2. Background and Central Issues
On June 17, 2010, the City and County of San Francisco's (CCSF) petition to modify Decision (D.) 09-03-026 reopened this proceeding.1 CCSF sought "an immediate suspension of PG&E's further installation of SmartMeters until the Commission concludes its investigation into the significant problems created by PG&E's deployment of its SmartMeters."2 CCSF also filed a motion for expedited treatment of its Petition.3
The Commission acted at its November 20, 2009 business meeting to initiate independent testing of PG&E's SmartMeters and related software due to public concerns raised about PG&E's deployment of SmartMeters.4 This independent study concluded, and on September 2, 2010, President Peevey issued an Assigned Commissioner's Ruling transmitting as an attachment the Commission-sponsored report titled "PG&E Advanced Metering Assessment Report" (Structure Report)5 to the service list in this proceeding.
On September 22, 2010, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a ruling6 that denied CCSF's Motion for expedited treatment of the petition. The ALJ Ruling held that:
... the information available at this time indicates that the costs associated with a suspension of PG&E's Smart Meter installation program, in both monetary and human terms, appear to be substantial and exceed the doubtful benefits of an immediate suspension.7
The ALJ Ruling also quoted directly from the Structure Report, which found that:
PG&E's SmartMeters are accurately recording electric usage within acceptable CPUC [California Public Utilities Commission] tolerances, and are being accurately utilized in Customer billing.8
The ALJ Ruling invited comments and replies on the question, "What should the Commission do concerning the CCSF Petition in light of the Structure Report?"9
This is now a central question in this proceeding. On this question, CCSF, the Commission's Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) and The Utility Reform Network (TURN) advocate a continuation of this proceeding to review the Structure Report and the reasonableness of PG&E's implementation of the SmartMeter Program. PG&E and The Technology Network (TechNet), on the other hand, argue for a denial of the Petition.
2.1. Procedural Background
The procedural history following the filing of the Petition is lengthy and demonstrates how events and developments have altered the shape of the issues before the Commission.
On June 17, 2010 the Commission received CCSF's Petition, which called for a temporary suspension of the SmartMeter installation program. In addition, CCSF also filed a Motion requesting expedited treatment of its Petition.
PG&E,10 DRA,11 TURN,12 the County of Santa Cruz,13 the City of Santa Cruz,14 and the Coalition of California Utility Employees (CUE)15 filed timely responses to the Petition. In addition, the Town of Fairfax timely filed a motion to intervene in support of CCSF.16
On July 23, 2010, filing late with the assent of the ALJ, the City of Capitola adopted all the arguments of CCSF in its Petition and Motion.17
On July 29, 2010, with the assent of the ALJ, CCSF filed a reply.18
On July 30, PG&E filed a response opposing the motion of the Town of Fairfax to intervene.19
On July 30, 2010, filing late with the assent of the ALJ, the City of Monte Sereno20 and the City of Scotts Valley21 adopted all the arguments of CCSF in its Petition and Motion.
On August 6, 2010, an ALJ Ruling set a Prehearing Conference (PHC) for August 18, 2010 and granted the Town of Fairfax party status.22
On August 16, 2010, filing late with the assent of the ALJ, the City of Watsonville23 adopted all the arguments of CCSF in its Petition and Motion.
In summary, as of August 18, 2010, CCSF, the Town of Fairfax, the County of Santa Cruz, the City of Santa Cruz, the City of Capitola, the City of Monte Sereno and the City of Scotts Valley presented a unified call for a suspension of the SmartMeter installation program. TURN also supported the Petition of CCSF. PG&E and CUE opposed the Petition. DRA expressed concern for the costs of either suspending or continuing with SmartMeter installation, and asked that the Commission, as it considered this matter, adopt a policy to minimize costs.24
At the PHC, the ALJ stated that there were two issues before the Commission: 1) what to do regarding CCSF's request to suspend the installation of PG&E's SmartMeters immediately; and 2) how to proceed with the other issues raised in the Petition. During the course of the PHC, the ALJ ruled that PG&E must file information supporting its claim that the suspension would be costly, and set a date of August 25, 2010 for receipt of that information.25 The ALJ further ruled that parties could respond to this filing no later than August 27, 2010.26
PG&E filed the information ordered on August 25, 2010.27
On August 27, CCSF,28 CUE,29 DRA30 and TechNet31 filed comments in response to the PG&E Cost Filing.
On September 2, 2010, President Peevey issued the ACR transmitting as an attachment the Commission-sponsored report titled "PG&E Advanced Metering Assessment Report" (Structure Report).
Since the Petition had asked for a temporary suspension of meter installation until the completion of this study, the completion of the study and its release dramatically altered the shape of the issues before the Commission. On September 22, 2010, the ALJ Ruling denied the motion for expedited action and invited comments and replies on the question, "What should the Commission do concerning the CCSF Petition in light of the Structure Report?"32
On October 15, 2010, CCSF,33 DRA,34 PG&E,35 TechNet36 and TURN37 filed opening comments.
On October 29, 2010, DRA38 and PG&E39 filed replies.
2.2. Jurisdiction
The Commission's jurisdiction over this matter is set out in the Pub. Util. Code:
1708. The commission may at any time, upon notice to the parties, and with opportunity to be heard as provided in the case of complaints, rescind, alter, or amend any order or decision made by it. Any order rescinding, altering, or amending a prior order or decision shall, when served upon the parties, have the same effect as an original order or decision.
The procedures whereby the parties may petition the Commission to modify decisions are set out in the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. The rule most relevant to this proceeding is Rule 16.4(b):
Rule 16.4 (b) A petition for modification of a Commission decision must concisely state the justification for the requested relief and must propose specific wording to carry out all requested modifications to the decision. Any factual allegations must be supported with specific citations to the record in the proceeding or to matters that may be officially noticed. Allegations of new or changed facts must be supported by an appropriate declaration or affidavit.40
In summary, the Commission has clear statutory authority and rules to address this matter.
1 City and County of San Francisco's Petition to Modify Decision 09-03-026 to Temporarily Suspend Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Installation of SmartMeters (Petition).
2 Petition at 1.
3 Motion for Expedited Treatment of the City and County of San Francisco's Petition to Modify Decision 09-03-026 to Temporarily Suspend Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Deployment of SmartMeters (Motion).
4 Assigned Commissioner's Ruling Regarding the Consultant's Evaluation of PG&E's SmartMeter Program (ACR), September 2, 2010, at 1.
5 Id. at Attachment.
6 Administrative Law Judge's Ruling (ALJ Ruling), September 22, 2010.
7 ALJ Ruling at 8.
8 Structure Report at 13, cited in ALJ Ruling at 7.
9 ALJ Ruling at 8.
10 Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Opposition to the City and County of San Francisco's Petition to Modify Decision 09-03-026 to Temporarily Suspend Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Installation of SmartMeters (PG&E Opposition), July 19, 2010.
11 Response of the Division of Ratepayer Advocates to the City and County of San Francisco's Petition to Modify Decision 09-03-026 to 026 to Temporarily Suspend Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Installation of SmartMeters (DRA Response), July 19, 2010.
12 Response of The Utility Reform Network in Support of the CCSF Petition to Modify D.09-03-026 to Temporarily Suspend SmartMeter Installation, June 28, 2010.
13 County of Santa Cruz's Response to the City and County of San Francisco's Petition to Modify Decision 09-03-026 and Motion for Expedited Treatment of the Petition, June 24, 2010.
14 City of Santa Cruz's Response to the City and County of San Francisco's Petition to Modify Decision 09-03-026 and Motion for Expedited Treatment of the Petition, July 14, 2010.
15 The Coalition of California Utility Employee's Opposition to the City and County of San Francisco's Petition to Modify Decision 09-03-026 to Temporarily Suspend Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Installation of SmartMeters, July 19, 2010.
16 Motion of the Town of Fairfax to Intervene in the Proceeding in Support of the City and County of San Francisco's Petition to Modify Decision 09-03-026 (Fairfax Response).
17 City of Capitola's Response to the City and County of San Francisco's Petition to Modify Decision 09-03-026 and Motion for Expedited Treatment of the Petition, July 23, 2010.
18 Reply of the City and County of San Francisco to Responses to the Petition to Temporarily Suspend PG&E's Installation of SmartMeters, July 29, 2010
19 Pacific Gas and Electric Company's (U 39 M) Response to the Motion of the Town of Fairfax to Intervene in Support of City and County of San Francisco's Petition to Modify Decision 09-03-026, July 30, 2010.
20 City of Monte Sereno's Response to the City and County of San Francisco's Petition to Modify Decision 09-03-026 and Motion for Expedited Treatment of the Petition, July 30, 2010.
21 City of Scotts Valley's Response to the City and County of San Francisco's Petition to Modify Decision 09-03-026 and Motion for Expedited Treatment of the Petition, July 30, 2010.
22 Administrative Law Judge's Ruling Setting Prehearing Conference, August 6, 2010.
23 City of Watsonville's Response to the City and County of San Francisco's Petition to Modify Decision 09-03-026 and Motion for Expedited Treatment of the Petition, August 16, 2010.
24 DRA Response at 1.
25 TR 24:15-16.
26 TR 24:24-25.
27 Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Response in Compliance with Administrative Law Judge's Oral Ruling Requiring that PG&E Submit Data on the Estimated Potential Costs Associated with Suspension of Pacific Gas and Electric Company's SmartMeter Technology Deployment, August 25, 2010 (PG&E Cost Filing); Declaration of Stephen P. Lechner Address Costs and other Impacts Related to a Moratorium on PG&E's SmartMeter Program, August 25, 2010; and Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Motion to File Under Seal the "Confidential Version" of Data on Estimated, Potential Costs Associated with Suspension of Pacific Gas and Electric Company's SmartMeter Technology Deployment, August 25, 2010. An ALJ Ruling on September 22, 2010 placed the cost data under seal.
28 Response of the City and County of San Francisco to Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Submission of Data on the Estimated Costs Associated with Suspension of SmartMeter Technology Deployment, August 27, 2010.
29 The Coalition of California Utility Employees' Comments on Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Data on the Estimated Potential Costs Associated with Suspension of Pacific Gas and Electric Company's SmartMeter Technology Deployment, August 27, 2010.
30 Comments of the Division of Ratepayer Advocates on the Data Provided by PG&E's Data on the Costs of a Temporary Suspension, August 27, 2010.
31 Comments of the Technology Network on the Potential Costs Associated with a Temporary Suspension, August 27, 2010.
32 ALJ Ruling at 8.
33 Response of the City and County of San Francisco to the Administrative Law Judge's Ruling of September 22, 2010 Ruling (CCSF Comments on ALJ Ruling), October 15, 2010.
34 Comments of the Division of Ratepayer Advocates on What the Commission Should Do in Light of the Structure Group Report (DRA Comments on ALJ Ruling), October 15, 2010.
35 Opening Comments of Pacific Gas and Electric Company in Response to Administrative Law Judge's Ruling (PG&E Comments on ALJ Ruling), October 15, 2010.
36 Comments of the Technology Network (TechNet Comments on ALJ Ruling), October 15, 2010.
37 Comments of the Utility Reform Network in Response to ALJ Ruling of 9/22/20 [sic] (TURN Comments on ALJ Ruling), October 15, 2010.
38 Reply Comments of the Division of Ratepayer Advocates on What the Commission Should Do in Light of the Structure Report (DRA Reply Comments on ALJ Ruling), October 29, 2010.
39 Reply Comments of Pacific Gas and Electric Company in Response to Parties' Opening Comments Submitted Pursuant to Administrative Law Judge's Ruling Issued September 22, 2010 (PG&E Reply Comments on ALJ Ruling), October 29, 2010.
40 State of California, Public Utilities Commission, Rules of Practice and Procedure, August 2009, Rule 16.4 available at http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/published/RULES_PRAC_PROC/105138-15.htm#P790_188519
