2. Background
The Commission, in Decision (D.) 04-12-048 and D.07-12-052, has previously reviewed and approved the long-term procurement plans of the utilities under Assembly Bill (AB) 57 (Stats. 2002, ch. 835),1 which enacted Pub. Util. Code § 454.5. AB 57 established the method by which the utilities would resume electricity procurement, replacing the California Department of Water Resources, which had taken on that responsibility in the wake of the California Energy Crisis. Those prior Commission decisions indicate that the review and approval of utility procurement plans as required under § 454.5 is both complex and continuing to evolve, and they provide a thorough background which need not be repeated here. We anticipate that the processes utilized by the utilities and this Commission in developing, reviewing, and approving procurement plans will continue to evolve in future proceedings.
The Order Instituting Rulemaking (OIR) that opened this proceeding established three separate tracks. The track addressed in this decision (Bundled Track II) was described in the OIR:
In one track, we shall consider adoption of "bundled" procurement plans pursuant to AB 57 (codified as Pub. Util. Code § 454.5) for the three major electric IOUs [investor owned utilities] (Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Edison) to authorize their procurement needs for their bundled customers. (OIR at 2, citation and footnotes omitted.)
The OIR also provided the following definition:
We define "bundled" as pertaining to an investor-owned utility's (IOU's) load and resources in its role as a Load Serving Entity (LSE). To distinguish filings related to bundled Assembly Bill (AB) 57 obligations from separate filings related to system reliability needs, we will refer to these as "procurement plans." (Id., footnote 1.)
The January 13, 2011 Scoping Memo generally described the scope of this track of the proceeding:
As discussed at the pre-hearing conference, Bundled Track II procurement is focused on the short-to-medium term operational needs of the utilities, and should not result in construction of new generation facilities. As a practical matter, in order to meet their short and medium term needs, such as replacing expiring contracts, the utilities will need to be contracting with existing facilities, rather than with proposed new facilities. Accordingly, approval of the utilities' Bundled Track II procurement plans will not indirectly lock in a longer-term resource commitment by causing new generation to be built. (Id. at 3.)
Written testimony in Bundled Track II was presented by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E), Southern California Edison Company (SCE), Cogeneration Association of California (CAC), Energy Producers and Users Coalition (EPUC), Citizens for a Better Environment (CBE), Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies (CEERT), Division of Ratepayers Advocates (DRA), Marin Energy Authority (MEA), Pacific Environment, L. Jan Reid (Reid), and Women's Energy Matters (WEM). Evidentiary hearings were held on May 23 and 24, 2011, primarily to deal with administrative and evidentiary matters, including the admission of testimony and exhibits. Opening briefs were filed by Alliance for Retail Energy Markets (AReM), CAC and EPUC, CEERT, DRA, MEA, Pacific Environment, PG&E, SCE, SDG&E, Sierra Club California (Sierra Club), The Utility Reform Network (TURN), and WEM, and reply briefs were filed by AReM, CBE, CEERT, DRA, MEA, PG&E, Reid, SCE, SDG&E, Shell Energy North America (Shell), Sierra Club, and WEM.
1 Amended by Stats. 2005, ch. 366 and Stats. 2006, ch. 685.
