Comments on Draft Decision
The draft decision of the ALJ in this matter was mailed to the parties in accordance with Section 311(g)(1) of the Public Utilities Code and Rule 77.7 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure. Comments were filed on _____________, and reply comments were filed on _______________.
1. PG&E filed A.02-01-041, January 31, 2002 requesting Commission approval of a Third Amendment to PG&E's PPA with Gaylord.
2. On July 20, 2001, PG&E and Gaylord entered into a First Amendment to the PPA under the one-year option approved in D.01-06-015.
3. On August 22, 2001, PG&E and Gaylord entered into a Second Amendment to the PPA that changed the energy price to a fixed price of 5.37 cents/kWh. The Second Amendment became a nullity when the safe harbor date for non-standard contract modifications was not extended beyond July 31, 2001.
4. PG&E and Gaylord estimate that under the Third Amendment, PG&E will pay approximately $3.0 million more for energy than PG&E's energy payments using the current generic SRAC formula on a NPV basis.
5. Without Commission approval of the Third Amendment by July 31, 2002, energy payments by PG&E to Gaylord will revert to the Commission's generic SRAC formula.
6. No party has protested PG&E's Application.
7. Settlement of the Gaylord litigation is not contingent on the Commission's approval of the Third Amendment to Gaylord's PPA.
8. The Assumption Agreement was not filed with either PG&E's Application or in the responses to ALJ rulings.
9. PG&E did not provide its litigation analysis.
1. The motion of PG&E for an expedited order is denied.
2. Energy and capacity payments to QFs are defined by PURPA and Pub. Util. Code § 390.
3. PG&E has not demonstrated that the Third Amendment to the PPA is in the public interest.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Pacific Gas and Electric Company's application for approval of an amendment to the Power Purchase Agreement between Pacific Gas and Electric Company and Gaylord Container Corporation is denied. This denial is without prejudice to the applicant filing a new application for approval of the amendment at such time that applicant can demonstrate that the amendment is in the public interest, is reasonable in light of the record, and consistent with law.
2. Application 02-01-041 is dismissed.
3. This proceeding is closed.
This order is effective today.
Dated , at San Francisco, California.
