ALJ/CAB/jyc Date of Issuance 10/17/2008

Decision 08-10-035 October 16, 2008

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Order Instituting Rulemaking to Integrate Procurement Policies and Consider Long-Term Procurement Plans.

Rulemaking 06-02-013 (Filed February 16, 2006)

DECISION GRANTING INTERVENOR COMPENSATION TO AGLET CONSUMER ALLIANCE AND WOMEN'S ENERGY MATTERS FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO DECISION 06-07-029

This decision awards $18,130.28 to Aglet Consumer Alliance (Aglet) and $12,847.76 to Women's Energy Matters (WEM) for their substantial contributions to Decision (D.) 06-07-029 in Phase I of this Rulemaking. From the amounts requested, the intervenor compensation award represents a decrease of $4,348.98 for Aglet and of $5,865.00 for WEM. Today's award payment will be allocated to the affected utilities. This proceeding remains open for Phase II.

1. Background

This rulemaking was initiated on February 16, 2006, to integrate all procurement policies and related programs and review the need for a policy to ensure adequate contracting for new electric resources. Phase I of this proceeding focused on how to incentivize new generation in California that would benefit both system users and the bundled customers of the three investor-owned utilities (IOUs). The problem was easily identified: neither the IOUs nor the independent power producers (IPP) were willing to take the financial risk of investing in new generation facilities without some support from the Commission. The Commission was faced with the urgent need to bring new capacity online as early as 2009. The IOUs were reluctant to burden their bundled ratepayers with the entire cost of the new projects, especially in light of the fact that the resources would benefit the system as a whole, and the IPPs could not finance new projects without long-term contracts. As a result, an impasse developed whereby electricity resources were scarce and the Commission opened this rulemaking to investigate whether it should take immediate and affirmative action to assure construction of adequate new capacity.

The only complete solution presented was the Joint Parties' (JP) proposal. D.06-07-029 adopted on a limited, transitional basis the cost allocation mechanism reflected in a modified version of the JP's proposal and concluded Phase I of the proceeding. While neither Aglet nor WEM were parties to the proposal, they participated actively in Phase I.