ALJ/AYK/sid Date of Issuance 4/25/2008
Decision 08-04-056 April 24, 2008
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Petition for Expedited Modification of Energy Division Resolution E-4013 Approving the Utilities' Community Choice Aggregation Service Agreements. |
Application 07-12-032 (Filed December 21, 2007) |
ORDER RESOLVING THE PETITION OF
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY POWER AUTHORITY
FOR MODIFICATION OF RESOLUTION E-4013
APPROVING THE UTILITIES' COMMUNITY
CHOICE AGGREGATION SERVICE AGREEMENTS
This decision modifies Resolution E-4013 by granting the application of the San Joaquin Valley Power Authority (SJVPA) requesting the Commission modify Resolution E-4013, by deleting Section 20 of the utilities' Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) Service Agreements relating to joint and several liabilities of members participating in a CCA program through a joint powers agency. We direct Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), Southern California Edison Company (SCE) and San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) to remove from their tariffs and service agreements any requirement or condition of service that imposes joint and several liabilities on the members of a CCA joint powers agency for the debts and obligations of that joint powers agency.
1. Background
The Commission issued Resolution E-4013 on November 9, 2006, approving tariffs filed by the utilities regarding their respective CCA programs. The utilities filed the tariffs in February 2006 in compliance with Decision (D.) 05-12-041, issued in Rulemaking (R.) 03-10-003, which adopted rules and policies regarding the CCA program. Among other things, the utilities' tariff filings sought approval of a standard CCA Service Agreement. Each utility's Service Agreement included, as Section 20, a requirement that the individual members of the CCA joint powers agency would be jointly and severally liable for CCA debts and obligations. SJVPA's subject application requests that the Commission order the utilities to remove this provision imposing joint and several liabilities on the members of the joint powers agency.
SJVPA's application explains that it is a joint powers agency in accordance with the authority conferred by Assembly Bill (AB) 117, consisting of the following members: Kings County and the cities of Clovis, Corcoran, Dinuba, Hanford, Kerman, Kingsburg, Lemoore, Parlier, Reedley, Selma and Sanger. SJVPA states its intent to serve customers within the service areas of SCE and PG&E. It explains that its joint powers agreement contains a provision that specifies that the liabilities of SJVPA shall be borne by SJVPA, and not by the members of SJVPA.
Because SJVPA's joint powers agreement potentially conflicted with the utilities' CCA Service Agreement, SJVPA requested that SCE and PG&E delete Section 20 from their service agreement for a joint powers agency. The utilities informed SJVPA that they were unwilling to delete Section 20. Subsequent discussions failed to resolve the matter in a way that is satisfactory to SJVPA. SJVPA also explains that this is the first time it has formally addressed the matter before the Commission because SJVPA had not yet been established during the Commission's deliberations in R.03-10-003 or by the time the Commission was considering the utilities' CCA tariffs. The County of Marin replied to SJVPA's application, stating support for it.
On January 23, 2008, SDG&E, SCE, and PG&E filed a joint response to SJVPA's application. The response objects to the proposed modification on the basis that it would shift risk to utility customers in contradiction to AB 117, which authorized the creation of CCAs such as SJVPA. The utilities object to the filing of the application because Rule 16.4(d) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure requires that, if more than one year has elapsed since the effective date of the resolution proposed to be modified, the petitioner must explain why the petition could not have been presented within one year of the effective date of the resolution. The Commission accepted the application and herein resolves it because no party is prejudiced by its filing and the matter is one of public concern that is relevant to the ongoing oversight of the AB 117 CCA program.
Subsequently, on March 18, 2008, PG&E filed a motion seeking a hearing on the issues raised in this application and all bond and security issues the Commission agreed to consider in Resolution E-4133. This decision denies that motion on the basis that PG&E took the opportunity to address the issues in its response to the application and its motion did not make a convincing case that evidentiary hearings are required to resolve disputed issues of material facts. The Commission declines to expand the scope of this application to include all bond and security issues raised in Resolution E-4133.
