COM/MP1/JF2/acb Mailed 6/30/2005
Decision 05-06-060 June 30, 2005
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Application of Southern California Edison Company (E 338-E) for Authority to Institute a Rate Stabilization Plan with a Rate Increase and End of Rate Freeze Tariffs. |
Application 00-11-038 (Filed November 16, 2000) |
|
Emergency Application of Pacific Gas and Electric Company to Adopt a Rate Stabilization Plan. (U 39 E) |
Application 00-11-056 (Filed November 22, 2000) |
|
Petition of THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK for Modification of Resolution E-3527. |
Application 00-10-028 (Filed October 17, 2000) |
ORDER GRANTING, IN PART, PETITION FOR MODIFICATION
OF DECISION 04-12-014,
ON THE PERMANENT ALLOCATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES' ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENT
I. Summary
This decision grants, in part, San Diego Gas and Electric's petition for modification of D.04-12-014, which adopted a permanent allocation of the Department of Water Resources' (DWR) annual revenue requirement.
The primary purpose of this decision is to adopt a cost allocation methodology that will be applied to the revenue requirement of the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) for its power purchases in 2004 and beyond.1
The methodology we adopt is effectively a compromise between the proposals originally presented by the parties in this case. In adopting this order, we have reconsidered the policy grounds on which we adopted D.04-12-014. We are modifying that order by this decision, and in the process, we have rendered moot order D.05-01-036, which previously modified D.04-12-014.
The cost allocation methodology we adopt leaves the variable costs of the DWR contracts as previously allocated in D.02-09-053, and separately allocates the fixed costs of the DWR contracts as follows: PG&E 42.2%, SCE 47.5%, and SDG&E 10.3%.2 This methodology will be applied, consistent with D.04-01-028, beginning January 1, 2004.
1 For more background on DWR's power purchase program and revenue requirement, and on the relevant statutes, see Decision (D.) 02-02-052, pp. 6-12.
2 D.02-12-045 used the terms "fixed" and "variable" costs. In this proceeding, these terms were largely referred to respectively as "non-avoidable" and "avoidable" costs.
