Lynch Ruling Consolidating A.01-04-012 w/ I.00-11-001 & Denying PG&E to W/draw

Motion and Positions

In its motion, PG&E argues that its application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) should be withdrawn for several reasons. Because the MOU presents a lower cost alternative to it constructing a wholly owned PG&E project, PG&E states that it will not build the project anticipated in A.01-04-012. Therefore, it argues that the application should be withdrawn. PG&E asserts that if it were to construct the Path 15 upgrades alone, the cost of designing, permitting, and constructing such upgrades ultimately would be borne only by customers of the investor-owned utilities. PG&E asserts that under the MOU project, those costs will be spread over a larger number of customers, including customers of the participants in TANC and Western, reducing ratepayer costs. (PG&E Reply, pp. 12-13.) PG&E believes pursuing both state and federal action on this project will result in duplicative costs.

The ISO does not take a position regarding whether the application can or should be withdrawn. Instead, the ISO recommends that the Commission stay further proceedings in A.01-04-012 for a minimum of 90 days. The ISO argues that a stay will allow for execution of the agreements anticipated by the MOU so that parties may avoid additional efforts associated with evidentiary hearings and briefing in the event that such agreements are successfully reached.

ORA opposes allowing PG&E to withdraw its application. ORA argues that PG&E would be an owner in the MOU transmission project and therefore PG&E's involvement requires a CPCN from the Commission. In addition, ORA believes that the Commission is the only venue where a review of the economics of either a standalone PG&E Path 15 project or the MOU project will be reviewed and that we must understand the costs and benefits to ratepayers under either development approach. ORA recommends that PG&E be directed to submit supplemental testimony demonstrating why the MOU approach to the project would result in an improved level of ratepayer benefits compared to a standalone PG&E project.