6. Schedule for 2011 Solicitations and Organization of 2012 Plans
6.1. Schedule for 2011 Solicitation
The IOUs propose similar schedules for the next solicitation. The proposals include a date before which an IOU may not request an exclusivity agreement from a bidder before continuing negotiations.
We adopt a schedule that reflects Commission experience with the 2009 solicitation. (See Appendix B.) We limit the adopted schedule to major milestones. This permits IOUs and staff reasonable flexibility, just as we did in 2008 and 2009.
We also adjust the date for submitting contracts that may be earmarked for meeting 2010 targets. Given the timing of this solicitation, we authorize a reasonable amount of time for contracts that result from this solicitation to apply via earmarking to 2010 targets. This does not in any way limit when contracts from this solicitation may be submitted for RPS purposes generally. It does so only for the limited purpose of certain earmarking, just as we have done in the past.57
As we have done before, we authorize the Energy Division Director, with notice to IOUs and parties, to change the schedule as appropriate or necessary for efficient administration of the 2011 solicitation. Parties may seek schedule modification by request to the Executive Director (Rule 16.6 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure).58
6.2. Organization of 2012 Plans and IRPs
Given the timing of this solicitation, the next filing of draft Plans with subsequent actual solicitation will most likely be in the context of 2012. We adopt for the 2012 Plans the same basic approach as we used in developing and reviewing the 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2011 Plans.59 That is, we expect the filing and service of 2012 draft RPS plans and draft RFOs later this year by the three IOUs. This is also true of the next review for the MJUs. It will for the first time also apply to ESP procurement plans.60 The specific schedule and details will be set by the assigned Commissioner or ALJ.
Moreover, as we have also done before,61 we authorize the assigned Commissioner to assess the adequacy of TRCRs used in the LCBF ranking of bids. The assigned Commissioner or ALJ should set dates, as needed, for utilities to request information for the TRCRs, to file draft TRCRs, and for parties to file comments and replies on the draft TRCRs. The assigned Commissioner should then assess the adequacy of the draft TRCRs, and determine whether the reports should be modified or other steps taken before the results are used in the ranking of bids.
We encourage the IOUs to consider developing and proposing uniform, streamlined Plans that may either be adopted for more than one year, or for more than one year with only minor updates. We remain on a schedule which largely anticipates annual RPS solicitations for the largest three IOUs.62 We again encourage IOUs to consider proposing something other than an annual cycle. (See D.06-05-039 at 55-60; D.08-02-008 at 46; D.09-06-018 at 71.) As we have observed several times, we think there are other reasonable options to the annual approach we now use. We encourage IOUs to consider the options and, where feasible, propose alternatives that accomplish RPS Program objectives while mitigating some of the burdens placed on all stakeholders by the current procedures.63 In particular, we encourage IOUs to consider an approach which would permit quite frequent, if not continuous, RPS solicitation in a competitive market.
57 For example, IOUs were required to submit advice letters with contracts from the 2009 solicitation by April 30, 2010 to count for earmarking from that solicitation. (D.09-06-018, Appendix B, line 8.) This does not foreclose an IOU submitting a contract at any time (now or in the future) from the 2009 solicitation for Commission consideration as it may apply to RPS targets generally.
58 See, for example, D.09-06-018, Ordering Paragraph 3.
59 See D.05-07-039 at 29, D.06-05-039 at 58, D.07-02-011 at 61, D.08-02-008 at 46, and D.09-06-018 at 70.
60 D.11-01-026, Ordering Paragraph 1.
61 D.09-06-018, Ordering Paragraph 6.
62 An annual solicitation paralleled the historic requirement that each retail seller increase its procurement annually by at least 1% until it reached 20% by 2010. The annual 1% minimum growth requirement is modified by SB 1X 2. Respondents and parties may wish to consider proposing a procurement schedule that is reasonably parallel to the procurement targets in SB 1X 2, or another reasonable schedule. For now, we anticipate annual solicitations, but remain open to other than an annual cycle when that promotes efficiencies.
63 Further standardization, uniformity, and streamlining may make it possible for the Commission to authorize several solicitations at one time, or make other efficiency improvements. For example, one Commission decision might authorize an RPS solicitation by the three IOUs to be held once every 90 days for two years, or until a trigger has been reached. The trigger might be when RPS deliveries to an IOU reach a certain threshold.
