2. Procedural Background

Reporting and compliance fundamentals are stated in the implementing legislation. Requirements and terms are defined, discussed, explained and applied in several Commission decisions. These include Commission orders initiating the RPS Program, establishing initial procurement targets, and setting reporting templates.⁴ They are also addressed in several CEC documents, including those which establish eligibility for the program, state eligibility for supplemental energy payments, and verify qualifying energy deliveries.⁵

The legislation is in some ways relatively complex, and Commission implementation began quickly. As a result, Commission development of reporting obligations and flexible compliance options has taken place in several decisions since 2003.

By notice published in the Commission's Daily Calendar beginning January 24, 2006, the ED staff announced that it would circulate proposals addressing reporting and compliance requirements, and conduct a workshop on February 16, 2006 to discuss proposals and receive comment. Among the goals was to summarize in one document the reporting and compliance rules developed over several years in several decisions and documents, thereby assisting the Commission and parties with reporting, measurement of progress, and enforcement.

On February 15, 2006, the Commission's ED staff served its White Paper, titled "RPS Annual Procurement Targets: Reporting and Compliance" (hereinafter referred to as the initial proposal). On February 16, 2006, staff conducted a workshop. By ruling dated February 23, 2006, the ED staff paper was served on the service list, with dates established for the filing of comments and reply comments.

On or before March 13, 2006, comments were filed and served by 11 parties: Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), Southern California Edison Company (SCE), San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E), Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA), The Green Power Institute (GPI), The Utility Reform Network (TURN), Union of Concerned Scientist (UCS), Alliance for Retail Energy Markets (AReM), Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies (CEERT), City and County of San Francisco (CCSF), and City of Chula Vista (Chula Vista). On March 22, 2006, reply comments were filed and served by 9 parties: PG&E, SCE, SDG&E, DRA, GPI, TURN, UCS, AReM and CEERT.

⁴ For example, D.03-06-071, D.04-06-014, and D.05-07-039.

⁵ For example, Renewables Portfolio Standard Eligibility Guidebook (updated April 2006), New Renewable Facilities Program Guidebook (updated April 2006), Overall Guidebook for the Renewable Energy Program (updated April 2006), and Renewables Portfolio Standard Procurement Verification Report (February 2006).