2. Procedural Background
PG&E filed its 2007 General Rate Case (GRC) Phase 2 Application (A.) 06-03-005 on March 2, 2006. On July 25, 2006, the assigned Commissioner issued an Assigned Commissioner's Ruling and Supplemental Scoping Memo that determined dynamic pricing would be addressed in the proceeding. Marginal cost, revenue allocation, and rate design were addressed separately in Decision (D.) 07-09-004.
The July 25, 2006 Ruling determined that the primary objective of the dynamic pricing phase is to create a year-by-year strategic work plan that will direct PG&E to develop and integrate well-designed dynamic pricing tariffs into PG&E's rate design for all customers by 2011. The strategic work plan should answer the following three questions:
1. What types of dynamic pricing tariffs should PG&E offer to its customers?
2. When should PG&E offer each type of dynamic pricing tariffs to each customer class?
3. How should the dynamic pricing tariffs be designed and integrated into PG&E's overall rate design?
The work plan should contain sufficient detail to guide and implement PG&E's future rate design, and PG&E will be required to follow the timetable and rate design principles.
On July 31, 2007, the assigned Commissioner issued a ruling that included a preliminary list of issues and a preliminary schedule. Parties filed comments recommending changes to the preliminary issues list.1
A follow-up ruling on August 22, 2007 revised the issues list based on parties' comments and requested comments on the issues. Eleven parties filed opening comments on the list of issues on October 5, 2007.2 Eight parties filed reply comments on October 19, 2007.3 Two days of workshops were held on November 5 and 6, 2007, at which key issues identified by parties in comments were discussed. Ten parties filed post-workshop comments on December 11, 2007.4
A further ruling was issued on January 23, 2008. This ruling included the draft timetable and draft rate design guidance and requested comments from parties. Comments were filed by 12 parties on February 28, 2008.5
Another workshop, held on March 7, 2008, focused on critical peak pricing (CPP). Six parties filed post workshop comments on March 21, 2008.6
1 The parties that filed comments were Alliance for Retail Energy Markets and the Direct Access Customer Coalition (AReM/DACC), Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA), California Large Energy Consumers Association (CLECA), Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA), Energy Producers and Users Coalition (EPUC), Ice Energy, PG&E, San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E), Southern California Edison Company (SCE), The Utility Reform Network (TURN), and Western Power Trading Forum (WPTF).
2 The parties that filed opening comments were BOMA, CLECA, California Manufacturers and Technology Association (CMTA), California Rice Millers (CRM), DRA, Ice Energy, PG&E, SDG&E, SCE, TURN, and WPTF.
3 The parties that filed reply comments were BOMA, CLECA, CMTA, DRA, PG&E, SDG&E, SCE, and TURN.
4 The parties that filed post-workshop comments were BOMA, California Farm Bureau Federation (CFBF), CLECA, CMTA and EPUC, jointly (CMTA/EPUC), CRM, DRA, PG&E, SDG&E, SCE, and TURN.
5 Comments were filed by BOMA, CLECA, CMTA, DRA, EPUC, Ice Energy, Kinder Morgan Energy Partners (Kinder Morgan), PG&E, SDG&E, SCE, TURN, and Wal-Mart Stores.
6 Post workshop comments were filed by BOMA, CLECA, EPUC, Kinder Morgan, PG&E, and SDG&E.
