7. Conclusion

The Tesla application as presented to the Commission on July 18, 2008 asked for an interim decision by September 18, 2008 to assure PG&E recovery of a $59 million equipment payment due that date. PG&E asked for this interim decision before the Commission could conduct evidentiary hearings on whether or not to grant a CPCN and approve the Tesla project. $59 million constitutes approximately 7% of the projected total cost of $850 million for the facility. PG&E's application did not make a showing sufficient to support a finding by the Commission, in less than 60 days and without evidentiary hearings, that ratepayers should be put at risk for the $59 million.

In addition to requesting that the PD be rejected, PG&E requests findings in the final decision that if the application is dismissed, PG&E should have the opportunity to recover its reasonably and prudently incurred costs related to Tesla either through a separate application or its general rate case. We decline to address this subject in this decision since PG&E has appropriate proceedings in which to present its case for cost recovery.

We find it reasonable to grant the motions to dismiss of the WPTF/AReM and the IEPss of the Application of PG&E for Expedited Approval of the Tesla Generating Station and Issuance of a CPCN. Even if we assume that the facts alleged in the in the application are true, we do not find that PG&E has met the criteria set in D.07-12-052 for UOG. We reiterate here that in D.07-12-052, we set a clear preference for a markets-first approach and set an intentionally high bar for UOG when chosen outside of a competitive bidding process. We find that PG&E's application for the Tesla Generation Station has not met that high threshold. Specifically, PG&E has not sufficiently demonstrated that conducting an RFO is infeasible; a central requirement to proposing UOG outside of a competitive process. We therefore find it reasonable to grant the motions to dismiss, therefore closing this proceeding.