DRA, CURE, and TURN agree that the Commission should grant PG&E a CPCN for PG&E to accept, complete construction of, and operate CC8, and make the necessary findings for PG&E to recover the reasonable costs of the project. PG&E submitted the Settlement Agreement for Commission approval. The Settlement contains Paragraph 11 that authorizes PG&E to recover any above-market costs for CC8 for the 30-year life of the project through an NBC, the details of which are to be determined in another proceeding.
The non-settling parties are IEP, CARE, MID, EPUC, and CCSF. IEP opposes the Settlement because it does not address the issues that are of concern to IEP. In light of the Commission's directive in D.04-12-048 that competitive solicitations are the preferred method for selection of new energy resources, IEP questions whether it is appropriate that PG&E submitted the CC8 project to the Commission outside of such a solicitation. On August 16, 2005, Commissioner Peevey issued a Scoping Memo advising IEP that"[t]his proceeding was not the proper forum for clarification of the Commission's policies on utility procurement, and the directives set forth in D.04-12-048 will stand on their own."3 Therefore, we do not address IEP's issue here. This issue may be considered in the 2006 Rulemaking on the utilities' Long-term Procurement Plans (LTPP), R.06-02-013, or in another appropriate proceeding.
CARE's request that the Commission conduct a CEQA review before approving the project is discussed below.
MID, EPUC, and CCSF oppose the Settlement because the 30-year cost recovery provision (Paragraph 11) is well beyond the 10-year time period authorized in D.04-12-048 and would negatively impact the customers of MID, EPUC, and CCSF.
Rule 51.1(e) directs that the Commission will not approve stipulations or settlements, whether contested or uncontested, unless the stipulation or settlement is reasonable in light of the whole record, consistent with law, and in the public interest.
3 Scoping Memo, WEB Published Rulings, p. 3.