FINDINGS
1. SDG&E filed AL 1249-E on August 28, 2000 to implement a bill stabilization plan adopted in D.00-08-037. AL 1249-E was largely superceded by the rate stabilization plan (plan) required by AB 265.
2. In AL 1249-E, SDG&E established a sub-account within the TCBA to track the undercollected energy costs, including carrying costs and adjustments retroactive to June 1, 2000.
3. AB 265 added Section 332.1 to the PU Code, requiring the Commission to establish a ceiling of 6.5 cents/kWh on the energy component of electric bills for SDG&E's residential, small commercial, and street lighting customers. The ceiling is retroactive to June 1, 2000, and shall be in effect through December 31, 2002.
4. ABX1 43, signed into law on April 11, 2001, among other things, modifies the language in subsection b to state that the ceiling applies to the "energy component of electric bills for electricity supplied to residential, small commercial, and street lighting customers by the San Diego Gas and Electric Company." This amended language has no material effect on the existing implementation of the rate stabilization plan.
5. Consistent with Section 332.1, the Commission approved an expanded rate stabilization plan in D.00-09-040.
6. In compliance with D.00-09-040, SDG&E filed AL 1254-E on September 12, 2000 to implement the 6.5 cent/kWh energy rate ceiling for residential, "small commercial" (below 100 kW demand) and lighting customers which take bundled service from SDG&E.
7. TPC and Scripps protested SDG&E's intent stated in AL 1254-E to apply the 6.5 cent/kWh energy rate ceiling to DA customers. Scripps' protest to AL 1254-E was late-filed.
8. Utility.com and ARM filed letters in support of SDG&E's statement in AL 1254-E that it intends to apply the energy rate ceiling to direct access customers.
9. SDG&E began implementing AL 1254-E on October 2000 bills.
10. By AL 1260-E filed October 2, 2000 and supplemental AL 1260-E-A filed October 30 (which replaces AL 1260-E), SDG&E initiated a credit reflecting the 6.5 cent/kWh energy rate ceiling retroactive to June 2000 for applicable customers, which take bundled service.
11. SDG&E began implementing the retroactive credits filed in AL 1260-E-A on November 2000 bills.
12. SDG&E filed AL 1264-E on October 19, 2000 requesting authority to apply the provisions of AB 265 and D.00-09-040 to applicable DA customers. On February 16, 2001, SDG&E withdrew AL 1264-E/-E-A.
13. Some of the issues raised in protests to AL 1264-E-/E-A are relevant, despite SDG&e's withdrawal of this AL.
14. We accept Scripps' late-filed protest to AL 1254-E.
15. TPC protested SDG&E's DA Plan as filed in AL 1264-E to apply the provisions of AB 265 and D.00-09-040 to DA customers.
16. Utility.com filed comments in support of AL 1264-E but requested that SDG&E amend its proposed bill language described in the AL.
17. ORA submitted a late-filed protest to AL 1264-E, which expressed general support for SDG&E's DA Plan but suggested content, and process improvements to SDG&E's plan for customer notification. We accept ORA's late-filed protest.
18. On December 6, 2000, SDG&E filed supplemental AL 1264-E-A, which replaced AL 1264-E, to address the concerns raised by Utility.com in its comments and by ORA in its late-filed protest.
19. Mr. Larry Cornett protested SDG&E's request in AL 1264-E-A to apply the rate stabilization plan to DA customers, and stated that the Commission should allow SDG&E's customers to opt-out of AB 265.
20. TPC protested AL 1264-E-A along the lines of its protests to ALs 1254-E and 1264-E.
21. ARM filed a letter in support of AL 1264-E. CREC (formerly ARM) filed letters on December 7 and 14, 2000 in support of AL 1264-E/E-A urging swift resolution of the AL to allow customers to make reasonable choices.
22. AL 1264-E/-E-A aroused substantial public interest. The Commission's Public Advisor's Office, the Energy Division (ED), and other Commission staff received hundreds of public contacts, which are now moot except as discussed. ED is aware that one ESP mailed a post card to its customers, urging them to ask the Commission to approve AL 1264-E.
23. PU Code Section 394 denies Commission authority over the rates of competitive ESPs. AB 265 does not expand Commission authority over ESP rates.
24. Neither AB 265 nor D.00-09-040 explicitly directed SDG&E to include DA customers in the rate ceiling provisions of Section 332.1
25. Customers need accurate information about their potential future obligations to repay SDG&E's reasonable electric procurement costs.
26. Three parties filed comments on the Draft and Alternate Resolutions E-3726, SDG&E and the Alliance for Retail Energy Markets (AreM or ARM) on Feb 14, 2001 and ACN, an ESP, on February 15. SDG&E also replied to the comments of ARM on February 20, 2001. Due to SDG&E's withdrawal of AL 1264-E/-E-A, most of the issues raised in these comments are moot.
27. Two parties submitted late-filed protests concerning the eligibility requirements for inclusion in the plan, the Polaris Group (Polaris) on March 12, 2001 and California Restaurant Association (CRA) on March 22. SDG&E responded to the comments of Polaris on March 13, 2001. Because of the timing of these protests, we will treat them as comments.
28. Under existing peak load definitions, a commercial customer qualifies to receive the rate ceiling when it does not exceed 100 kW for 9 months of the last 12-month period.
29. Under existing tariff rules, a customer that has reduced its load below the 100 kW threshold since the passage of AB 265 on September 6, 2000, could be eligible for the plan as early as June of this year. Such a customer should be entitled to the retroactive credit.
30. SDG&E views Polaris' argument about allowing customers the opportunity to manage their loads to qualify for the plan as fallacious. SDG&E argues that market pricing will encourage conservation better than a rate cap, since customers under a rate cap do not see accurate market signals.
31. CRA asserts that some customers that straddle the 100kW threshold have the ability to bring their electricity usage below 100kW through strict load management.
32. In view of our conservation objectives, businesses with a billing history on both sides of the 100 kW benchmark should have the opportunity to benefit from efforts to conserve energy and manage their loads.
33. Due to the passage of Assembly Bill 1X 1 and SDG&E's withdrawal of AL 1264-E/-E-A, we have exceeded the 30-day comment period required by Rule 77.7(f)(9). Therefore, we accepted all late-filed comments and protests.
