5. Discussion
The central issue raised by CARE's petition is whether we should order PG&E to cancel the Tracy and LECEF Projects. This issue can be resolved by reviewing D.10-07-042 and D.10-12-050. In D.10-07-042, the Commission held that PG&E should not contract for more new capacity than authorized by D.07-12-052. As summarized previously, PG&E is authorized by D.07-12-052 to procure 1,112-1,512 MW of new capacity through 2015. To ensure that PG&E did not procure more capacity than authorized by D.07-12-052, the Commission in D.10-07-042 determined that PG&E should not proceed with both (1) the Tracy and LECEF Projects, and (2) the Oakley Project, as proceeding with all of these projects would result in more new capacity than authorized by D.07-12-052.
In D.10-12-050, the Commission approved the Oakley Project. Importantly, the new capacity approved by D.10-12-050 will not come online until 2016, which is after the 2015 timeframe for the new capacity authorized by D.07-12-052. Consequently, the Commission's approval of the Oakley Project, in addition to the Tracy and LECEF Projects, does not cause PG&E to exceed the new capacity authorized by D.07-12-052.6
For the preceding reasons, we conclude that there is no need to order PG&E to cancel the Tracy Project and the LECEF Project. Therefore, we decline to grant CARE's petition to modify D.10-07-042.
In its comments on the proposed decision, CARE asserts that today's decision is flawed in two respects. First, CARE alleges that today's decision is inconsistent with dicta in D.10-12-050 regarding the amount of new capacity authorized by D.07-12-052.7 However, the dicta cited by CARE was either deleted or modified significantly by D.11-05-049.8 Today's decision is fully consistent with D.10-12-050, as modified by D.11-05-049.
Second, CARE asserts that today's decision is inconsistent with Finding of Fact 10 in D.10-07-042, which states that the cost of the Tracy and LECEF Projects "would become reasonable if a fossil project authorized by the Commission fails or the Commission rejects the proposed Marsh Landing Project and/or Oakley Project... as PG&E will not have any cheaper alternatives available at that time from a competitive procurement process to fill the need for new capacity authorized by D.07-12-052." CARE states that because none of these events have occurred, the cost of the Tracy and LECEF Projects is not reasonable.9
CARE overlooks the fact that when D.10-07-042 was issued, the Oakley Project proposed by PG&E at that time was supposed to come online by 2015, which was within the 2015 timeframe for new capacity authorized by D.07-12-052. In contrast, the Oakley Project approved by D.10-12-050 will not come online until 2016, which is after the 2015 timeframe for the new capacity authorized by D.07-12-052. Therefore, as contemplated by Finding of Fact 10 of D.10-07-042, the Tracy Project and the LECEF Project are now the least expensive alternatives available to PG&E from a competitive procurement process to fill the need for new capacity authorized by D.07-12-052.
6 D.10-07-045 reduced PG&E's authorized new capacity to 1,262 - 1,312 MW through 2015. PG&E's approved projects do not exceed this limit.
7 CARE's comments on the proposed decision at 4 - 5.
8 D.11-05-049 at 13 and Ordering Paragraphs 1.a and 1.b.
9 CARE's comments on the proposed decision at 5.
