Decision 11-05-049 May 26, 2011
Before The Public Utilities Commission Of The State Of California
Application of Pacific Gas and Electric Company for Approval of 2008 |
Application 09-09-021 (Filed September 30, 2009) |
ORDER MODIFYING DECISION (D.) 10-12-050,
AND DENYING REHEARING OF DECISION AS MODIFIED
I. SUMMARY
In Decision (D.) 10-12-050 (or "Decision"), the Commission approved a proposal for Pacific Gas and Electric Company ("PG&E") to acquire, via turnkey contract, the proposed new Contra Costa Generating Station in Oakley, California ("Oakley Project"), a 586 megawatt ("MW") natural gas-fired, combined cycle generating facility. The Decision assures PG&E full cost recovery of the costs of the plant in PG&E's retail electricity rates. In the Decision, the Commission denied a petition for modification of D.10-07-045 submitted by PG&E, and instead reviewed the request for approval as an application, and on this basis approved the project.
CAlifornians for Renewable Energy, Inc. ("CARE"), Community for a Better Environment ("CBE") and Sierra Club, The Utility Reform Network ("TURN"), and Division of Ratepayer Advocates ("DRA") timely filed applications for rehearing of the Decision. CARE also filed a related motion for leave to file confidential material.
In its rehearing application, CARE contends the following errors: (1) the Commission in issuing D.10-12-050 violated the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act ("Bagley-Keene Act") and Rule 15.2(a) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure because the Commission changed the action that had been publicly noticed;1 (2) the decision relied on facts that were not in the evidentiary record; (3) D.10-12-050 was prejudicial to other bidders in the long term request for offer ("LTRFO") and will erode the competitive market; (4) the Decision conflicts with D.07-12-052 in violation of Public Utilities Code section 1708;2 (5) D.10-12-050 conflicts with D.10-07-045 regarding need; (6) the approval of the Oakley Project in a separate proceeding conflicts with D.09-10-17; and (7) D.10-12-050 conflicts with D.10-07-042 with respect to earlier projects approved. CARE filed a motion for leave to file confidential material referenced in its rehearing application.
TURN alleges the following in its application for rehearing: (1) Parties were denied due process by not being afforded any procedural rights for an application, including the filing of a protest and doing discovery; (2) D.10-12-050 violates Public Utilities Code section 311(e) and Rule 14.1(d) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure; (3) the Commission relied on facts not in the evidentiary record for the proceeding or any other proceeding; and (4) D.10-12-050 unlawfully modified
D.07-12-052 in violation of section 1708 of the Public Utilities Code.
In their joint rehearing application, CBE & Sierra Club assert: (1) the Commission failed to satisfy the requirements of section 454.5(d), and made a determination of need for ratepayer-purchased power in 2016 without record evidence; (2) D.10-12-050 improperly reversed D.10-07-045; (3) the Commission violated the parties' due process rights allegedly by circumventing the application procedure and the scope of its current LTPP, using sua sponte powers it does not have.
DRA argues: (1) By converting the petition for modification into an application, the Commission denied the parties their legal due process rights to protest, to object to the categorization and to be heard on the issues; (2) D.10-12-050 denied ratepayers their right to a statutory notice that their rates would increase under the new application; (3) approving the Oakley Project based on a new online date was unlawful; (4) the decision modified several Commission decisions (D.07-12-052, D.09-10-017 and D.10-07-042) without giving notice to parties in those proceedings; and (5) the Commission improperly relied on facts not in evidence.
Responses to the rehearing applications were filed by TURN, Western Power Trading Forum ("WPTF") and the Alliance for Retail Energy Markets ("AReM"), and PG&E. In its response, TURN supports the rehearing applications, and urges the granting of rehearing of the D.10-10-050 on the grounds set forth by the four applications for rehearing. (TURN's Response, pp. 2-3.) TURN also offers a correction to the procedural history leading to the issuance of the Decision that was presented in CBE and Sierra Club's application for rehearing. (TURN's Response, pp. 3-4.) In their joint response, WPTF and AReM support the granting of a rehearing. In its response, PG&E opposes the rehearing applications.
We have reviewed each and every allegation in the rehearing applications. We are of the opinion that that good cause has not been demonstrated for the granting of the applications for rehearing of D.10-12-050. Also, based on our review, we will modify the Decision to clarify the decision in the matter set forth below. Therefore, we deny rehearing of D.10-12-050, as modified.
1 Subsequent references to rule are to the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, unless otherwise specified.
2 All subsequent section references are to the Public Utilities Code, unless otherwise noted.
