COM/MP1/JF2/acb* DRAFT Alternate Agenda ID #3900
Ratesetting
Agenda Item #34a 10/28/04
Decision _______________
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Application of Southern California Edison Company (E 338-E) for Authority to Institute a Rate Stabilization Plan with a Rate Increase and End of Rate Freeze Tariffs. |
Application 00-11-038 (Filed November 16, 2000) |
|
Emergency Application of Pacific Gas and Electric Company to Adopt a Rate Stabilization Plan. (U 39 E) |
Application 00-11-056 (Filed November 22, 2000) |
|
Petition of THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK for Modification of Resolution E-3527. |
Application 00-10-028 (Filed October 17, 2000) |
(See ALJ Allen's PD for a list of appearances.)
OPINION IMPLEMENTING A PERMANENT ALLOCATION
OF THE ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENT DETERMINATION
OF THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
I. Summary
The primary purpose of this decision is to adopt a cost allocation methodology that will be applied to the revenue requirement of the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) for its power purchases in 2004 and beyond.1
The methodology we adopt is effectively a compromise between the proposals presented by the parties. We do not adopt the proposed settlement agreement,2 nor do we adopt any one party's litigation position. The allocation methodology we adopt leaves the variable costs of the DWR contracts as previously allocated in D.02-09-053, and separately allocates the fixed costs of the DWR contracts as follows: PG&E 42.2%, SCE 47.5%, and SDG&E 10.3%.3 This methodology will be applied, consistent with D.04-01-028, beginning January 1, 2004.
1 For more background on DWR's power purchase program and revenue requirement, and on the relevant statutes, see Decision (D.) 02-02-052, pp. 6-12.
2 The settlement agreement was proposed by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), Southern California Edison Company (SCE) and The Utility Reform Network (TURN). It was generally supported by the Commission's Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA), and strongly opposed by San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E).
3 D.02-12-045 used the terms "fixed" and "variable" costs. In this proceeding, these terms were largely referred to respectively as "non-avoidable" and "avoidable" costs.
