5. PG&E's Response

PG&E states that the procedural schedule for A.09-02-022 already is under consideration in that docket, and it is inappropriate to determine the procedural schedule for A.09-02-022 through a request to modify D.08-07-045. PG&E also states that the parties in A.09-02-022 expect a scoping memo setting the schedule long before the Commission issues a decision on the Petition. Thus, PG&E indicates that Petitioners' request here may be moot by the time the Commission issues a decision on the Petition.

PG&E also makes the following points:

· There is no inconsistency between a decision on rate design for small and medium C&I customers at the end of 2009, and a dynamic pricing implementation date for those customers in February 2012 or later. That is, the Commission decision date on small and medium C&I rate design does not need to move, even if the implementation date for the new default CPP rate is deferred to a later date.

· PG&E shares the Petitioners' concern about the potential impact that default CPP may have on its small and medium C&I customers, if they are not adequately prepared for the change. However, while deferring the effective date for small and medium C&I customer CPP to February 1, 2012 might provide more time for customer education, delaying a decision on the actual rate design, as Petitioners request, is likely to negate the potential for more time to reach and educate these customers.

· DRA's assertion that a near-term shortage of electric generation capacity appears improbable is not supported by the indicated citation.⁶

· In A.09-02-022, PG&E provided a discussion of the integrated nature of PG&E's IT efforts to support peak day pricing and why adjusting the scope and/or timing of these efforts, would have a serious adverse impact on the cost and timeliness to complete the IT activities.⁷

⁶ While Petitioners cite a California Energy Commission Staff Report,
CEC-200-2009-001-SD, "Draft Revised Demand Forecast" (CEC staff report) that notes PG&E's estimated 2008 peak demand was 471 megawatts less than forecasted in the 2007 Integrated Resource Plan, PG&E states the CEC staff report does not reduce the load forecast for PG&E, or the generation capacity needed to meet that load.

⁷ A.09-02-022, PG&E's Reply to Protests, pp. 2 to 4, 6, and declaration of Christopher L. Vana, passim.