PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
E-5
ENERGY DIVISION RESOLUTION E 3710
OCTOBER 5, 2000
Resolution E-3710. Southern California Edison Company (SCE) requests modification to its Air Conditioning Cycling Program to allow additional service interruptions. Approved with modifications.
By Advice Letter 1479-E, filed on August 18, 2000.
__________________________________________________________
SUMMARY
This Resolution approves with modifications the request by SCE to modify its Air Conditioning Cycling Program.
Premier Utility Consultants, Inc protested Advice Letter 1479-E.
BACKGROUND
Tariff schedules D-APS and GS-APS authorize SCE to interrupt service to central air conditioning units via automatic control devices for up to 15 times per year during the summer season. Customers agree to participate in Schedules D-APS and GS-APS in exchange for discounts on the cost of electricity used for air conditioning. In addition, participating customers agree to remain on the tariff schedules for at least one year.
The 15 interruptions can be initiated when the Independent System Operator (ISO) directs SCE to curtail load or when SCE determines that conditions exist that may jeopardize the integrity of its distribution facilities. As of August 16, 2000, SCE has interrupted service to central air conditioning units served under these tariffs 10 times.
By Advice Letter 1479-E, SCE requests modification to the 15 interruption limit, in Schedules D-APS and GS-APS, to permit activation of the program during emergencies without the activation counting toward the 15 interruption limit. SCE requests authority to initiate emergency air conditioner cycling if:
1) Activation of the program is expected to avoid the need for rotating outages (Stage III emergency conditions),
2) Activation of the program is expected to mitigate the extent of rotating outages (Stage III emergency conditions),
3) A condition exists that creates disruptions on the company's electrical distribution system which, if left unresolved, could damage the electrical system,
4) A condition exists that creates disruptions on the company's electrical distribution system which, if left unresolved, could cause a more widespread interruption in the power supply.
SCE believes it would be in the public interest for SCE to interrupt air conditioning service to Schedule D-APS and GS-APS customers whenever to do so would either avoid a Stage III condition or would mitigate the extent of rotating outages that would otherwise result during Stage III conditions.
Similarly, SCE believes it would be in the public interest to interrupt service to selected D-APS and GS-APS customers whenever to do so would avoid complete interruption of service to a large number of customers in particular circuits or districts.
SCE requests that Advice Letter 1479-E be approved at the August 21, 2000 or at the September 7, 2000 Commission meeting. SCE requests that the Commission reduce or waive the 30-day comment period due to public necessity. In addition, SCE requests that the Executive Director order an appropriate reduction in the protest period.
On August 21, 2000, Wesley M. Franklin, Executive Director of the California Public Utilities Commission, shortened the protest period to require protests be filed by August 31, 2000 and response to protests be filed by September 5, 2000.
By letter dated September 13, 2000, the Energy Division Director suspended the tariff sheets attached to Advice Letter 1479-E for up to 120 days to allow for review.
NOTICE
Notice of AL 1479-E was made by publication in the Commission's Daily Calendar. SCE states that a copy of the Advice Letter was mailed and distributed in accordance with Section III-G of General Order 96-A.
PROTESTS
On August 24, 2000, Premier Utility Consultants, Inc (Premier) protested Advice Letter 1479-E. Premier states that when customers agreed to participate in Schedules D-APS and GS-APS the program and the limit on interruptions was clearly enumerated. In exchange for a discount, the customers would agree to be curtailed up to 15 times a year for no more than six hours per occurrence. Premier does not support changing the terms of the agreement. Premier recommends that if the proposed change is adopted, customers be notified of the program change and be given to opportunity to exit the program without penalty. Premier also expresses concern that SCE's motivation for the proposed change may be economic rather than reliability based.
On September 7, 2000, the Energy Division received from SCE a response to the Protest of Premier. SCE states that a customer served by Schedule D-APS or GS-APS can transfer to another rate schedule so long as it has taken service under Schedule D-APS of GS-APS for at least one year. SCE also states its proposal was not made with the intention of inconveniencing the affected customers, nor is its intention to shift the costs of procuring energy to customers.
DISCUSSION
This advice letter raises two questions: 1) what is the appropriate trade-off between discounts and obligations for program participants, and 2) what obligation does SCE and this Commission have to program participants when considering a program change?
SCE customers voluntarily choose to participate in the air conditioning cycling program, presumably after an analysis of the offered discount and the potential for curtailments. This proposal changes the basis for that analysis by increasing the customer's obligations without a change in discount. We would expect that some program participants would choose to leave the program rather than accept the new terms and some potential participants would forgo the program because of the change in terms. We assume that SCE has considered this affect and it believes the benefits of increased flexibility outweigh the potential loss of participants. We will not second guess SCE at this time.
Premier's protest concerns the ability of program participants to be notified of and react to the proposed change. We share premier's concern that program participants may not be aware of the proposed change and its affect on their electric service. Program participants should receive notice that the conditions they agreed to have changed. If SCE wishes to implement this change they must send written notices to all program participants explaining the program change and informing participants of their right to switch tariff schedules.
Having received notice, program participants also need the ability to act if the program change is not acceptable to them. The majority of participants in this program have been on tariff schedule D-APS or GS-APS for more than 12 months. According to SCE's tariffs, these participants can change rate schedules if they do not believe the program is in their interest. If not modified, participants who have been on the program less than 12 months may not change schedules. This is not acceptable. SCE's proposed tariff schedules should be modified to allow participants a 30-day window, from the time they receive written notice of the program change, to leave the program without penalty. Premier's request, in its protest, that participants be given notice and the opportunity to exit the program without penalty is granted.
SCE requests that the 30-day comment period be reduced. In this case, the 30-day comment period falls during the summer peak season.1 Rule 77.7(f)(9) requires this Commission to engage in a weighing of interests.2 We have balanced the public interest in avoiding the possible harm to public welfare flowing from delay in considering the Resolution against the public interest in having the full 30-day period for review and comment, as required by Rule 77.7(f)(9). We conclude that reducing the public comment period will serve the public interest while minimizing public harm.
By letter dated September 13, 2000, the Energy Division Director suspended the tariff sheets attached to Advice Letter 1479-E for up to 120 days. We hereby ratify the Energy Division Director's suspension of the tariff sheets attached to Advice Letter 1479-E and determine that the advice letter and attached tariff sheets, as originally filed, never went into effect.
COMMENTS
Pursuant to Rule 77.7(f)(9) the Commission has shortened the comment period for this resolution. Accordingly, this matter will be placed on the Commission's October 5, 2000 agenda.
FINDINGS
1. Advice Letter 1479-E requests modification to the 15 interruption limit, in Schedules D-APS and GS-APS, to permit activation of the program during emergencies without the activation counting toward the 15 interruption limit.
2. SCE requests that Advice Letter 1479-E be approved at the August 21, 2000 or at the September 7, 2000 Commission meeting. SCE requests that the Commission reduce or waive the 30-day comment period due to public necessity. In addition, SCE requests that the Executive Director order an appropriate reduction in the protest period.
3. On August 21, 2000, Wesley M. Franklin, Executive Director of the California Public Utilities Commission, shortened the protest period to require protests be filed by August 31, 2000 and response to protests be filed by September 5, 2000.
4. On August 24, 2000, Premier protested Advice Letter 1479-E and expressed concern over the lack of notice to program participants and concern that participants be given the opportunity to exit the program without penalty if they do not support the changes.
5. Program participants should be notified of any adopted changes in the air conditioner cycling program.
6. Program participants should have an opportunity to exit the program without penalty if they do not support the adopted changes.
7. Public necessity requires that the 30-day comment period be reduced in order to secure the benefits of the proposed change during the summer peak season. We have balanced the public interest in avoiding the possible harm to public welfare from delay in considering the Resolution against the public interest in having the full 30-day period for review and comment, as required by Rule 77.7(f)(9), and concluded that the former outweighs the latter. We conclude that the 30-day review and comment period should be reduced.
THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. Southern California Edison Company's Advice Letter 1479-E is approved as modified in the body of this Resolution.
2. To the extent that the Commission adopted modifications to Advice Letter 1479-E correspond to the protest of Premier Utility Consultants, Inc, the protest is granted
3. Should Southern California Edison Company choose to implement Advice Letter 1479-E as modified by this resolution, it shall: 1) provide written notice to each customer on Schedules D-APS and GS-APS of the present and modified terms and conditions of the tariff schedules, a brief explanation of the change, and a brief explanation of the procedure for changing to a different tariff schedule as modified by this resolution; and 2) file revised tariff sheets within 10 days specifically allowing customers to change rate schedules without penalty for 30 days from the date of notice of the tariff change. The tariff sheets shall become effective when filed, provided the Energy Division staff determines they comply with this Resolution.
4. The Director of the Energy Division's suspension of the tariff sheets attached to Advice letter 1479-E is ratified.
5. The 30-day review and comment period is reduced.
6. This Resolution is effective today.
I certify that the foregoing resolution was duly introduced, passed and adopted at a conference of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California held on October 5, 2000; the following Commissioners voting favorably thereon:
_____________________
WESLEY M. FRANKLIN
Executive Director
1 Opinion Proposing Changes to Original Proposal for New and amended Rules on Public Review and Comment, D.99-11-052, mimeo at 8, n.5 (November 18, 1999).
2 Rule 7.7(f) and Rule 7.7.(f)(9) together provide as follows: ". . . the Commission may reduce or waive the period for public review and comment . . . (9) for a decision where the Commission determines, on the motion of a party or on its own motion, that public necessity requires reduction or waiver of the 30-day period for public review and comment." Rule 7.7(f)(9) goes on to explain that "[f]or purposes of this subsection, `public necessity' refers to circumstances in which the public interest in the Commission adopting a decision before expiration of the 30-day review and comment period clearly outweighs the public interest in having the full 30-day period for review and comment."
