VII. The TURN Dedicated Rate Component Proposal
TURN recommends that the Commission approve the PSA modified to substitute the issuance of $2.03 billion in energy recovery bonds (ERBs) secured by a dedicated rate component (DRC) in lieu of the regulatory asset.
TURN claims that this alternate financing structure will achieve all of the goals of the PSA, including restoring PG&E to creditworthy status, within the overall time frame contemplated by the PSA, at a cost to ratepayers of $2.8 billion less than the cost of the PSA (TURN/Florio, Ex. 141). The TURN modification is a securitization of a future stream of revenues. California used such securitized financing for the rate reduction bonds (RRBs) which were issued by PG&E and the other California utilities in 1997 in conjunction with electric restructuring.
TURN explains its proposal as follows: In a securitization, steps are taken to legally separate the underlying assets (here the right to future cash flows to be collected from the utility's customers through a DRC) from the originating company. The assets are sold to a "special purpose entity" through a "true sale" to ensure that the assets would not become part of the estate of the originating company for bankruptcy purposes. Thus, PG&E would sell the right to receive the DRC to a special purpose entity. That entity in turn would sell a note to a trust. The trust would then issue bonds secured by the proceeds of the note, which itself would be secured by the right to the DRC owned by the special purpose entity.
TURN proposes that the ERBs be structured in the same manner as the AAA-rated RRBs. The ERBs would be paid within nine years, but with a stated maturity of eleven years. The actual legal maturity is one to two years beyond the estimated bond redemption date to cover the risk that energy use deviates from projections at the time of issuance. A revenue requirement consisting of principal, interest, servicing fees, and a small overcollateralization component would be included as a separate component of utility rates. As was the case for the RRBs, a true-up mechanism would reduce the tariff if overcollections exceed 5% of projected revenue requirements, while the tariff would be increased if customer demand is less than projected.
PG&E would receive the proceeds from the sale of the bonds as cash up front. So long as the transaction is structured so that the proceeds are considered to be "debt" under IRS definitions, taxes are not due on the proceeds of the bonds. Instead, PG&E would owe taxes over time as service is actually provided and tariff revenue is received. To account for taxes, the $1.2 billion which TURN proposes that ratepayers contribute to PG&E, is grossed-up by $825 million. ERBs would be issued in the amount of $2.03 billion.
In order for ERBs to be freely marketable, they will need a credit rating from at least one nationally recognized rating agency. The rating agencies assign a credit rating related to the likelihood that the issuer will be able to pay full principal and interest on the rated security in a timely manner in accordance with the terms of the security.
The tariff revenue requirement recovery mechanism must be irrevocable, prohibiting the Commission or any other governmental agency from rescinding, altering, or amending the tariff or transition property in any way that would reduce or impair its value. The bond recovery tariff must be nonbypassable by utility customers. The tariff is usually assessed as a distribution charge applicable to the monopoly utility service. Therefore, regardless of who generates the energy delivered to the customer, the tariff charge will be collected. The transaction must be structured so that bondholders are protected from interruption or impairment of cash flow in the event of a utility bankruptcy, usually accomplished by a "true sale" to a bankruptcy-remote special purpose entity, along with other steps to ensure that in a future utility bankruptcy, the special purpose entity would not be substantively consolidated with the transferor. Finally, the rating agencies will assess qualitative factors including the legal and regulatory framework, political environment, transaction structure, the utility as servicer of the debt, regional economic factors, and cash flow.
TURN asserts that the Commission has the legal authority to establish the right of utilities to future revenues, and to establish transferable rights to such future revenues. The California Supreme Court very recently noted the broad constitutional and statutory authority of the Commission and described it as "far-reaching." (Southern California Edison Co. v. Peevey, supra, 31 Cal.4th 781.) The Court also noted that the Commission's authority "has been liberally construed" in past judicial decisions.
PG&E counters with the argument that TURN's proposal suffers from three fundamental flaws: (1) it will not work; (2) even if it could work, it would delay PG&E's emergence from Chapter 11 to such an extent that the interest-rate risk alone would swallow the claimed savings; and (3) even if it could work, it achieves most of its savings by shifting the payment of income taxes from customers to PG&E in violation of normal ratemaking principles.
A witness for PG&E testified that absent authorizing legislation, a rating agency could not see a short cut way to create a property right in future tariff collections that would be irrevocable and could not be changed by the legislature or other governmental body unless adequate compensation had been made to safeguard bondholder rights. Moreover, the structure would have to shield investors from the potential bankruptcy of the underlying utility by providing for an absolute transfer (or true sale) of the future tariff collections away from the utility to a special purpose vehicle or trust. Finally, the tariff surcharge would have to be nonbypassable to minimize the potential that future collections could decline.
In our opinion, the Commission cannot provide the essential elements of a securitization financing. An essential element of any rate securitization is the creation of a property right in future revenues. Future utility rate collections are normally an expectancy, not amounting to a present property right. For that expectancy to be turned into a property right, the utility must provide service to customers. Only when the service is provided does the utility have a right to payment. In the case of the RRBs, the Legislature bridged this gap by enacting a statute that created an enforceable property right in the future rate collection. (Pub. Util. Code § 843(c) ("Transition property shall constitute property for all purposes, including for contracts securing rate reduction bonds, whether or not the revenues and proceeds arising with respect thereto have accrued").) Potential lenders in this securitization are expected to require legislation to provide assurance that the bonds will have the protections that TURN envisions this Commission can provide. Moreover, application of a DRC will increase the risk of successfully completing a reorganization. There is no assurance that all parties whose approval of the transaction is required will be able to reach agreement. An adverse tax ruling, inadequate legislative mandate, weak structuring of a bankruptcy-remote financing entity, or assessment by the ratings agencies that the securitization bonds be treated as part of the PG&E credit structure are all factors that could negatively impact the transaction and could place at risk the achievement of PG&E's emergence from bankruptcy in a financially sound manner.
We need not analyze all PG&E's points as we are of the opinion that TURN's proposed securitization financing cannot be achieved without legislation. TURN's proposal is that the Commission should reject the regulatory asset in favor of a securitization financing of a type that has never been done before without legislation. TURN's own witnesses acknowledge that every utility securitization financing done to date has been pursuant to express enabling legislation. (Ex. 143, p. 23, TURN/McDonald.)
Replacing the regulatory asset with a dedicated rate component authorized by appropriate legislation will substantially reduce the cost of the bankruptcy to ratepayers without impairing the credit of a reorganized PG&E. While the exact savings ultimately achievable by a DRC are yet to be determined, we believe they will be not less than $1 billion over the term of the financing. Such a result would be a benefit to both the utility and its ratepayers and would represent an optimal solution to the problem of financing the repayment of PG&E's properly accrued unreimbursed costs. Because that solution can only be accomplished through new legislation, we do not make it a condition of approving the settlement. However, upon approval by all parties to the settlement agreement, as modified by this decision, and confirmation of the modified plan of reorganization by the Bankruptcy Court, the Commission shall sponsor or co-sponsor urgency legislation to effectuate replacing the regulatory asset with a dedicated rate component as specifically agreed to by TURN and PG&E in their joint reply comments filed December 15, 2003 and discussed more specifically below. Upon the effectiveness of such legislation without substantial deviation from the language that was agreed to by PG&E and TURN, PG&E shall petition this Commission for expeditious approval of the replacement of the regulatory asset by a financing structure based on a dedicated rate component as described herein.
On December 15, TURN and PG&E filed joint reply comments on this alternate urging the Commission to "...make it a condition precedent to the Commission's executing the Settlement Agreement that PG&E agree in writing that, after effectuating the Settlement Plan of Reorganization and exiting from Chapter 11, PG&E will seek as expeditiously as practical to refinance up to the full amount of the Regulatory Asset and associated federal and state income and franchise taxes using a securitized financing supported by a DRC, provided the following conditions are met:
· Authorizing legislation satisfactory to the Commission, TURN and PG&E is passed and signed into law allowing securitization of up to the full unamortized amount of the Regulatory Asset and associated federal and state income and franchise taxes and providing for the collection in PG&E's rates of any portion of the associated tax gross-up not securitized.
· The Commission determines that, on a net present value basis, the refinancing will save ratepayers money compared to the Regulatory Asset over the term of the securitized debt.
· The refinancing will not adversely affect PG&E's company and debt credit ratings.
· PG&E obtains, or determines that it does not need, a private letter ruling form the Internal Revenue Service that neither the refinancing nor the issuance of securitized bonds is a presently taxable event."
On December 16, the assigned ALJ issued a ruling asking parties to comment on the joint TURN/PG&E comments. Comments to the TURN/PG&E proposal were filed by Aglet Consumer Alliance (Aglet); the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (OCC); Merced Irrigation District (Merced); Coalition of California Utility Employees (CUE); the California Large Energy Consumers Association (CLECA) and the California Manufacturers & Technology Association (CMTA); ORA; the Energy Producers and Users Coalition, California Chamber of Commerce, Western States Petroleum Association, Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group, California Retailers Association, the Agricultural Energy Consumers Association, (Business Coalition); the Peninsula Ratepayers Association; the City of Palo Alto; and the City and County of San Francisco (CCSF). The OCC, CUE, CLECA , CMTA and the Business Coalition filed comments in support of the TURN/PG&E proposal. Aglet, Merced, ORA and the CCSF filed comments seeking delay of the proceeding, seeking further opportunity for parties to respond as well as requesting financial documentation related to the TURN/PG&E proposal. We believe that the parties have already had a sufficient opportunity to examine issues related to the dedicated rate component in this proceeding. Furthermore, as discussed above, the TURN/PG&E proposal contemplates a future petition to be filed at this Commission, for expeditious approval of the replacement of the regulatory asset by a dedicated rate component and requires a Commission determination that, on a net present value basis, the refinancing will save ratepayers money compared to the Regulatory Asset over the term of the securitized debt. Interested parties will have the opportunity to participate before the Commission when that petition is filed. We believe that there has been sufficient development in the current record to fully support the Commission's adoption of the TURN/PG&E proposal in this matter.
TURN and PG&E estimate that, based on current interest rates, refinancing using the DRC can save ratepayers about one billion dollars (nominal), while still allowing a substantial immediate rate reduction. We look forward to rapid passage of the necessary enabling legislation so we can validate this estimate. We have reviewed the proposed findings of facts, conclusions of law and ordering paragraphs submitted by TURN and PG&E in support of their joint accord on the DRC, and we find them to be reasonable. We incorporate them as revisions to this decision, consistent with their comments. We attach as Appendix D the authorizing legislation that is satisfactory to both TURN and PG&E. At our meeting on January 8, 2004, we will formally request the introduction of enabling legislation in order to facilitate early introduction and expedited consideration of the DRC proposal by the Legislature and the Governor.
