6. Schedule and Organization for 2007 Solicitation and 2008 Plans
6.1. 2007 Solicitation
In an upcoming decision on policy issues identified in the August 21, 2006 Scoping Memo, we may or may not change the solicitation cycle. Unless and until we do, we continue in our efforts to move toward a calendar year cycle. As such, we adopt basically the same components, and some of the same timeframes, in the RPS Solicitation Timeline for the 2007 solicitation that we employed for prior solicitations. (See D.04.07-029; D.05-12-042, Appendix B; D.06-05-039, Appendix A; this order, Appendix B.) We encourage parties to follow the schedule in Appendix B.
We include less specific components and fix less dates in the adopted schedule, however, to both acknowledge the request of IOUs for more flexibility, and the flexibility needed for staff and the Commission to complete its work. We also allow more time for contract negotiation, plus preparation and filing of advice letters, than provided in previous decisions. We here set end of year 2007 for contracts to be filed for Commission consideration.28 We do this based on the nearly unanimous recommendation of parties in comments on the proposed decision, and our experience with previous requests for schedule extension.
Unlike the 2006 Solicitation, we decline to provide the option of an additional 45 days after Commission adoption of a resolution approving a contract to count such contract toward the 2007 solicitation. (D.06-05-039, Ordering Paragraph 6.) Our goal is to make solicitations no less often than annual. We are not convinced that extra time is needed to complete the 2007 solicitation.
As we have done before, we authorize the Energy Division Director, in administering the program, to modify the dates on Energy Division's own initiative, as necessary. Any modifications, however, should be consistent to the extent possible with our goal of bringing the 2007 solicitation to conclusion by the end of 2007. By bringing to conclusion we mean that contracts from the 2007 solicitation are filed with the Commission for Commission consideration. If a party desires schedule modification, the party may seek an extension by letter or electronic mail to the Executive Director, with a copy served on the service list, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, and the Energy Division Director. (See Rule 16.6.) The Executive Director should consider such requests, if any, also in the context of our goal of completing this solicitation by the end of year 2007.
Our goal here includes making the process somewhat more streamlined and clear. Accordingly, the deliveries from all contracts from the 2007 solicitation filed for Commission consideration by the end of 2007 are eligible to be counted, if approved and otherwise consistent with flexible compliance rules, toward 2007 RPS Program goals. Deliveries from contracts derived from the 2007 solicitation but filed for Commission review after December 31, 2007 may count toward the RPS Program goals of the year in which they receive Commission approval (unless provided otherwise in the resolution or decision).
6.2. 2008 Plan
We adopt the same basic approach used in developing and reviewing the 2006 and 2007 Plans for the 2008 cycle. (D.05-07-039, p. 29; D.06-05-039, p. 58.) That is, we expect the filing and service of 2008 draft RPS plans and draft RFOs later this year (e.g., by August 15 so they potentially may be accepted at one of our meetings in December 2007). The specific schedule will be set by the assigned Commissioner or Administrative Law Judge (ALJ).
Moreover, as we have also done before, we authorize the Assigned Commissioner to assess the adequacy of Transmission Ranking Cost Reports (TRCRs) used in the LCBF ranking of bids. (D.04-06-013, D.05-07-040, D.06-05-039.) The assigned Commissioner or ALJ should set dates, as needed, for utilities to request information for the TRCRs, to file draft TRCRs, and for parties to file comments and replies on the draft TRCRs. The assigned Commissioner should then assess the adequacy of the draft TRCRs, and determine whether the reports should be modified or other steps taken before the results are used in the ranking of bids. (D.05-07-040, Ordering Paragraph 7; D.06-05-039, Ordering Paragraph 7.)
Each IOU was directed to submit each 2007 Plan "in the form and format which the LSE [load serving entity] seeks to be adopted by the Commission." (August 21, 2006, Scoping Memo, Attachment C, p. 1.) Moreover, IOUs were "encouraged to use the same form and format." (Id.)
Above, we have reviewed each of the 2007 Plans as submitted for our consideration. Each Plan is a complex document that is not easy to assess and use. Each Plan is quite different in structure than the other Plans. We note that improvements have been made in the Plans over the previous cycles, but each remains relatively complex. We are not certain they need to be.
We encourage each IOU to continue to seek ways to improve its RPS Plan. We encourage IOUs as a group to use a common form and format. There does not appear to be anything so particularly unique about the plan to buy, or the contract to buy, electricity from a third-party RPS generator that each IOU must have its own form and format (even if some of the details in a Plan, or some particular contact clauses, might be different).
Consistent with the direction above, each 2008 proposed Plan must be in a form and format which the LSE seeks to be adopted by the Commission. It must be complete and current. Moreover, we encourage IOUs to seek ways to organize, format and present each Plan in a manner that facilitates its use by all involved, including bidders and the Commission.
Finally, we encourage IOUs and parties to give serious consideration to further development of improved model contracts, including standard terms and conditions. Better and more uniform model contracts will likely to be useable by more bidders without requiring substantial further negotiation and modification. This will permit a more streamlined process for bidding, negotiation and Commission review. The additional time spent "up front" could potentially be small compared to the time savings for the entire remainder of the process. Further, by reducing transaction time plus transaction and other costs, it might make the overall RPS structure more transparent, efficient and competitive. This could offer an opportunity to assist LSEs and California achieve the overall RPS goals sooner at lower cost.
28 We allowed 63 days between close of bidding and submission of advice letters in the 2006 solicitation. (D.06-05-039, Appendix A, page 3, day 103 to day 166.) We here allow 206 days for the same interval. This is an extension from the recommendation of PG&E in its comments on the proposed decision to use December 21, 2007 for the deadline, and a reduction from the recommendation of SCE and others to use a date in 2008.
