6. Assignment of Proceeding

Michael R. Peevey is the assigned Commissioner and Anne E. Simon and Burton W. Mattson are the assigned ALJs for this proceeding.

1. It is reasonable to determine the RPS procurement baselines of BVES and MU in accordance with D.07-03-046.

2. It is reasonable to determine the RPS procurement baselines of PacifiCorp and Sierra in accordance with D.07-03-046, with an adjustment to use the proportion of their load that is sales to California retail customers.

3. It is reasonable to determine the IPT and APT of BVES and MU in accordance with D.06-10-050, as implemented by the Director of Energy Division.

4. It is reasonable to determine the IPT and APT of PacifiCorp and Sierra in accordance with D.06-10-050, with an adjustment to use the proportion of their load that is sales to California retail customers, as implemented by the Director of Energy Division.

5. Because it will aid the administration of the RPS program and be fair to BVES ratepayers, it is reasonable to allow BVES to defer its IPTs for the years 2004, 2005, and 2006 to 2007.

6. Consistent with our practice for the large utilities, it is reasonable to set a 2007 APT for BVES and to allow BVES to carry a deficit of up to 100% of its cumulative 2007 IPT (i.e., its 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 IPTs) without explanation, so long as this amount is fully made up within three years.

7. In view of the RPS target of 20% of retail sales from RPS-eligible resources by 2010, it is reasonable to require BVES to meet its APT for 2008 and succeeding years, subject to the flexible compliance mechanisms available to all RPS-obligated LSEs.

8. Because it will aid the administration of the RPS program and be fair to PacifiCorp ratepayers, it is reasonable to allow PacifiCorp to defer its IPTs for the years 2004, 2005, and 2006 to 2007.

9. Consistent with our practice for the large utilities, it is reasonable to set a 2007 APT for PacifiCorp and to allow PacifiCorp to carry a deficit of up to 100% of its cumulative 2007 IPT without explanation, so long as this amount is fully made up within three years.

10. In view of the RPS target of 20% of retail sales from RPS-eligible resources by 2010, it is reasonable to require PacifiCorp to meet its APT for 2008 and succeeding years, subject to the flexible compliance mechanisms available to all RPS-obligated LSEs.

11. During the period extending from January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2006, MU did not have an investment grade credit rating as determined by at least two major rating agencies.

12. During the period extending from January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2006, MU was not able to procure RPS-eligible renewable energy resources on reasonable terms that could be financed if necessary.

13. Consistent with our practice for PG&E and SCE, it is reasonable to defer MU's IPTs for the period January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2006 to its 2007 RPS compliance year.

14. Consistent with our practice for PG&E and SCE, it is reasonable to set a 2007 APT for MU and to allow MU to carry a deficit of up to 100% of its cumulative 2007 IPT without explanation, so long as this amount is fully made up within three years.

15. In view of the RPS target of 20% of retail sales from RPS-eligible renewable resources by 2010, it is reasonable to require MU to meet its APT for 2008 and succeeding years, subject to the flexible compliance mechanisms available to all RPS-obligated LSEs.

16. During the period extending from January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2006, Sierra did not have an investment grade credit rating as determined by at least two major rating agencies.

17. During the period extending from January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2006, Sierra was not able to procure RPS-eligible renewable energy resources on reasonable terms that could be financed if necessary.

18. Consistent with our practice for PG&E and SCE, it is reasonable to defer Sierra's IPTs for the period January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2006 to its 2007 RPS compliance year.

19. Consistent with our practice for PG&E and SCE, it is reasonable to set a 2007 APT for Sierra and to allow Sierra to carry a deficit of up to 100% of its cumulative 2007 IPT without explanation, so long as this amount is fully made up within three years.

20. In view of the RPS target of 20% of retail sales from RPS-eligible resources by 2010, it is reasonable to require Sierra to meet its APT for 2008 and succeeding years, subject to the flexible compliance mechanisms available to all RPS-obligated LSEs.

21. In order to implement § 399.17, it is reasonable to accept the 2007 IRPs of PacifiCorp and Sierra.

22. To promote uniform administration of the RPS program, it is reasonable to set a schedule and methodology for multi-jurisdictional utilities to file IRPs and annual supplements in subsequent years.

23. In order to avoid unfairness due to the timing of this order, it is reasonable not to require annual supplements for 2007 or 2008, and to allow PacifiCorp and Sierra to file their 2009 annual supplements at the same time as the large utilities file their 2009 RPS procurement plans.

24. It is reasonable to allow SMJUs to reflect any reporting changes necessary to conform to the requirements of this order in their August 2008 reports.

25. In order to ensure uniform administration of the RPS program, it is reasonable to require SMJUs to send copies of all contracts for procurement of RPS-eligible energy to Energy Division, as and when requested by the Director of Energy Division, for reporting and compliance verification purposes.

26. New West Energy, a respondent in this proceeding, cancelled its California registration as an energy service provider in February 2006.

27. The Commission certified SJVPA's CCA implementation plan on April 30, 2007.

1. The RPS procurement baselines of BVES and MU should be determined in accordance with D.07-03-046.

2. The RPS procurement baselines of PacifiCorp and Sierra should be determined in accordance with D.07-03-046, with an adjustment to use the proportion of their load that is sales to California retail customers.

3. The IPT and APT of BVES and MU should be determined in accordance with D.06-10-050, as implemented by the Director of Energy Division.

4. The IPT and APT of PacifiCorp and Sierra should be determined in accordance with D.06-10-050, with an adjustment to use the proportion of their load that is sales to California retail customers, as implemented by the Director of Energy Division.

5. BVES should be allowed to defer its IPTs for the years 2004, 2005, and 2006 to 2007. Because of this deferral, BVES has no APT for 2004, 2005, or 2006.

6. BVES should have an APT for 2007 and be allowed to carry a deficit of up to 100% of its cumulative 2007 IPT without explanation, so long as this amount is fully made up within three years.

7. BVES should be required to meet its APT for 2008 and succeeding years, subject to the flexible compliance mechanisms available to all RPS-obligated LSEs.

8. PacifiCorp should be allowed to defer its IPTs for the years 2004, 2005, and 2006 to 2007. Because of this deferral, PacifiCorp has no APT for 2004, 2005, or 2006.

9. PacifiCorp should have an APT for 2007 and be allowed to carry a deficit of up to 100% of its cumulative 2007 IPT without explanation, so long as this amount is fully made up within three years.

10. PacifiCorp should be required to meet its APT for 2008 and succeeding years, subject to the flexible compliance mechanisms available to all RPS-obligated LSEs.

11. The same conclusions about the effect of their lack of creditworthiness on their RPS procurement obligations that we applied to PG&E and SCE in D.03-06-071 should be applied to MU and Sierra.

12. MU and Sierra were subject to IPT and APT obligations for the period January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2006, but had no obligation to procure RPS-eligible energy during that period.

13. The repeal of former section 399.14(a)(1)(A), effective January 1, 2007, reinstated the obligations of MU and Sierra to procure RPS-eligible energy to meet their RPS obligations.

14. MU should be allowed to defer its IPTs for the years 2004, 2005, and 2006 to 2007. Because of this deferral, MU has no APT for 2004, 2005, or 2006.

15. MU should have an APT for 2007 and be allowed to carry a deficit of up to 100% of its cumulative 2007 IPT without explanation, so long as this amount is fully made up within three years.

16. MU should be required to meet its APT for 2008 and succeeding years, subject to the flexible compliance mechanisms available to all RPS-obligated LSEs.

17. Sierra should be allowed to defer its IPTs for the years 2004, 2005, and 2006 to 2007. Because of this deferral, Sierra has no APT for 2004, 2005, or 2006.

18. Sierra should have an IPT for 2007 and be allowed to carry a deficit of up to 100% of its cumulative 2007 IPT without explanation, so long as this amount is fully made up within three years.

19. Sierra should be required to meet its APT for 2008 and succeeding years, subject to the flexible compliance mechanisms available to all RPS-obligated LSEs.

20. MU and Sierra may voluntarily procure renewable energy under the RPS program at any time during the period when they are not creditworthy for RPS procurement purposes.

21. Because of the timing of this decision, the 2007 IRPs of PacifiCorp and Sierra should be accepted without supplementation.

22. PacifiCorp and Sierra should not be required to file annual supplements to their IRPs for 2007 or 2008.

23. In order to comply with § 399.17(d), supplements to IRPs in years when an IRP is filed should include plans for meeting California's APT, flexible compliance, and procurement contracting to meet California's RPS. They should also include information on the additional topics required of the large utilities in their RPS procurement plans for that year, as set forth by the assigned ALJ or assigned Commissioner in R.06-05-027 or its successor. They should explain how the IRP and supplement meet the requirements of §  399.17(d).

24. Supplements to IRPs in years when an IRP is not filed should include an overview of California RPS procurement to date; projected California retail sales out to one year after the next expected IRP; plans for flexible compliance and procurement contracting to meet California's RPS; workplan to reach 20% by 2010, or any succeeding binding RPS goal; and any other information required by the assigned ALJ or assigned Commissioner in R.06-05-027 or its successor.

25. PacifiCorp and Sierra should file their IRPs and supplements according to the schedule set out in Appendix A. This schedule may be varied by the assigned Commissioner or assigned ALJ in R.06-05-027 and its successor, or, if no such proceeding is open, by the Director of Energy Division.

26. SMJUs should reflect any reporting changes necessary to conform to the requirements of this order in their August 2008 reports.

27. SMJUs should use the same flexible compliance mechanisms as other RPS-obligated LSEs, including the same penalties for noncompliance, with the exceptions for 2004-2006 and 2007 noted above.

28. SMJUs should follow the same RPS reporting and verification requirements as all other RPS-obligated LSEs.

29. SMJUs should send copies of all contracts for procurement of RPS-eligible energy to Energy Division, as and when requested by the Director of Energy Division, for reporting and compliance verification purposes.

30. New West Energy should be removed as a respondent in this proceeding.

31. SJVPA should be added as a respondent in this proceeding.

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The renewables portfolio standard (RPS) procurement baselines of Bear Valley Electric Service (BVES) and Mountain Utilities (MU) shall be determined in accordance with Decision (D.) 07-03-046.

2. The RPS procurement baselines of PacifiCorp and Sierra Pacific Power Company (Sierra) shall be determined in accordance with D.07-03-046, with an adjustment to use the proportion of their load that is sales to California retail customers, as implemented by the Director of Energy Division.

3. The incremental procurement target (IPT) and annual procurement target (APT) of BVES and MU shall be determined in accordance with D.06-10-050, as implemented by the Director of Energy Division.

4. The IPT and APT of PacifiCorp and Sierra shall be determined in accordance with D.06-10-050, with an adjustment to use the proportion of their load that is sales to California retail customers, as implemented by the Director of Energy Division.

5. The assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in this proceeding or in Rulemaking (R.) 06-05-027 is authorized to issue any rulings necessary to facilitate the acquisition of appropriate information for the development of baselines, IPTs, and APTs for all four small and multi-jurisdictional utilities (SMJUs).

6. Each SMJU (BVES, MU, PacifiCorp, and Sierra) shall be allowed to defer its IPTs for the years 2004, 2005, and 2006 to 2007.

7. Each SMJU shall have an APT for 2007, and shall be allowed to carry a deficit of up to 100% of its cumulative 2007 IPT without explanation, so long as this amount is fully made up within three years.

8. Each SMJU shall be required to meet its APT for 2008 and succeeding years, subject to the flexible compliance mechanisms available to all RPS-obligated load-serving entities (LSEs).

9. The 2007 integrated resource plans (IRPs) of PacifiCorp and Sierra are accepted without need for supplementation.

10. PacifiCorp and Sierra shall file their IRPs and annual supplements for future years in accordance with the schedule in Appendix A. This schedule may be varied by the assigned Commissioner or assigned ALJ in R.06-05-027 or its successor, or, if no such proceeding is open, by the Director of Energy Division.

11. Supplements to IRPs in years when an IRP is filed shall include plans for meeting California's APT, flexible compliance, and procurement contracting to meet California's RPS. They shall also include information on the additional topics required of the large utilities in their RPS procurement plans for that year, as set forth by the assigned ALJ or Assigned Commissioner in R.06-05-027 or its successor. The supplements shall also include an explanation of how the IRP and supplement comply with §  399.17(d).

12. Supplements to IRPs in years when an IRP is not filed should include an overview of California RPS procurement to date; projected retail sales out to one year after the next expected IRP; plans for flexible compliance and procurement contracting to meet California's RPS; workplan to reach 20% by 2010, or any succeeding binding RPS goal; and any other information required by the assigned ALJ or assigned Commissioner in R.06-05-027 or its successor. The assigned ALJ and assigned Commissioner in R.06-05-027 or its successor are authorized to vary these requirements, as appropriate.

13. PacifiCorp and Sierra may include with their supplements any other information they deem necessary to provide an accurate picture of their California RPS procurement planning.

14. SMJUs shall reflect any reporting changes necessary to conform to the requirements of this decision in their August 2008 reports.

15. SMJUs shall use the same flexible compliance mechanisms as other RPS-obligated LSEs, including the same penalty provisions for noncompliance, with the exceptions for the years 2004-2006 and 2007 noted above.

16. SMJUs shall follow the same RPS reporting and verification requirements as all other RPS-obligated LSEs.

17. BVES shall seek approval of any contracts for the procurement of RPS-eligible energy by application, rather than by advice letter, so long as any cap on BVES electricity charges is authorized by this Commission.

18. Sierra shall submit by advice letter any request that this Commission determine that a particular long-term contract with a new facility is priced at or below the RPS market price referent.

19. Sierra may request recovery of incremental and administrative costs associated with the annual supplements from its California customers in its general rate case.

20. If and when MU has a plan for using biodiesel for RPS compliance that is approved by the California Energy Commission, MU may submit an advice letter to make any changes needed to its Diesel Fuel Balancing Account.

21. SMJUs shall send copies of contracts for procurement of RPS-eligible energy to Energy Division, as and when requested by the Director of Energy Division, for reporting and compliance purposes.

22. New West Energy shall be removed as a respondent in this proceeding.

23. San Joaquin Valley Power Authority shall be added as a respondent in this proceeding.

This order is effective today.

Dated May 29, 2008, at San Francisco, California.

APPENDIX A

SCHEDULE FOR IRPs AND SUPPLEMENTS

Year

PACIFICORP

SIERRA

2008

File 2009 annual supplement at same time as large IOUs file 2009 procurement plans

File 2009 annual supplement at same time as large IOUs file 2009 procurement plans

2009

File 2009 IRP when filed with other jurisdictions; supplement within 30 days

File 2010 annual supplement at same time as large IOUs file 2010 procurement plans

2010

File 2011 annual supplement at same time as large IOUs file 201l procurement plans

File 2010 IRP when filed with other jurisdictions; supplement within 30 days

2011

File 2011 IRP when filed with other jurisdictions; supplement within 30 days

File 2012 annual supplement at same time as large IOUs file 2011 procurement plans

2012

File 2013 annual supplement at same time as large IOUs file 2013 procurement plans

File 2013 annual supplement at same time as large IOUs file 2013 procurement plans

(END OF APPENDIX A)

Previous PageTop Of PageGo To First Page