-Tracy transmission line.
On August 30, 2010, the Applicants jointly filed and served their response to the August 12 Ruling and DWR served its response.4 On September 7, 2010, Applicants jointly filed and served a reply to the DWR response.
1 See PG&E Rate Schedule E-NMDL which defines NMDL as electric load that has never been served by PG&E but locates within PG&E's service area as it existed on February 1, 2001, and is served by a publicly-owned utility (POU).
2 To minimize customer confusion, the August 21, 2009 ruling required PG&E to send a letter to NMDL Customers served by the Districts informing them that (1) PG&E and the Districts have reached an agreement regarding PG&E's Schedule E-NMDL and associated NBC obligations, (2) PG&E has filed an application for approval of this agreement with the Commission, (3) PG&E's billing and collection efforts are suspended pending the Commission's consideration and resolution of that application, and (4) billing may resume, including billing of NBCs that were not billed during suspension, if the agreement is not approved.
3 The DWR Memorandum Response and the Danziger Letter were not filed with the Commission's Docket Office (Docket Office). These documents were placed in the record of this proceeding as Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2, respectively, pursuant to the
August 17, 2010 and August 31, 2010 ALJ rulings.
4 The August 30, 2010 DWR Memorandum Response was not filed with the Docket Office. This document was placed in the record of this proceeding as Exhibit No. 3, pursuant to the September 23, 2010 and October 5, 2010 rulings.
