Response of PG&E and Edison

PG&E disputes portions of the CVP Group motion. PG&E argues that the CVP Group's members and all similarly situated customers bear responsibility for a CRS to the extent such customers meet PG&E's tariff definition of "departing load." To the extent that some CVP Group members have received all of their power needs from WAPA and have never taken PG&E bundled service, PG&E does not consider such entities to be "departing load" customers under its existing tariff, as they have no load that could "depart." Thus, since PG&E does not seek to impose a CRS on those preference power customers receiving only WAPA power, the applicability of the CRS is not in dispute for such customers.

PG&E argues, however, that several CVP Group members (e.g., Broadview, Glen-Colusa, Lower Tule River, and Santa Clara) have received a portion of their power through bundled utility service from PG&E under so-called "split wheeling" provisions of the contract. Such preference power customers receive a portion of their power needs from WAPA (wheeled over PG&E's transmission system) and the remainder from PG&E (on a bundled service basis pursuant to PG&E's Commission-approved retail electric tariffs). As stated in Article 14(c)(2)(ii) of the contract, PG&E must supply "all additional requirements" for federal preference power customers "under [PG&E's] applicable rates and rules on file with and authorized by the regulatory commission having jurisdiction." Such customers receive separate bills from WAPA and PG&E for their respective portions of power served. Edison agrees with PG&E, claiming there is no evidence that DWR took preference power customers' arrangements after 2004 into account in purchasing power.

PG&E contends that such "split wheeling" customers, including those shown in Attachment 2 to its pleading and any other customers that take bundled service from PG&E on or after February 1, 2001, constitute departing load for that portion of their load formerly served under PG&E's retail tariffs. PG&E intends to bill such customers for payment of the CRS to the extent their bundled service from PG&E is replaced by service from another provider. PG&E intends to apply the CRS to all electricity delivered to WAPA's preference power customers that exceeds the customer's respective contract rate of delivery (CRD) under Contract 2948A.³

To the extent the CVP Group's members or other WAPA customers received an increased allocation of federal preference power - that is, a higher CRD - pursuant to Contract 2948A, PG&E agrees that additional allocation of power (and the resulting reduction of power taken from PG&E) would not constitute "departing load" for purposes of CTC recovery because such fluctuations or changes in load were contemplated and permitted under Article 14 of Contract 2948A. PG&E disputes the CVP Group's claim, however, that this tariff language provides WAPA customers with a blanket exemption from the CTC or subsequent non-bypassable charges such as the CRS. PG&E argues that exemptions only apply to the extent changes in load were contemplated and permitted by Contract 2948A.

Thus, in the case of a hypothetical WAPA customer with a total load of 3000 KW, to the extent WAPA increases that customer's CRD from 1800 KW to 2000 KW in a manner contemplated by Contract 2948A prior to its expiration, PG&E would not consider the 200 KW change to be "departing load." However, once Contract 2948A ends and the "split wheeling" customer terminates taking partial bundled service from PG&E, PG&E would consider the remaining 1000 KW of load served under its retail tariff to be "departing load" subject to the CRS.