2. Procedural Background
In 2006, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill (SB) 107 (Simitian), Stats. 2006, ch. 464, which made a number of clarifications and changes to the RPS program established by SB 1078 (Sher), Stats. 202, ch. 516, and implemented through a series of our decisions in Rulemaking (R.) 01-10-024, R.04-04-026, R.06-05-027, and this proceeding.
SB 107 was enacted during the period for comments on the proposed decision (PD) that became Decision (D.) 06-10-019. Several parties suggested that, since SB 107 would make a number of changes to the legislative framework for the RPS program if signed into law by the Governor, comments on the PD should also include comments on the potential impact of SB 107. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) therefore granted an extension of time for filing comments, including authorization for the parties to address not only the usual topics within the scope of Rule 14.3 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure,1 but also the potential impact of SB 107 on the topics addressed in the PD.
After considering the comments, we concluded in D.06-10-019 that the record in this proceeding at the time of the comments did not support taking steps to implement any of SB 107's elements without fuller consideration. We identified a number of tasks related to SB 107 and stated our intention to pursue their implementation during 2007.
At the prehearing conference (PHC) held November 2, 2006, in this proceeding, the parties engaged in a wide-ranging discussion of implementation of SB 107, which would become effective January 1, 2007. As part of that discussion, new § 399.14(b) 2 was considered. Parties agreed that the record developed in the evidentiary hearing on RPS procurement using contracts of less than 10 years, held in May 2006, was clearly relevant, and should be used, as appropriate, in developing the implementation of § 399.14(b).
Some parties, noting that the requirements of this section would impact the 2007 procurement plans and solicitations of the large utilities, sought expedited consideration of implementing new § 399.14(b). On balance, the ALJ determined that a prompt, though not expedited, approach to implementation of § 399.14(b) was appropriate. The ALJ 's Ruling Regarding Filing of Comments on Minimum RPS Procurement from Long-Term Contracts and New Facilities (November 8, 2006) (Comment Ruling) set out a number of questions for the parties to consider.3 Comments were filed December 1, 2006.4 Reply comments were filed December 15, 2006.5 These filings were incorporated in the schedule set in the Assigned Commissioner's Ruling and Scoping Memo (December 29, 2006). The issues related to § 399.14(b) were submitted December 29, 2006.
1 Unless otherwise indicated, all subsequent citations to rules refer to the Rules of Practice and Procedure, which are codified at Chapter 1, Division 1 of Title 20 of the California Code of Regulations, and citations to sections refer to the Public Utilities Code.
2 Section 399.14(b) provides:
The commission may authorize a retail seller to enter into a contract of less than 10 years' duration with an eligible renewable energy resource, subject to the following conditions:
(1) No supplemental energy payments shall be awarded for a contract of less than 10 years' duration. The ineligibility of contracts of less than 10 years' duration for supplemental energy payments pursuant to this paragraph does not constitute an insufficiency in supplemental energy payments pursuant to paragraph (4) or (5) of subdivision (b) of Section 399.15.
(2) The commission has established, for each retail seller, minimum quantities of eligible renewable energy resources to be procured either through contracts of at least 10 years' duration or from new facilities commencing commercial operations on or after January 1, 2005.
3 Parties were asked to consider and address these issues:
1. What is the time frame of the established minimums? Should they be set on an annual basis? Once for the duration of the RPS program? For some other interval?
2. Should minimums be established for each retail seller individually? For each class of retail seller? For some other grouping of RPS-obligated retail sellers?
3. Should minimums be established with respect to the RPS annual procurement target? With respect to the incremental procurement target? As a percentage of actual RPS-eligible procurement? As a percentage of total retail sales? On some other quantitative basis?
4. Should separate minimums be established for: (1) procurement through contracts of at least 10 years' duration and (2) procurement from facilities commencing commercial operations on or after January 1, 2005? Should there be one overall minimum that can be met through either form of procurement?
5. What should the minimum quantities be?
6. Any other topics the parties believe to be relevant.
4 Comments were filed by Aglet Consumer Alliance (Aglet), Alliance for Retail Energy Markets (AReM), Central California Power (CCP), City and County of San Francisco (CCSF), Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA), Green Power Institute (GPI), Mountain Utilities (MU), Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), Pilot Power Group (Pilot Power), Southern California Edison Company (SCE), San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E), Sempra Energy Solutions (SES), and The Utility Reform Network (TURN). With permission of the ALJ, PacifiCorp and Sierra Pacific Power filed late comments.
5 Reply comments were filed by Aglet, AReM, CCSF, MU, PG&E, Pilot Power, SCE, SDG&E, SES, TURN, and Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).
