2. Procedural Background
On July 18, 2008, PG&E filed Application (A.) 08-07-018 seeking expedited approval and the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) for the Tesla Generating Station, a 560 megawatts (MWs) natural gas-fired combined-cycle generating facility to be located in eastern Alameda County. In addition, PG&E also requests that the Commission issue an "expedited interim order by September 18, 2008 confirming that, if the Commission ultimately denies PG&E's request for a CPCN, PG&E's reasonable termination costs, including Allowance for Funds Used During Construction, will be eligible for recovery in rates as `abandoned project' costs."3 Finally, PG&E seeks expedited consideration of the application "because prompt action is required to develop the Tesla Generating Station to serve as a replacement for the 913 MWs of planned Northern California generation projects resulting from PG&E's 2004 LTRFO [Long-Term Request for Offers] that have been terminated by the developers or are at-risk and in need of additional regulatory and permitting approvals in order to be able proceed [sic] with development."4
Simultaneously with the filing of this application, PG&E made prepared testimony5 available to interested parties and filed a motion requesting to file some material in the Application under seal6 and a motion to file some material in its testimony under seal.7
On July 21, 2008, PG&E amended its application8 and testimony9 to reflect the fact that since the bid deadline in the 2008 LTRFO had passed, release of the initial capital costs and revenue requirements associated with the Tesla Generating Station did not require confidential treatment. Despite these modifications, both the application and the testimony still include material for which PG&E seeks confidentiality protections, and PG&E also filed an amended motion to protect certain material in the application10 and an amended motion to protect certain material in the testimony.11
Resolution ALJ 176-3218 (July 31, 2008) categorized the proceeding as ratesetting and reached a preliminary determination that hearings would prove necessary for the resolution of this matter.
Protests were timely filed by the Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA),12 the Western Power Trading Forum and the Alliance for Retail Energy Markets (WPTF/AReM),13 the Independent Energy Producers Association (IEP),14 Mirant California, LLC, Mirant Delta, LLC and Mirant Potrero, LLC (filing jointly) (Mirant)15, Californians for Renewable Energy, Inc. (CARE),16 the City of Tracy (Tracy),17 and the City and County of San Francisco (CCSF).18 In addition, a limited protest was filed by The Utility Reform Network (TURN)19 and a response to the application was filed by the California Energy Commission (CEC).20
On August 19, 2008, Patterson Pass, LLC (Patterson Pass) filed a motion to intervene.21 On August 20, 2008, IEP filed a motion to dismiss the application22 and a separate motion asking the Commission "to institute a formal investigation proceeding to examine utility behavior under the hybrid market structure."23 On August 21, 2008, WPTF/AReM also filed a motion to dismiss.24
On August 22, 2008, PG&E filed a reply responding to the protests and to the motion of IEP.25
On August 27, 2008, a prehearing conference (PHC) was held in San Francisco to address the issues concerning the management of this proceeding. As part of the discussion at the PHC, it was determined that several parties had failed to receive all of the motions of IEP and WPTF/AReM. As a result, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ordered IEP and WPTF/AReM to serve the motions on August 28 to a service list that was updated after the PHC. The ALJ set September 8, 2008 as a date for all parties to respond to the motions.26 Patterson Pass was granted party status in the proceeding.27
On September 4, 2008, PG&E responded to the motion of WPTF/AReM.28
On September 4, 2008, Southern California Edison Company (SCE) filed a response to IEP's Motion for Investigation.29 Subsequently SCE filed a motion to become a party in the proceeding.30
On September 8, 2008, the Coalition of California Utility Employees and California Unions for Reliable Energy (CUE/CURE) opposed the motions to dismiss and the motion for an investigation.31
On September 9, 2008, San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed a response to IEP's Motion for Investigation32 and a motion to become a party to the proceeding.33
On September 15, an assigned Commissioner's Ruling and Scoping Memo (ACR) denied the motion to dismiss of IEP and of WPTF/AReM.
3 A.08-07-018 at 2.
4 Id.
5 Pacific Gas and Electric Company Tesla Generating Station Prepared Testimony, July 18, 2008.
6 Motion of PG&E for Leave to File Confidential Material in Application Under Seal Consistent with the Confidentiality Protections of D.06-06-066, Public Utilities Commission (PUC) Section 53, and General Order 66-C, July 18, 2008.
7 Motion of PG&E for Leave to File Confidential Testimony Under Seal Consistent with the Confidentiality Protections of D.06-06-066, PUC Section 53, and General Order 66-C, July 18, 2008.
8 Amendment to Application of PG&E for Expedited Approval of the Tesla Generating Station and Issuance of a CPCN and Request for Interim Order Authorizing Early Project Commitment to Stabilize Costs, July 21, 2008; Amended Application of PG&E for Expedited Approval of the Tesla Generating Station and Issuance of a CPCN and Request for Interim Order Authorizing Early Project Commitment to Stabilize Costs (Public and Confidential Versions), July 21, 2008 (Application).
9 Amendment to Prepared Testimony in Support of Application of PG&E for Expedited Approval of the Tesla Generating Station and Issuance of a CPCN and Request for Interim Order Authorizing Early Project Commitment to Stabilize Costs, July 21, 2008; Pacific Gas and Electric Company Tesla Generating Station Project Prepared Testimony (Amended Public Version and Amended Confidential Version), July 21, 2008.
10 Amended Motion of PG&E for Leave to File Confidential Material in Application Under Seal Consistent with the Confidentiality Protections of D.06-06-066, PUC Section 53, and General Order 66-C, July 21, 2008.
11 Amended Motion of PG&E for Leave to File Confidential Testimony Under Seal Consistent with the Confidentiality Protections of D.06-06-066, PUC Section 53, and General Order 66-C, July 21, 2008.
12 Protest of the Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA Protest), August 20, 2008.
13 Protest of the Western Power Trading Forum and the Alliance for Retail Energy Markets (WPTF/AReM Protest), August 20, 2008.
14 Protest of the Independent Energy Producers Association (IEP Protest), August 20, 2008.
15 Protest of Mirant California, LLC, Mirant Delta, LLC and Mirant Potrero, LLC (Mirant Protest), August 20, 2008.
16 Protest of Californians for Renewable Energy, Inc. (CARE Protest) August 19, 2008.
17 Protest of the City of Tracy (Tracy Protest), August 19, 2008.
18 Protest of the City and County of San Francisco of Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Application for Expedited Approval of the Tesla Generating Station (CCSF Protest), August 18, 2008.
19 Limited Protest of the Utility Reform Network (TURN Limited Protest), August 20, 2008.
20 Response of the California Energy Commission to the Application of Pacific Gas and Electric Company for Expedited Approval of the Tesla Generating Station and Issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity and Request for Interim Order Authorizing Early Project Commitment to Stabilize Costs (CEC Response), August 20, 2008.
21 Motion to Intervene of Patterson Pass, LLC, August 19, 2008.
22 Motion of the Independent Energy Producers Association to Dismiss PG&E's Application (IEP Motion to Dismiss), August 20, 2008.
23 Motion of the Independent Energy Producers Association for an Investigation (IEP's Motion for Investigation), August 20, 2008, at 1.
24 Motion to Dismiss of the Western Power Trading Forum and the Alliance for Retail Energy Markets (WPTF/AReM Motion), August 21, 2008.
25 Pacific Gas and Electric Company's (U39E) Reply to Protests and Response to IEP's Motion to Dismiss and Motion for an Investigation, August 22, 2008 (PG&E Reply).
26 TR 8: 22-23.
27 TR 7: 12-14.
28 Pacific Gas and Electric Company's (U39E) Reply to Motion to Dismiss of the Western Power Trading Forum and the Alliance for Retail Energy Markets (PG&E Reply to WPTF/AReM Motion), September 4, 2008.
29 Southern California Edison Company's (U338E) Response to Motion of the Independent Energy Producers Association for an Investigation (SCE Response to IEP's Motion for Investigation), September 4, 2008.
30 Motion of Southern California Edison Company (U338E) to Become a Party to the Proceeding, September 5, 2008.
31 Opposition of the Coalition of California Utility Employees and California Unions for Reliable Energy to the Motions to Dismiss the Application and the Motion for an Investigation, September 8, 2008.
32 Response of San Diego Gas & Electric Company (U902E) to the Motion of the Independent Energy Producers Association for an Investigation (SDG&E's Response to IEP's Motion for Investigation), September 9, 2008.
33 Motion of San Diego Gas & Electric Company (U902E) to Become a Party, September 9, 2008.
