III. Ensuring the Utilities Resume Full Procurement on January 1, 2003
Both the Commission and the legislature have clearly expressed their intent to return the respondent utilities to full procurement on January 1, 2003, consistent with the utilities' statutory obligation to serve their customers and the provisions of Assembly Bill ABX1 X. We remain committed to that schedule and shall devote the full resources and authority of the Commission to see that Edison, PG&E, and SDG&E meet their obligation to serve by January 1, 2003.
In D.02-10-062, we gave specific direction on the manner in which Edison, PG&E, and SDG&E were to modify their adopted plans for the November 12 update filings. Our review of those filings shows that the utilities did provide a robust showing that took time to analyze. Our review was hampered by several efforts to reargue issues that were settled in D.02-10-062 and to include material on procurement plans that is not in compliance with our order. The comments of ORA and TURN confirm this.
Primarily to address this matter, we adopt a confidential appendix for each utility that sets forth the manner in which its November 12 procurement plan is modified. With the incorporation of the additions, deletions, and modifications set forth in each appendix into the November 12 filed plans, we adopt a revised updated procurement plan for each utility that meets the statutory requirements of Assembly Bill 57/Senate Bill 19763 and all other provisions of the California Public Utilities Code.4 We find that the utilities are capable of resuming full procurement on January 1, 2003 and order that they take all necessary steps to do so.5
3 SB 1976 modified a portion of Assembly Bill (AB) 57. We reference the statute here as SB 1976/AB 57. 4 All statutory references cite the Pub. Util. Code, unless otherwise noted. 5 Edison requests that the Commission grant it an extension of time to resume full procurement. The 60-day requirement of SB 1976 it cites as the basis of its request, ran from our October 24, 2002 decision not this decision; this legal interpretation was earlier agreed to by Edison at hearings in July, when the schedule for this December update filing was first discussed. (See D.02-10-062, p. 3, footnote 2.)
