Third-Round Reply of CVP Group

The CVP Group, in its third-round reply, noted areas in which parties appeared to agree, and asked the Commission to issue an expedited order confirming the principles on which all parties agree. As noted by the CVP Group, parties agree that full requirements preference power customers bear no responsibility for any component of the DWR-related CRS, and that "split wheeling" preference power customers bear no responsibility for any component of the CRS for electric loads that fall within the customer's CRD.

The remaining issues in dispute concern application of CRS to "split wheeling" customers and new preference power allottees. The CVP Group concedes that it would be appropriate to apply a DWR bond charge, but opposes any DWR power charge, applicable to the that portion "split wheeling" customers' loads supplied by PG&E tariff that exceed the CRD, and to new allottees. With respect to the DWR Bond Charge, CVP agrees that the methodology generally described on pages 3 through 4 of PG&E's Response may after examination and clarification provide a workable basis for assessing the DWR Bond Charge on "split wheeling" customers and new allottees.

With respect to the DWR Power Charge, however, the positions of PG&E, Edison, and the CVP Group still differ. Based on DWR's statements in documents filed with the Commission (discussed in the Motion at page 11, footnotes 23 and 24), the CVP Group believes that DWR was aware of the preference power program as it was contracting for power. With that awareness, CVP Group infers that DWR was also familiar with the post-2004 program as it applied to "split wheeling" customers and new allottees. Based on that inference, CVP Group denies that DWR made power purchases with the end of serving such customers in mind. In similar circumstances involving continuous direct access customers and customer generation, the Commission has either exempted customers from CRS, or only applied the bond charge.⁴

The CVP Group asks the Commission to issue an order stating that "split wheeling" preference power customers, and new preference power allottees, will bear CRS responsibility limited to the DWR bond charge (and excluding the DWR Power Charge) in proportion to the amount of DWR power delivered by PG&E to these customers. If the Commission does not summarily dispose of this issue in the manner proposed, then CVP Group believes that further discovery is needed to explore the applicability of the DWR power charge to split wheeling customer load supplied by PG&E. CVP seeks evidentiary hearings if the Commission is not inclined to grant the motion on the basis CVP has requested.

Moreover, CVP Group argues that PG&E's proposed method to determine CRS for "split wheeling" customers and new allottees is not completely developed. For example, PG&E has not specified how it proposes to calculate CRS where the part of the customer's load that exceeds its CRD has significantly varied over the years, or even within a given year. In some cases, the load may exceed CRD so infrequently that application of a CRS would be administratively burdensome. The CVP Group believes that factual development would show that such circumstances occur for "split wheeling" customers. In any event, CVP argues that the PG&E proposal requires further development and a closer look.