1. Background
The Order Instituting Rulemaking (OIR) initiating this proceeding divided the proceeding into three concurrent tracks. The OIR described those three tracks:
(1) Track I will identify California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)-jurisdictional needs for new resources to meet system or local resource adequacy and to consider authorization of IOU [investor-owned utility] procurement to meet that need...
(2) Track II will address the development and approval of individual IOU "bundled" procurement plans consistent with § 454.5.
(3) Track III will consider rule and policy changes related to the procurement process which were not resolved in [Rulemaking] R.08-02-007, as outlined in greater detail below. (OIR at 9.)1
The December 3, 2010 Assigned Commissioner and Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ's) Scoping Memo and Ruling (Scoping Memo) reiterated this structure. A separate decision on Track II, relating to the utilities' bundled procurement plans, was approved by the Commission on January 12, 2012 in Decision (D.) 12-01-033.
A February 10, 2011 ALJ's Ruling2 determined that the System Track I issues and a limited number of Rules Track III issues would be addressed on a concurrent procedural schedule. Because only a limited number of Rules Track III issues could be addressed on that schedule, the Ruling directed the parties to recommend which Rules Track III issues they wished to have addressed concurrently with the System Track I issues. (February 10, 2011 ALJ Ruling at 6-7.)
After considering party input at the February 28, 2011 pre-hearing conference and in pre-hearing conference statements, a March 10, 2011 ALJ Ruling3 preliminarily identified four Rules Track III issues to be addressed concurrently with the System Track I schedule:
1) [P]rocurement rules relating to once-through cooling issues; 2) refinements to the bid evaluation process, particular weighing competing bids between utility-owned generation and power purchase agreements; 3) refinements to the existing timelines associated with the utilities' RFOs [requests for offers] for resource adequacy products; and 4) utility procurement of greenhouse gas related products. (March 10, 2011 ALJ Ruling at 4.)
In addition, based on input from the California Independent System Operator (CAISO), the March 10 Ruling reduced the number of complex modeling runs to be performed by the CAISO and the utilities, and provided the CAISO and utilities additional time to perform the remaining modeling runs.
Subsequently, the utilities and the CAISO filed a motion requesting additional time to complete their modeling and submit testimony. In a May 31, 2011 Ruling,4 the ALJ granted this motion, and moved the date for utility and CAISO testimony to July 1, 2011. In a June 13, 2011 Ruling,5 the ALJ added a fifth issue to Rules Track III, relating to procurement oversight rules. (June 13, 2011 Ruling at 6-7.)
Testimony was served by the utilities and the CAISO on July 1, 2011. Other parties served testimony on August 4, 2011. Evidentiary hearings were held on August 11, 15-19, and 30, 2011.6 Opening Briefs were filed on September 16, 2011, and Reply Briefs were filed on October 3, 2011.
1 These tracks are referred to as System Track I, Bundled Track II, and Rules Track III.
2 The full title of the Ruling is: Administrative Law Judge's Ruling Modifying System Track I Schedule and Setting Prehearing Conference.
3 Administrative Law Judge's Ruling Revising System Track I Schedule, dated March 10, 2011.
4 Administrative Law Judge's Ruling Granting Motion to Modify System Track I Schedule, dated May 31, 2011.
5 Administrative Law Judge's Ruling Addressing Motion for Reconsideration, Motion Regarding Track I Schedule, and Rules Track III Issues, dated June 13, 2011.
6 Consistent with the Administrative Law Judge's Ruling Addressing Motion for Reconsideration, Motion Regarding Track I Schedule, and Rules Track III Issues, dated June 13, 2011, additional reply testimony was presented on August 11, 2011.
