2. Procedural Background
The scope of this decision resolves issues designated as Phase III of this proceeding. Phase III addresses prospective revisions in the Direct Access (DA) program and rate setting methodologies in view of relevant regulatory and industry changes since the DA methodologies were last revised. On October 11, 2009, Senate Bill (SB) 695 (Stats. 2009, ch. 337) was signed into law. SB 695 added Section 365.1(b) to the Public Utilities Code, enacting changes to allow limited growth in DA. By ruling dated November 18, 2009, the assigned Commissioner amended the scope of the proceeding to implement the provisions of SB 695 relating to DA.2
A subsequent ruling dated December 17, 2009, modified the scope of issues to address provisions of SB 695 allowing for new enrollments of DA. Decision (D.) 10-03-022 implemented measures to begin processing the new enrollments of DA load effective April 11, 2010.
An amended scoping memo issued on April 19, 2010, set forth remaining Phase III issues. The Joint Parties in this proceeding, identified specifically below, filed a motion on September 23, 2010, seeking an expedited phase to consider modifications to the methodology to determine the calculation of the Power Charge Indifference Amount (PCIA). A ruling dated, November 22, 2010, granted the motion and expanded the scope of Phase III accordingly. Parties participated in a series of workshops to address technical issues for Phase III, held on December 7, 14-15, 2010 and January 4, 2011.
Parties participating in this phase of the proceeding are the three investor-owned utilities (IOUs), Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), Southern California Edison Company (SCE), and San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E), consumer advocates, the Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) and The Utility Reform Network (TURN). Various parties also participated, representing the interests of DA customers and Electric Service Providers (ESPs): California Large Energy Consumers Association (CLECA) and California Manufacturers and Technology Association (CMTA), City and County of San Francisco (CCSF), Commercial Energy, a group of parties identified as DA Parties, Alliance for Retail Energy Markets (AReM), the Direct Access Customer Coalition, BlueStar Energy, and Pilot Power. An additional group identified as the "Joint Parties:" CCSF, AReM, the Direct Access Customer Coalition, BlueStar Energy, Marin Energy Authority, the Energy Users Forum, San Joaquin Valley Power Authority, and the California Municipal Utilities Association. Mr. L. Jan Reid (Reid) also participated in the proceeding representing himself.
A ruling issued on January 7, 2011, scheduled early briefing on legal issues pertaining to the ESP financial security requirements arising under Pub. Util. Code § 394.25(e). By ruling issued in Rulemaking (R.) 03-10-003 (re: Rulemaking to implement provisions of Assembly Bill (AB) 117 concerning Community Choice Aggregation), the briefs were filed jointly in both proceedings to address the relevant issues that were common to both proceedings. Parties submitted briefs in both above-captioned dockets, filed on January 24, 2011, with reply briefs on February 11, 2011.
Opening testimony on Phase III issues was served January 31, 2011, and reply testimony was served February 25, 2011. Evidentiary hearings occurred during March 28 through 30, 2011. Opening briefs were filed on May 6, 2011, and reply briefs were filed on May 27, 2011.
2 Phase I of this proceeding examined whether, or under what conditions, the suspension of DA could be lifted. The Commission determined that the DA suspension continued to apply as long as the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) sold power to retail customers through its supplier contracts. Phase II examined the feasibility of accelerating the early termination of DWR power supply contracts through novation or other renegotiation. With the passage of SB 695, Phase II was discontinued, and the scope of Phase III was redefined to focus on implementing SB 695 provisions dealing with DA.
