Position of NCPA

NCPA requests leave to become a party to the proceeding. NCPA is a public agency engaged in the generation and transmission of electric power and energy with fourteen members and four associate members. NCPA is concerned that the disposition of the CVP motion could have a significant impact on its members. Many of NCPA's members rely on WAPA for varying portions of their overall power supplies. Some take service directly from WAPA while others receive WAPA power through facilities owned by PG&E and operated by the California Independent System Operator ("CAISO"). NCPA argues that its interests are unique, and will not be adequately protected by other existing parties. Balancing all of these factors, we will grant NCPA's request for party status in this proceeding.

In its comments, NCPA agrees with the CVP Group, and claims that since preference power customers derive their rights to purchase this power from federal law, they are uniquely situated and clearly distinguished from the types of customers to whom the Commission has applied the CRS or is contemplating the application of a CRS. Further, NCPA argues, DWR neither contemplated providing power to preference power customers, nor included such load in its forecasts. NCPA contends that any application of the CRS to these customers would constitute an impermissible cost shift to customers that received no benefits from DWR purchases.

PG&E expressed no objection to NCPA's request for party status, but observes that all but one NCPA member appear to be publicly owned entities receiving a portion of their power from WAPA with any additional power needs supplied by wholesale energy providers. Since such wholesale customers take no bundled electric service from PG&E, none of their load would be considered "departing load" subject to the CRS under PG&E's tariff. This would be true even if these customers replaced their third-party wholesale contracts with "custom products" from WAPA post-2004.

Attachment 2 of PG&E's response to the CVP Group's motion identified "split wheeling" customers who received bundled energy under PG&E's retail tariffs in 2001 and 2002. Only one of the NCPA's current members - the Port of Oakland - appears on Attachment 2, which shows that the Port received no bundled service from PG&E in 2001 and 2002. Assuming the Port of Oakland continues to take no bundled service from PG&E in 2003 and beyond, the Port of Oakland would not be liable for any CRS, as it would not have any load that could "depart." Thus, the issue of imposition of the CRS on "departing load" customers appears to be moot as to the NCPA's current members.