This decision implements SB 32 by directing utilities to add a 10-day reporting requirement to their tariffs under the § 399.20 FiT Program. The information required is set forth in Attachment A.
SB 32 amends § 399.20 by adding subsection (m). Subsection (m) directs utilities to report, within a 10-day period, the receipt of a request by a generator for service under tariffs filed pursuant to the § 399.20 FiT Program. Subsection (m) provides that, within 10 days of receipt of a request for a tariff pursuant to this section, the electrical corporation that receives the request shall post (1) a copy of the request on its Internet Web site and (2) the name of the city where generation facility is located. Subsection (m) also states that information in the request that is proprietary and confidential, including, but not limited to, address information beyond the name of the city shall be redacted. SB 2 1X makes no changes to this provision.
PG&E, Solar Alliance and Vote Solar Initiative, Sustainable Conservation, and GPI, among others, support increased transparency in the process to obtain service under the § 399.20 FiT Program and, for that reason, support the public disclosure of certain information. However, as a preliminary matter, these parties request clarification from the Commission on when the 10-day reporting period begins.
The statutory language provides that this reporting period begins within 10 days of receipt of a request for a tariff. PG&E suggests that the language means that the 10-day period start when the contract is signed by both the seller and the utility. SCE supports the same interpretation because no need for public posting of information would occur, according to SCE, if a seller requested but did not ultimately enter into a power purchase agreement due to eligibility issues or other conflicts. The majority of parties provide no comments on this topic.
We agree that the pertinent language is unclear as it applies to the existing process within the § 399.20 FiT Program. Secondary legal sources, such as the legislative history, do not provide clarification. We also agree with parties that, in implementing subsection (m), the goal should be increased transparency of the program to facilitate participation by generators. To achieve this goal, we implement subsection (m) in a manner that requires the reporting of information within 10 days of both (1) signature of a power purchase agreement by the seller (generally referred to as the "execution date") and (2) signature by both the seller and the utility (generally referred to as the "effective date").83 We find that information pertaining to both dates is critical to providing increased transparency regarding the program. We disagree with SCE that information pertaining to contracts signed by seller but never obtaining an effective date (by obtaining signatures by both seller and utility) is not useful information. As a minimum, each utility should state on its website the number of proposed contracts and the reasons for rejection.
Regarding the type of information to be disclosed within 10 days, DRA recommends the Commission adopt a reporting requirement for § 399.20 FiT Program similar to the reporting systems already in place by PG&E and SDG&E for Project Development Status Reports. DRA does not recommend relying on SCE's current reporting system and claims it does not provide a sufficient model. The Solar Alliance and the Vote Solar Initiative identify a list of topics to be identified in the internet posting, including the city location, project name, developer name, project status, expected commercial operation date, original bid, installed capacity and other information be posted on the internet. Solar Alliance and Vote Solar Initiative point out that this information is largely consistent with the information required by the Commission in D.10-12-048 (RAM Program) and implemented by PG&E in Advice Letter 3809-E for tracking and reporting of RAM projects. CALSEIA states that PG&E and SCE currently comply with this provision by providing the information set forth in their AB 1969 programs. SunEdison supports the position of Solar Alliance and Vote Solar Initiative to create a reporting requirement consistent with other Commission programs. SunEdison sees value in making this information publicly available so as to allow participants the ability to assess their potential participation in the program but also urges the Commission avoid duplication with Rule 21 reporting requirements. PG&E also recommended that the substance of the posting be standardized and specifically suggests that city location, capacity, expected deliveries, length of contract and other information be included. SCE recommends a list of topics similar to Solar Alliance and Vote Solar Initiative. Silverado Power suggests confidentiality may be furthered protected by release of the county rather than the city.
We find that applying the reporting requirement to topics already included in existing programs, such as the RAM Program implemented by D.10-12-048 and various advice letters, including PG&E's Advice Letter 3809-E, is reasonable because these existing reporting requirements provide efficiencies and transparency. While the statutory language does not require this level of information, it does not prohibit the Commission from requiring such disclosure and is justified by our goal of increased transparency.
The required information is set forth below. We adopt a standardized form to be used by all utilities to post the relevant information. Standardization of the form will likely reduce transaction costs and simplify access to the information on the Internet. To avoid unnecessary duplication of the reporting requirement, we will revisit this matter if duplication with Tariff Rule 21 reporting requirements is brought to our attention in R.11-09-011.
The form to be used by all electric corporations to post information on the internet is included herein at Attachment A.84
Accordingly, PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E shall add a provision reflecting the 10-day reporting requirement for requests for service in the FiT Program standard form contract and/or tariff being developed in this proceeding in accordance with the schedule set forth in the January 10, 2012 ALJ ruling. The Commission will review this provision submitted by the utilities and, in a separate decision accept, reject, or modify the provision. Related FiT Tariff modifications will also be addressed in this separate decision.
83 D.11-11-012 (Decision Granting, with Modifications, the Motion by Clean Coalition for Immediate Amendments of the Southern California Edison Company AB 1969 CREST Power Purchase Agreement) at 30.
84 The form includes seller name, project name, status (on schedule, delayed, operation, terminated), capacity alternating current (MW), expected energy production (gigawatt hours/yr) technology, contract price ($/MWh), vintage (existing, restart, repower, new), contract term (years), location (city, county), contract execution date, contractual online date, actual online date, 6-month extension granted (yes or no), date of termination and reason why terminated.