Mattson Interim Opinion on Interruptible Programs and Curtailment Priorities

2. Procedural Background

This proceeding was divided into two phases. (Scoping Memo and Ruling, December 12, 2000.) Phase 1 addressed interruptible programs and curtailment priorities for the near term, with a focus on Summer 2001.¹ Phase 2 addresses these issues for the period after Summer 2001.

2.1. Initial Phase 2 Record

A prehearing conference (PHC) regarding Phase 2 matters was held on September 7, 2001. The Phase 2 Scoping Memo and Ruling was issued on September 21, 2001.² The Scoping Memo identifies four core areas for Phase 2, and states several specific issues within the four areas.

As provided in the Scoping Memo, the record is based on filed and served documents in Phase 2. Those documents include various reports, comments, reply comments, proposals, revised proposals, letters, petitions, and other pleadings described below.

On June 7, 2001, utilities began filing and serving monthly reports on interruptible and outage programs. On September 28, 2001, the Commission's Water Division filed and served a report regarding the effect of rotating outages on water and sewer utilities. Comments were filed and served by the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA), Coachella Valley Water District, Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA), Internal Services Department of the County of Los Angeles (LAC), and City and County of San Francisco (CCSF).

On October 12, 2001, respondent utilities filed and served reports on hospitals with fewer than 100 beds, SNFs, and proposals for curtailment priorities recognizing the effect of extreme temperatures. Also on October 12, 2001, initial proposals on all Phase 2 issues were filed and served by PG&E, SCE, SDG&E, California Manufacturers and Technology Association (CMTA), California Industrial Users (CIU), CEC, and ORA. The Commission's Energy Division facilitated workshops on October 29 and 30, 2001 on all Phase 2 issues.

By letter to Commissioner Wood dated October 30, 2001, CCPCFA submitted comments and proposals on interruptible programs. On November 9, 2001, comments on initial proposals, comments on CCPCFA proposals, plus revised proposals, were filed and served by PG&E, SCE, SDG&E, CIU, CEC, ORA, LAC, The Utility Reform Network (TURN), and California Large Energy Consumers Association (CLECA).³ Comments were also received from THUMS Long Beach Company, and Ancillary Services Coalition (ASC).

While petitions for modification may generally be filed at any time, the September 21, 2001 Scoping Memo provided guidance for parties filing petitions for modification regarding two OBMC issues. As a result, a petition for modification of D.01-06-087 was filed and served by CMTA, and a petition for modification of D.01-04-006 was filed and served by CIU. Responses were filed and served by PG&E and SCE.

On November 16, 2001, reply comments were filed and served by PG&E, SCE, SDG&E, CMTA, CIU, ORA, TURN, LAC, CLECA, the California Independent System Operator (CAISO), and Environmental Defense.⁴ Reply comments were also submitted by ASC.

Motions for evidentiary hearing were due by November 21, 2001. No motions were filed. The matter was submitted for decision on November 30, 2001.

2.2. Supplemental Phase 2 Record

On December 10, 2001, Cal Steel filed and served a petition for modification of D.01-04-006 regarding calculation of non-compliance penalties for customers who elected to opt-out of SCE's interruptible program. SCE filed and served a response in opposition.

On December 18, 2001, SCE filed and served a petition for modification of D.01-04-006 regarding changes in firm service level of existing interruptible customers. CMTA and Chromalloy Los Angeles⁵ filed and served responses in opposition, and ORA responded in support. SCE filed and served a reply.

On December 21, 2001, with permission from the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), joint supplemental comments were filed and served by LAC and SCE. These comments supplement those filed in November 2001 on essential customer Category H and exemption from rotating outages for water and sewer agencies. Also with permission from the ALJ, PG&E filed and served a response; ACWA, LAC and SCE filed and served reply comments.

By Ruling dated January 11, 2002, the record was reopened to consider inclusion of a letter dated December 13, 2001 from the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) to the CAISO. CEC filed an objection to inclusion of the DWR letter, and utilities jointly responded in disagreement with CEC's objection.

By Ruling dated January 23, 2002, a CEC motion was granted to reopen the record to re-evaluate certain cost data associated with various demand responsiveness programs. Comments and objections were filed and served by CIU, PG&E, SDG&E, with reply comments filed and served by SCE and CEC.

By Ruling dated February 13, 2002, the DWR letter and several documents were included in the Phase 2 record. All matters were submitted effective February 4, 2002 (the filing date of the last round of pleadings).

¹ Several decisions were issued in Phase 1, including D.00-10-066, D.00-12-035, D.01-01-056, D.01-03-070, D.01-04-006, D.01-04-009, D.01-05-089, D.01-05-090, D.01-06-009, D.01-06-053, D.01-06-085, D.01-06-087, D.01-07-025, D.01-07-029, D.01-07-035, D.01-08-018, D.01-08-071, D.01-09-020, D.01-10-008, D.01-11-031, and D.01-12-007. ² A Ruling on possible emergency voltage reduction measures to reduce the need for rotating outages was also issued on September 21, 2001. That Ruling transferred the voltage reduction issue from Investigation (I.) 00-11-001 to this rulemaking, and set a formal hearing for October 11, 2001. The issue was processed in parallel with other Phase 2 issues, and a separate decision was issued. (See D.02-03-024.) ³ CLECA's letter of October 18, 2001 seeking inclusion on the Phase 2 service list was treated as a motion to intervene, and granted by Ruling dated October 26, 2001. ⁴ Environmental Defense concurrently filed and served a motion to intervene, which was granted by Ruling dated December 28, 2001. Both SCE and SDG&E filed and served errata on November 19, 2001 to their reply comments dated November 16, 2001. ⁵ A motion of Chromalloy Los Angeles to intervene in this proceeding was granted by Ruling dated January 30, 2002. Chromalloy also filed a complaint against SCE on this issue. (C.01-11-018.)