2. Background
D.08-07-045 adopted a dynamic pricing implementation timetable and associated rate design guidance for Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). Among other things, the decision ordered PG&E to file a Rate Design Window Application no later than February 28, 2009. As part of that filing PG&E was ordered to propose one or more default critical peak pricing (CPP) rates1 for commercial and industrial (C&I) customers with maximum load less than 200 kilowatts (kW) (small and medium customers) that have had an advance metering infrastructure (AMI) meter for 12 months or more. The indicated effective date of the default rate(s) is on, or before, February 1, 2011.2
However, the Commission did leave open the possibility of changing the dynamic pricing timetable, as follows:
This decision does not itself adopt any rates and does not commit the Commission to approve specific rates. Instead, this decision establishes dates when PG&E will be required to propose specified rates. We refer to these dates as the timetable. In the proceedings in which the Commission considers PG&E's specific rate proposals, the Commission could decide to adopt different rates or a different timetable based on the information presented to the Commission at that time. (D.08-07-045, pp. 8-9.)
On April 3, 2009, the Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA), the California Small Business Association (CSBA) and California Small Business Roundtable (CSBRT) (collectively, Petitioners) filed a Petition for Modification of D.08-07-045 (Petition). Petitioners request that the Commission postpone the date by which CPP and other new rates are to become effective for medium and small commercial customers, to no sooner than February 2012.3
Petitioners further request that the Commission bifurcate the PG&E Rate Design Window proceeding, Application (A.) 09-02-022, with Phase 1 devoted to rate design for large C&I and all Agricultural customers, and Phase 2 devoted to rate design for small and medium C&I customers.
On April 24, 2009, The Utility Reform Network (TURN) filed a response supporting the Petition. On May 1, 2009, PG&E filed a response opposing the Petition.
1 In its Rate Design Window filing, PG&E refers to such CPP rates as Peak Day Pricing (PDP) rates.
2 D.08-07-045, Ordering Paragraph 6.
3 Petitioners request no change in the schedule for implementing dynamic pricing for large C&I customers, nor for Agricultural customers.
