10. Assignment of Proceeding
Michael R. Peevey is the assigned Commissioner and Peter V. Allen is the assigned Administrative Law Judge in this proceeding.
1. The Commission adopted a cost allocation mechanism for certain generation resources in D.06-07-029, as modified by D.07-11-051.
2. Subsequent to D.06-07-029 and D.07-11-051, SB 695 addressed some of the same cost allocation issues addressed in those Commission decisions.
3. Some provisions of D.06-07-029 and D.07-11-051 are inconsistent with SB 695.
4. Some provisions of D.06-07-029 and D.07-11-051 are consistent with SB 695.
5. The choice of a utility to elect or not elect to use the CAM for a generation resource, as permitted under D.06-07-029 and D.07-11-051, is inconsistent with SB 695.
6. The Commission's definitions of "benefitting customer" in D.06-07-029 and D.07-11-051, as clarified in D.08-09-012, are consistent with SB 695.
7. The Commission's prior prohibition of CAM treatment for utility-owned generation is inconsistent with SB 695.
8. The use of energy auctions to determine net capacity cost, as permitted under D.06-07-029 and D.07-11-051, is consistent with SB 695.
9. The ten-year limit on CAM treatment of a generation contract, regardless of the term of the contract, is inconsistent with SB 695.
