II. Procedural Background
In this phase of this proceeding, we have evaluated transmission needs and potential transmission upgrades in the Tehachapi region. The Tehachapi area was first identified during a March 13, 2001 prehearing conference (PHC) as having transmission constraints. In April 2001, SCE filed a report on transmission problems in the Tehachapi area. At a July 10, 2001 PHC, SCE was directed to send a letter to potential wind developers soliciting expressions of interest in participating in Tehachapi transmission upgrades. At a December 19, 2001 PHC, SCE agreed to prepare a developer-funded conceptual study, based on responses to that solicitation, which would evaluate line routing and develop preliminary cost estimates for Tehachapi upgrades. At a May 15, 2002 PHC, SCE reported that it was refining the conceptual study.
In a January 29, 2003 ruling, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) established a schedule, which was later modified, for evidentiary hearings to address the network benefits, contribution to the goals of the RPS program, costs, and ratemaking issues regarding a Tehachapi transmission project. The ALJ also directed SCE to file a schedule indicating the minimum amount of time required to prepare an application for a certificate of public convenience and necessity (CPCN) for Tehachapi upgrades.1 The ruling also required the utilities to issue a statewide solicitation letter allowing developers to request and fund conceptual studies for transmission related to potential generation projects to address the renewable goals set forth in Senate Bill (SB) 1078.
Evidentiary hearings were held on June 9-11, 2003. SCE, the ISO, and Oak Creek Energy Systems, Inc. (Oak Creek)2 presented witnesses and filed opening and reply briefs. PG&E participated in the hearings and filed an opening brief. Oak Creek's motion for acceptance of its late-filed reply brief is granted. This phase of the proceeding was submitted on July 24, 2003 following the receipt of reply briefs.
Concurrent with its reply brief, Oak Creek filed a motion asking the Commission to take official notice of a CEC committee report entitled "Preliminary Renewable Resource Assessment," published on July 1, 2003 pursuant to SB 1038. No party filed a response to Oak Creek's motion. We agree with Oak Creek that the CEC's assessment of the wind resource potential in the Tehachapi region is relevant to the issues in this proceeding. However, rather than the preliminary committee assessment, we take official notice of the CEC's completed assessment, entitled "Renewable Resources Development Report,"3 which was adopted by the CEC on November 19, 2003. The CEC's renewable resources assessment underlies a transmission plan for renewable resources prepared by the Commission's Energy Division and submitted to the Legislature on December 1, 2003, as required by SB 1038.
1 SCE indicated in its report filed on February 3, 2003 that the minimum time required to complete a CPCN application, including a Proponent's Environmental Assessment, is one year. SCE explained that the time requirement is driven by the amount of time required to conduct site surveys for the project, which often can be performed only during certain times of the year when particular animal(s) or plant(s) are observable. 2 Oak Creek is a Tehachapi wind developer which participated in SCE's 2002 conceptual study. 3 "Renewable Resources Development Report," CEC Publication Number 500-03-080F, November 2003.
