III. Discussion

This decision denies Kyes' motion for the Commission to implement Section 366(b) to permit load aggregation.

Section 366(a) provides that customers may engage in "direct transactions" with alternative providers of power. During the late 1990s, a number of customers took advantage of this arrangement, also called "direct access." The utilities are correct that the opportunity for customers to take advantage of "direct transactions" as they are described in Section 366(a) is suspended and remains suspended by Section 80110 of the Water Code, as follows:

the right of retail end use customers pursuant to Article 6 (commencing with Section 360) of Chapter 2.3 of Part 1 of Division 1 of the Public Utilities Code to acquire service from other providers shall be suspended until the department no longer supplies power hereunder. (Emphasis added.)

We find that Kyes' motion has not made a compelling showing that Section 366(b) distinguishes "direct transactions" from "aggregation of customer load" as he interprets them. Aggregation of customer load, like direct transactions, would require the customer to "acquire service from other providers" because the entity that serves as aggregator would be effectively reselling power to aggregated customers.

The Legislature's modification of Section 366(b) was accomplished concurrent with its passage of Section 366.2 to implement the CCA program. Its modification to Section 366 provides that CCAs need not receive affirmative authorization from customers before switching them over to CCA service. We find no evidence that the Legislature intended to modify its suspension of direct access or variations of it.

There may be circumstances under which customers may benefit from aggregating load. As Kyes explains, customers may benefit from load aggregation for purposes of purchasing and operating their own solar systems or to qualify for better rates or more tailored services from the utility.

However, Kyes' motion is extricably linked to the suspension of "direct access" and raises significant policy issues beyond those raised in this proceeding. We deny Kyes' motion.