IV. Service List, Filing Requirements, Electronic Service Protocols

The OIR was served on a temporary service list, comprised of utility and non-utility Respondents and the service lists in eight resource-related proceedings. To create a permanent service list in this rulemaking, the Commission directed the following:¹¹

(1) Within 15 days of the date of mailing of this order, any individual or representative of an organization who wishes to be placed on the service list in this rulemaking must send a request to the Commission's Process Office.

(2) The request must be sent both electronically to the Process Office (Process_office@cpuc.ca.gov) and by hard copy to the Process Office at 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 2000, San Francisco, California 94102.

(3) The request must include the following: (a) this proceeding number, (b) the name of the individual/representative and organization (as appropriate), (c) mailing address, (d) electronic address, (e) telephone number, and (f) where to be listed on the service list (under the "appearances," "state service," or "information-only" categories).

Accordingly, all interested parties (not including Respondents) should follow these procedures if they wish to be placed on the permanent service list in this proceeding. All parties filing pre-PHC comments shall serve their comments on the service list posted as of May 5, 2006 at www.cpuc.ca.gov when those comments are due. If the Process Office is unable to compile the permanent service list by that date, pre-PHC comments should be served on Respondents and the service lists listed in my ruling below.

As provided for in the Commission's Rules, I will consider requests to be added to the permanent service list by persons attending the May 10, 2006 PHC in person and submitting an appearance form to me at that time. Those who demonstrate a plan to actively participate in the proceeding will be granted party status. Any others filing appearances will be granted Information Only or other appropriate status. However, I encourage all interested parties to follow the procedures set forth in the OIR, and summarized above, rather than waiting to attend in person at the PHC to file an appearance

All filings required by this ruling shall be filed at the Commission's Docket Office and served pursuant to the Electronic Service Protocols attached to the OIR and consistent with Rules 2.3 and 2.3.1.

IT IS RULED that:

1. As described in this ruling, a PHC will be held at 10:00 a.m., on Wednesday, May 10, 2006, at the Commission's Hearing Room, 505 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, California.

2. Any person who objects to the preliminary categorization set forth in the OIR shall raise such objection no later than 10 calendar days from the date the OIR was issued.

3. As directed in this ruling, pre-PHC comments addressing scoping and scheduling issues, including the need for evidentiary hearings, are due no later than May 5, 2006.

4. A permanent service list will be established as described in the OIR. If the Process Office is unable to compile the permanent service list by the due date for pre-PHC comments, parties should serve these comments on Respondents and the service lists described in #6 below.

5. The comments required by this ruling shall be filed at the Commission's Docket Office and served pursuant to the Electronic Service Protocols attached to the OIR and consistent with Rules 2.3 and 2.3.1

6. This ruling shall be served on the Respondents listed in Attachment 3 of the OIR and the service lists in the following proceedings:

· R.04-04-003 and R.06-02-013, the procurement rulemakings;

· R.03-10-003, the community choice aggregation rulemaking;

· R.01-08-028, the energy efficiency rulemaking or its successor rulemaking;

· R.04-04-026, the renewables portfolio standard rulemaking;

· I.00-11-001, the transmission planning investigation;

· R.04-01-026, the transmission assessment rulemaking;

· R.04-03-017, the distributed generation rulemaking; and

· R.04-04-025, the avoided cost rulemaking.

For the purpose of serving this ruling, those organizations and individuals listed under the state service list and information-only categories in the service lists above will be served electronically only.

Dated April 17, 2006, at San Francisco, California.

		/s/ MEG GOTTSTEIN
		Meg Gottstein Administrative Law Judge

This ruling seeks comments on the proposed scope, schedule, and questions related to the two major issue areas in this rulemaking: (1) threshold issues associated with considering the adoption and design of a GHG performance standard, (2) implementation issues associated with the load-based GHG emissions cap. Please identify any significant issue areas not captured in the lists below that should be addressed in either Phase 1 or 2, and explain why. In addition, present recommendations regarding the prioritization and staging of these issues.

Phase 1: Consideration of the GHG Performance Standard Policy Statement

1) Is a GHG emissions performance standard necessary and appropriate along with a load-based cap on GHG emissions?

2) Will a GHG emissions performance standard (such as the one adopted by the Commission in October 2005) achieve the Commission's goals as articulated in the Energy Action Plan and Commission decisions? How does it contribute to the environmental goals established by the Governor's Executive Order S-3-05?

3) If a performance standard is adopted, should it be developed:

(a) As an interim measure in the near-term, so it may guide ongoing procurement planning while the Commission takes the necessary steps to fully implement the load-based cap adopted in D.06-02-032, or

(b) With the intention to apply it concurrently with the load-based cap adopted by D.06-02-032?

4) If adopted, how should the GHG performance standard be integrated into the state's other GHG emissions policies, including:

(a) the carbon adder (D.04-12-048)?

(b) the procurement incentive framework (load-based GHG emissions cap) adopted in D.06-02-032?

(c) development of the long-term procurement filings in R.06-02-013?

5) Are there changes to the standard set forth in the October 2005 GHG Performance Standard Policy Statement that would further ensure achievement of these goals?

6) On what basis should the standard be applied: on the utility's entire long-term procurement portfolio, each individual long-term procurement contract, baseload facilities and contracts only, or another basis?

7) How should "long-term" procurement be defined: for contracts periods of three years or greater, five years or greater, or another time period?

8) What ratepayer costs would be associated with implementing the standard and how could these costs be mitigated?

9) If a GHG performance standard is adopted, what enforcement mechanisms would be appropriate and necessary?

10) In your opinion, would a GHG performance standard deter development of intensive GHG-emitting new generation infrastructure either within California or to serve California's load? Will it accelerate development of low GHG-emitting generation infrastructure either within California or to serve California's load? Why or why not?

11) How would the implementation of a GHG performance standard, such as the one envisioned in the October 2005 policy statement, impact the types of technologies being utilized for new generation facilities?

12) Should offsets be allowed? Are the issues associated with offsets for a GHG performance standard sufficiently similar to those associated with offsets for a load-based GHG emissions cap that the Commission could address these questions together?

13) Other issues or recommendations that we should consider that are not covered above?

Phase 2: Implementation Issues Associated with the Load-Based GHG Cap

The following is a listing of key issues that will need to be addressed in implementing a load-based cap, including the CCAR registration requirements discussed by the Commission in D.06-02-032. Additional questions are also posed for issue areas #1 and #2.

Phase 2 Issue Areas:

1) Establish GHG emissions reporting standards and requirements, including treatment of GHG emissions from non-specific resource contracts. Explore with CCAR ways in which their protocols may need to be modified to include generation/facility specific data to fit within a load-based cap.

2) In conjunction with work in Issue area #1 above:

(a) Establish a date by which all power purchase agreements that PG&E, SDG&E and SCE sign for power will include a provision requiring supplier registration with the CCAR, and

(b) Develop a method for assigning emissions values to supplies that are unregistered with the CCAR.

3) Establish the GHG emissions baseline for each LSE.

4) Establish GHG emission reduction requirements over time for LSEs as a whole and for each individual LSE, relative to the baseline.

5) Adopt and administer a process for allocating emission allowances.

6) Evaluate and consider for adoption various flexible compliance mechanisms, including but not limited to multi-year compliance periods, early action credits, banking provisions, in-state and out-of-state trading options, emission offsets, among others.

7) Develop appropriate performance incentives and penalties. Explore the concept of allowance sale incentives, consistent with the direction in D.06-02-032.

8) Evaluate the costs and benefits of the GHG emissions cap and associated flexible compliance options that are developed for Commission consideration during the implementation phase. Develop appropriate scenario analysis for this purpose.

9) Address how energy service providers and community choice aggregators will be included under the load-based cap incentive framework. In particular, per D.06-02-032, identify issues for which these energy service providers, community choice aggregators and the utilities should be subject to the same terms and conditions of GHG reduction requirements and associated caps, and those where differences may be appropriate.

10) Define the steps to take to ensure that GHG emissions associated with customer use of natural gas are incorporated into a procurement incentive framework for the future.

11) Other significant issues not covered in this list.

Specific Questions Regarding Issues (1) and (2) above:

a) How accurate are the LSEs' current emissions estimates, including emissions associated with imported power and non-unit-specific power contracts? What, if any, reporting or accounting improvements are needed to ensure that emissions reported reflect actual emissions associated with LSE load in order to implement a load based cap-and-trade program?

b) Do we have enough information to account for the emissions characteristics of the Department of Water Resources power contracts?

c) Do we have enough information to account for the emissions characteristics of liquidated damages contracts generally?

d) What improvements should be made to improve the accuracy of LSE emissions reporting, especially as it relates to non-unit-specific power contracts?

e) Should the CCAR's reporting protocols be modified to allow for facility-based registration and reporting for entities who sell power to LSEs? If so, how would facility-based reporting address entities who do not offer unit-specific contracts? What other options do you recommend that would capture independently verified emissions values and estimates for LSE contracted power?

f) What emissions information should be included in LSE procurement contracts? And how should this information be verified?

g) In the absence of independent verification of resource-specific or contract-specific emissions values, or in order to deter inappropriate "contract shuffling," should a default emissions factor be assigned at the value of coal for any non-renewable supplies of electricity with fossil fuel emissions? Or should the emissions value be assigned at an average portfolio level or some other level?

h) What modifications or updates should be made to existing emission factors and estimates, if any? Are the estimates used by CCAR the best estimates available?; are they adequate to support a load-based cap?; if improvements are needed, how can they be accomplished in the near term?

i) What are the prospects for a region-wide generation attribute tracking system? What work should be done in California and, if appropriate, elsewhere to support a multi-state approach to this issue?

(END OF ATTACHMENT)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that I have by mail and electronically this day served a true copy of the original attached Administrative Law Judge's Ruling and Notice of Prehearing Conference on Respondents and all appearances of record in: R. 04-04-003 and R.06-02-013, R.03-10-003, R.01-08-028, R.04-04-026, I.00-11-001, R.04-01-026, R.04-03-017, R.04-04-025, or their attorneys of record. I have also served electronically those organizations and individuals listed under the state service and information-only categories in the proceedings referenced above.

Dated April 17, 2006, at San Francisco, California.

/s/ ELVIRA NIZ

Elvira Niz

NOTICE

Parties should notify the Process Office, Public Utilities Commission, 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 2000, San Francisco, CA 94102, of any change of address to insure that they continue to receive documents. You must indicate the proceeding number on the service list on which your name appears.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The Commission's policy is to schedule hearings (meetings, workshops, etc.) in locations that are accessible to people with disabilities. To verify that a particular location is accessible, call: Calendar Clerk (415) 703-1203.

If specialized accommodations for the disabled are needed, e.g., sign language interpreters, those making the arrangements must call the Public Advisor at (415) 703-2074,

TTY 1-866-836-7825 or (415) 703-5282 at least three working days in advance of the event.

¹¹ OIR, Section V.