3. CEC's Petitions to Modify
On May 17, 2001, CEC filed an emergency petition for modification of D.01-05-064. CEC requested the Commission clarify that the meters provided by CEC pursuant to ABX1 29 are to be installed for all customers whose usage is greater than 200 kW at peak demand. CEC stressed that it views ABX1 29 as establishing a mandatory metering program, and that the customer does not have the option to reject the RTP meter CEC has chosen to install.
The requested language provided by CEC would also remove the requirement that customers provided with interval meters under ABX1 29 be shifted to TOU schedules. CEC does not explain why it proposes this modification but parties responding to the proposal state that a mandatory switch to a TOU schedule would be viewed by customers as a penalty. CEC states that due to the urgent status of ABX1 29, the Commission should act on an emergency basis on its petition and considerably shorten any party's time for comment.
Responses to this petition were filed on May 22 by PG&E and the American Energy Institute (AEI). The Commission's Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) filed a response on May 23. All commenters supported CEC's position that the metering program was mandatory and its request that customers not be required to switch to TOU rates. The commenters stated that the TOU-rate requirement would make customers view the new equipment as a penalty rather than as an aid to improving their energy consumption decisions.
The Commission's Energy Division held a workshop on May 21 on RTP issues, pursuant to the directive of D.01-05-064. Following the workshop, a summary report was prepared by Energy Division and served on all parties.
On June 21, the CEC filed a Petition for Modification of D.01-05-064 by proposing an RTP tariff1. CEC states that based on input from the May 21 workshop and further dialogue with the Energy Division, the utilities and various customer groups, the CEC developed a pro-forma RTP tariff which it submits in its petition in order to begin the immediate implementation of RTP. The CEC requests an expedited approval process for its pro-forma tariff by having the Commission shorten response time to its petition, grant its illustrative pro-forma tariff, and direct PG&E, Edison, and SDG&E to file conforming tariffs as soon as possible as Advice Letter filings, effective on the date of filing.
PG&E and Edison filed responses to CEC's petition on June 28, 2001. Both utilities cite to significant areas of disagreement with CEC's proposal and request the Commission hold an additional workshop prior to considering the petition. On July 3, the assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a ruling shortening time for responses to July 6 and scheduling an Energy Division workshop to discuss RTP issues on July 9. Additional responses to CEC's petition were filed by ORA, Environmental Defense, and the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group (SVMG) on July 6.
SVMG strongly endorses the CEC's petition, especially its High Reliability Option, and urges expedited Commission approval. Environmental Defense strongly supports CEC's petition, citing the environmental benefits that would arise from customers who respond to RTP by reducing their overall energy consumption or shifting load to off peak hours and the need for Californians to realize a full return on the investment of $35 million in meters under ABX1 29. ORA states it supports CEC's tariff proposal if the High Reliability Option (HRO) provisions are modified.
1 CEC concurrently filed its petition in Rulemaking (R.) 00-10-002, the Commission's proceeding on interruptible load programs offered by PG&E, SDGE, and Edison. By ruling dated July 3, 2001, the presiding officer and assigned Commissioner ruled that because the petition was being considered in Application (A.) 00-11-038 et al., it would not be considered in R.00-10-002.
