7. Assignment of Proceeding

Rachelle B. Chong is the assigned Commissioner and David K. Fukutome is the assigned ALJ.

Findings of Fact

1. The agricultural class definition that was adopted in D.88-12-031 can be subject to conflicting interpretations, can present questions of where to draw the

line between agricultural and commercial use, and has led to nearly 10 years of litigation, thereby demonstrating the desirability of clarification or redefinition of the class.

2. The Agricultural Definition Settlement is a compromise between the positions set forth in the prepared testimony by PG&E and the positions of parties that were active on this issue, namely AECA, CFBF, and CRM.

3. The Agricultural Definition Settlement includes, as agricultural end-uses, those end-uses previously determined to be agricultural in D.97-09-043, D.03-04-059 and D.05-05-048.

4. The Agricultural Definition Settlement includes refund provisions under Tariff Rule 17.1.

5. The Agricultural Definition Settlement fairly and reasonably defines the scope of the agricultural class, and it does so in clear and certain terms.

6. The Agricultural Definition Settlement is uncontested.

7. There is no evidence to support the proposition that statewide consistency in the definition of the agricultural class is desirable or appropriate.

Conclusions of Law

1. The Agricultural Definition Settlement is reasonable in light of the whole record, consistent with law and in the public interest.

2. The Agricultural Definition Settlement should be adopted.

3. This decision should be made effective immediately to enable PG&E to implement the settlement without delay.

INTERIM ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The August 8, 2006 motion of Pacific Gas and Electric Company, (PG&E) Agricultural Energy Consumers Association, California Farm Bureau Federation and California Rice Millers requesting the adoption of the Agricultural Definition Statement in Application 06-03-005 is granted.

2. Within 10 days of today's date, PG&E shall file an advice letter to revise its tariffs to implement this decision. The tariff changes shall become effective on today's date subject to Energy Division determining that they are in compliance with this order.

3. This proceeding remains open for resolution of the pending application.

This order is effective today.

Dated November 30, 2006, at San Francisco, California.

APPENDIX A

List of Appearances

Applicant: Ann H. Kim and Daniel Cooley, Attorneys at Law, and Rene Thomas, for Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

Interested Parties: R. Thomas Beach for Crossborder Energy; Law Offices of William H. Booth, by William H. Booth, Attorney at Law, for California Large Energy Consumers Association; McCracken, Byers & Haesloop, by David J. Byers, Attorney at Law, for California City-County Street Light Association; Goodin, MacBride, Squeri, Ritchie & Day, LLP, by Michael B. Day and Joseph F. Wiedman, Attorneys at Law, for PV Now and by James D. Squeri, Attorney at Law, for California Retailers Association; Matthew Freedman, Attorney at Law, for The Utility Reform Network; Department of the Navy, by Norman J. Furuta, Attorney at Law, for Federal Executive Agencies; Morrison & Foerster, LLP, by Peter Hanschen, Attorney at Law, for Agricultural Energy Consumers Association; Ellison, Schneider & Harris, LLP, by Lynn Haug, Attorney at Law, for California Department of General Services/Energy Policy Advisory Committee and East Bay Municipal Utility District, and by Greggory L. Wheatland, Attorney at Law, for Vote Solar Initiative; Gregory Heiden, Attorney at Law, for the Division of Ratepayer Advocates; Alcanter & Kahl, by Evelyn Kahl, Attorney at Law, for Energy Producers and Users Coalition, and by Seema Srinivasan, Attorney at Law, for Cogeneration Association of California; Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP, by Randall W. Keen, Attorney at Law, for Indicated Commercial Parties; Carolyn Kehrein, of Energy Management Services, for Energy Users Forum; Paul Kerkorian, of Utility Cost Management, LLC, for California Rice Millers, ADM Rice, Inc.; Douglass & Liddell, by Gregory S. G. Klatt, Attorney at Law, for Wal-Mart/JC Penney; Ronald Liebert, Attorney at Law, for California Farm Bureau Federation; Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan, LLP, by Keith R. McCrea, Attorney at Law, for California Manufacturers & Technology Association; Rob Neenan, for California League of Food Processors; Les Nelson, Executive Director, for California Solar Energy Industries Association; Andersen & Poole, by Edward G. Poole, Attorney at Law, for Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association; Bill F. Roberts, of Economic Sciences Corporation, for Building Owners and Managers Associations; J. P. Ross, for Vote Solar Initiative; James Ross, of RCS, Inc., for Cogeneration Association of California; Charmin Roundtree-Baaqee, for East Bay Municipal Utility District; Reed V. Schmidt, of Bartle Wells Associates, for California City-County Street Light Association; Downey Brand, LLP, by Ann L. Trowbridge, Attorney at Law, for California Clean DG Coalition, Merced Irrigation District and Sacramento Municipal Utility District; and Joy A. Warren, Attorney at Law, for Merced Irrigation District.

State Service: Dexter E. Khoury and Cherie Chan, for the Division of Ratepayer Advocates; Donald J. LaFrenz, Bruce Kaneshiro, Felix Robles, and Maryam Ghadessi, for the Energy Division; Christopher R. Villarreal, for the Division of Strategic Planning; and Ron Wetherall, for the California Energy Commission.

(END OF APPENDIX A)

D0611030 Appendix A to A0603005

Previous PageTop Of PageGo To First Page