6.3.4. Other DWR Recommendations

DWR requests that the NBC Agreement be clarified to relieve PG&E from its obligation to bill and collect the DWR Bond Charge only upon full payment of the agreed-upon amounts contained in the NBC Agreement to ensure that DWR collects the full amount of the Bond Charges.

The NBC Agreement's provision to release NMDL customers served by the Districts from liability "upon payment [by the Districts] of the [agreed-upon amounts]" is sufficiently clear, and, therefore, further clarification in this regard is not necessary.

DWR requests that the amounts receivable under the NBC Agreement be designated as "[DWR] Bond Charges." However, the NBC Agreement already designates all references to bond charges as "DWR Bond" charges.

DWR recommends that the Commission consider requiring DWR Bond Charge obligations to be paid first from settlement dollars to help reduce cost shifting and risks of recovering insufficient Bond Charge revenues. However, according to DWR, the Servicing Order already provides for the collection and remittance of the DWR Bond Charge under arrangements such as that contemplated in the NBC Agreement.³⁵ Therefore, it is not necessary to include additional conditions in the NBC Agreement to require DWR Bond Charge obligations to be paid first.

DWR states that PG&E has entered into other settlement agreements, and that SCE has entered into similar bilateral agreements with several entities, and recommends that a remittance procedure like that in the NBC Agreement be applied to all currently effective bilateral agreements. DWR recommends that the Commission provide further guidance and standards for future bilateral agreements applicable to other customer classes (e.g., Direct Access, Customer Generation and Community Choice Aggregation), and to reiterate the need for utilities to comply with the Servicing Order.

DWR also requests that the Commission issue an order adopting a remittance process similar to that proposed for the NBC Agreement for all bilateral agreements, and direct PG&E and SCE to provide DWR with sufficient information for DWR to determine the amount of the discounts provided under bilateral agreements.

Applicants do not oppose DWR's request for the Commission to reiterate the need for utilities to comply with the Servicing Order. However, Applicants oppose DWR's other requests because, according to Applicants, DWR's recommendations undermine the benefits of the bilateral agreements permitted under Res. E-4064 or are beyond the scope of the Application. Applicants assert that it would be burdensome to re-open R.02-01-011 to consider the issues raised by DWR.

As discussed above, we adopt several of DWR's recommendations as they relate to the Application. However, this proceeding is not the appropriate forum to consider DWR's recommendations concerning bilateral agreements, generally, or other specific bilateral agreements, in particular, because parties to other bilateral agreements have not received notice or an opportunity to be heard concerning these recommendations. DWR should make its recommendations concerning other bilateral agreements in a proceeding addressing Servicing Orders or other appropriate proceedings.

DWR's other recommendations are beyond the scope of this proceeding and we do not address them here.³⁶

³⁵ D.07-03-025, Appendix A, Section 3.1 at 13-14.

³⁶ DWR's other recommendations include the request to establish a remittance procedure for all currently effective bilateral agreements, for Commission review of all bilateral agreements between utilities and POUs, for a specific exception to the current Bond Charge applicable to MDL to accommodate other pending bilateral agreements, for Commission guidance and standards for future bilateral agreements applicable to other customer classes, and for the Commission to direct PG&E and SCE to provide DWR with sufficient information for DWR to determine the amount of the discounts provided under bilateral agreements.