ALJ/MEB/avs Date of Issuance 2/23/2012
Decision 12-02-035 February 16, 2012
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Application of Southern California Edison Company (U338E) for Authority to Implement and Recover in Rates the Cost of its Proposed Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Program. |
Application 08-03-015 (Filed March 27, 2008) |
DECISION PARTIALLY GRANTING SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
EDISON COMPANY'S PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF
DECISION 09-06-049 (SPVP) AND MAKING CONFORMING
CHANGES TO DECISION 10-12-048 (RAM)
Table of Contents
Title Page
DECISION PARTIALLY GRANTING SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY'S PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF DECISION 09-06-049 (SPVP) AND MAKING CONFORMING CHANGES TO DECISION 10-12-048 (RAM) 22
3.2. Reduce UOG to No More Than 125 MW 1515
3.3. Reduce IPP to No More Than 125 MW 1919
3.4. 20% Ground-Mounted But Other Existing Parameters Unchanged 2020
ATTACHMENT 1 - Summary of Solar Photovoltaic Program (SPVP) for Southern California Edison Company
ATTACHMENT 2 - Summary of Renewable Auction Mechanism (RAM)
Program Rules
DECISION PARTIALLY GRANTING SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
EDISON COMPANY'S PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF
DECISION 09-06-049 (SPVP) AND MAKING CONFORMING
CHANGES TO DECISION 10-12-048 (RAM)
We partially grant Southern California Edison Company's petition for modification of the Solar Photovoltaic Program (SPVP) adopted in Decision (D.) 09-06-049. As adopted in 2009, the SPVP involves 250 megawatts (MW) of solar photovoltaic generation to be owned by the utility, and 250 MW to be owned by independent power producers. As modified, the program will be no more than 125 MW of utility ownership, no more than 125 MW of independent power producer ownership, and 225 MW to be procured through the Renewable Auction Mechanism program. We do this to reduce costs, promote simplicity, maximize program efficiency, and minimize market disruption. We reduce our previous finding of the total amount of reasonable program costs to track the program changes adopted here. We also make conforming changes to the Renewable Auction Mechanism program by modifying D.10-12-048. The proceeding is closed.
1. Background
On June 22, 2009, we issued our decision adopting a solar photovoltaic program (SPVP) for Southern California Edison Company (SCE). (See Decision (D.) 09-06-049 in this proceeding, Application (A.) 08-03-015.) The adopted SPVP is a five-year program to develop 500 megawatts (MW) of direct current (DC) output from solar photovoltaic (PV) facilities on existing commercial rooftops using facilities generally in the size range of one to two MW per project. The SPVP is composed of 250 MW of utility-owned generation (UOG), and 250 MW of power purchase agreements (PPA) with independent power producers (IPP).
On December 17, 2010, we issued a decision adopting a Renewable Auction Mechanism (RAM) as part of the Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) program. (See D.10-12-048 in Rulemaking (R.) 08-08-009.) RAM is a new procurement process for utility purchases from IPPs of electricity generated from eligible renewable facilities up to 20 MW per project. Our initial implementation of RAM is in a two-year program for the three largest investor-owned utilities (IOUs) to purchase at least 1,000 MW of electricity generated by facilities using renewable resources.1 SCE's portion of the total 1,000 MW is 498.4 MW.2
On February 11, 2011, SCE filed a petition for modification of D.09-06-049 in A.08-03-015. SCE seeks to (a) reduce the 250 MW UOG portion to no more than 125 MW, (b) reduce the 250 MW IPP portion to no more than 125 MW, and (c) reassign the remaining 250 MW to a separate competitive solicitation within the SPVP called "IPP Revised." SCE proposes for the UOG and IPP portions that the current 10% limitation on ground-mounted installations be increased to 20%, but that other parameters remain unchanged. SCE proposes that IPP Revised remain a five-year PV program exclusively targeted on solar installations, but recommends limited changes to permit procurement of lower cost solar facilities.
On or before March 14, 2011, responses in support or partial support were filed by six parties.3 Responses in opposition or partial opposition were filed by seven parties.4
On March 24, 2011, SCE filed a reply. In addition to supporting its petition, SCE recommends that the majority of the IPP Revised solicitation parameters be established through the advice letter process.
By ruling dated November 2, 2011, the Commission notified parties that it may consider changes to RAM (D.10-12-048 in R.08-08-009) as part of considering changes to SPVP. The ruling stated that these changes, if any, will be considered in SCE's SPVP proceeding (A.08-03-015), and set a schedule for comments.
On November 7, 2011 a response in opposition was filed by Clean Coalition, and a response in conditional support was filed by the Solar Alliance.5 On November 8, 2011, a late-response was filed by Northern California Basic Crafts Alliance (Basic Crafts Alliance). On November 10, 2011, SCE filed a reply.
1 The California Energy Commission (CEC) certifies RPS eligibility of generation facilities using one or more of the following 15 CEC-identified categories of renewable resources or fuels, including PV: (1) biodiesel; (2) biogas (including pipeline biomethane); (3) biomass; (4) conduit hydroelectric; (5) digester gas; (6) fuel cells using renewable fuels; (7) geothermal; (8) hydroelectric incremental generation from efficiency improvements; (9) landfill gas; (10) municipal solid waste; (11) ocean wave, ocean thermal, and tidal current; (12) photovoltaic; (13) small hydroelectric (30 megawatts or less); (14) solar thermal electric; and (15) wind. (See Renewables Portfolio Standard Eligibility Guidebook, Fourth Edition, California Energy Commission, Efficiency and Renewable Energy Division, Publication Number: CEC-300-2010-007-CMF; January 2011 at 14.)
2 SCE has applied 144 MW from its 2010 Renewable Standard Contract (RSC) Program to its total RAM allotment of 498.4 MW, leaving 354.4 MW. (D.10-12-048 at 32 and Appendix A at 1; Resolution E-4445 at 17-18.)
3 Responses in support or partial support were filed by Silverado Power, LLC; Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA); The Utility Reform Network (TURN); Independent Energy Producers Association (IEP); the Greenlining Institute (Greenlining); and Recurrent Energy.
4 Responses in opposition or partial opposition were filed by California Solar Energy Industries Association; the Solar Alliance; jointly by SolarCity, Solyndra LLC, and United Solar Ovonic (Joint Solar Parties); CAlifornians for Renewable Energy, Inc. (CARE); and Commercial Solar Solutions, LLC (CSS). A response in opposition was served by the Vote Solar Initiative, but not filed. The Vote Solar Initiative response is given the same weight as informal communication with the Commission (e.g., letter).
5 On January 6, 2012, Solar Alliance filed a notice in this proceeding that, effective January 1, 2012, it had merged with the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), and that for all purposes going forward the name SEIA should be used in place of the name Solar Alliance. For references after January 1, 2012, the name SEIA is used herein.
