II. Positions of Parties
By its Petition, PG&E asks the Commission to confirm that CRS and other nonbypassable charges identified in D.03-09-052 apply to customers defined as WAPA "new allottees." D.03-09-052 does not have an ordering paragraph identifying WAPA "new allottees" as a customer group responsible for CRS. PG&E claims, however, that a review of D.03-09-052, as well as pleadings leading up to it, demonstrates that the Commission intended to hold new allottees responsible for CRS in the same manner as split-wheeling customers. PG&E identifies at least eight references in the text of D.03-09-052 to the application of CRS to "split wheeling customers and new preference power allottees."
PG&E also notes the pleadings of the CVP Group in which it referenced "new allottees" in requesting clarification leading up to D.03-09-052. PG&E argues that the CVP Group thus intended to include both split-wheeling customers and "new allottees" within the scope of preference power customers subject to its Motion for Expedited Clarification. Based on these references, PG&E believes that omission of explicit language referencing "new allottees" in the ordering paragraphs of D.03-09-052 was unintentional.
PG&E further argues that holding WAPA "new allottees" responsible for CRS is consistent with prior Commission precedent that requires customers to pay CRS if DWR procured power on their behalf. PG&E argues that since neither PG&E nor DWR reduced their forecasts to reflect the anticipated loss of such load from the PG&E system, the DWR forecasts included a provision for WAPA "new allottees." As a result, PG&E argues that such customers should pay a CRS.
In support of its claim that DWR forecasts included a provision for WAPA "new allottees," PG&E offered the Declaration of Dennis M. Keene. In his Declaration, Keene affirmed that he had no personal knowledge that PG&E adjusted its sales forecast provided to DWR to reflect the loss of WAPA "new allottee" load. He also affirmed that he had no personal knowledge as to whether or how DWR performed any independent calculations to extrapolate additional years of forecast data. He observed, however, that DWR never indicated that it adjusted the utilities forecast downward for anticipated loss of WAPA "new allottee" load.
PG&E also attached the Declaration of Matt Masters, a Senior Regulatory Analyst in PG&E's Regulatory Analysis Department responsible for electric sales forecasts. Masters affirmed that the only adjustment that he made to the forecasting model used in the 2000-2001 timeframe was to reflect the projected bypass figures provided to him by Keane.
In letters to the Assigned Commissioner and ALJ dated August 29, 2005, Tuolumne Power Agency and Calaveras Power Agency claimed that the term "new allottee" refers to WAPA preference power customers that received an allocation of CVP "base resource" power for the first time out of the "Resource Pool" established under the WAPA's Final 2004 Power Marketing Plan.
PG&E argues that the key issue is not what WAPA did in its Marketing Plan, but rather whether the long-term purchases made by DWR relied on forecasts that were adjusted to reflect a loss of load. PG&E argues that its definition of WAPA "new allottees" reflects this distinction while the definition offered by opposing parties does not.
Based on documents referenced in the Robertson Declaration, PG&E argues that the parties to the WDT Agreement agreed to abide by the Commission's determination of whether WAPA "new allottees" should be held responsible for the CRS.
PG&E offered a compromise to its proposal by letter dated March 3, 2006 to Commissioner Brown, stating that it would not oppose a limited CRS exemption for new "Greenfield" load6 up to a cap of 10 MW (measured based on interconnected capacity). PG&E would be agreeable to applying such an exemption only to the DWR power charge component of the CRS. PG&E would still seek to charge this "Greenfield" load for other CRS components. PG&E would agree to make the 10 MW exemption available on a first-come, first-served basis to all qualifying customers. PG&E argues that this revised approach would allow for CRS exemptions for "incidental" load growth by new allottees, but hold them accountable for "substantial" increases in usage.
PWRPA opposes the proposal to charge CRS to "new allottees," and denies that the DWR forecast included a provision for WAPA "new allottees." The PWRPA delineated three distinct customer classifications that would be subject to CRS under PG&E's definition of WAPA "new allottees," namely: (1) Qualifying New Delivery Points, that is, a delivery point first energized after January 1, 2005, for a Contract 2948A customer that qualifies for new service under Section 10.4 of the WDT Agreement; (2) "Dual Supply" customer load, that is, load of a customer that was not under Contract 2948A, but received WAPA-supplied power for the first time on or about January 1, 2005, as part of WAPA's 2004 Power Marketing Plan; and (3) "Additional Customer Load," that is, additional load of a Contract 2948A customer, which load was not served
under Contract 2948A, but was served entirely by PG&E until January 1, 2005 (at which point the load was served under the WDT Agreement).7
PWRPA claims that PG&E's load forecast was adjusted to reflect the loss of load, beginning in January 2005, associated with WAPA "new allottees." PWRPA argues that the amount of power to be provided by WAPA to new allottees was widely and publicly known well before DWR entered into any of its power purchase contracts. Notice of the final allocation to New Allottees was officially published on July 26, 2000. Previous "final" information was provided beginning as early as June 1999.
PWRPA believes that PG&E personnel were intimately aware of the allocation provided to New Allottees in the Post-2004 Plan and that PG&E's Post-2004 load forecast was adjusted to reflect a loss of load to New Allottees corresponding to the allocation amounts shown in the Post-2004 Plan. As described in D.03-09-052, DWR "recognized" the existence of these post-2004 commitments.
PG&E admittedly adjusted its load forecast to reflect the loss of load associated with WAPA power delivered under the Post-2004 Marketing Plan to split-wheeling customers. Because both split-wheeling customers and "new allottees" are described in the Post-2004 Marketing Plan, PWRPA argues that PG&E's load forecast would reasonably be expected to include a loss-of-load adjustment for power delivered to "new allottees," as well.
The PWRPA, by letter dated March 8, 2006 to the Assigned Commissioner, responded to PG&E's proposal of a 10 MW exemption offered as a compromise to settle parties' dispute. PWRPA rejects PG&E's proposal to the extent that it would apply only a "limited exemption" (i.e., on the same basis as has been applied to MDL) rather than a full exemption from all CRS elements, as applied in D.03-09-052. PWRPA also opposes PG&E's proposed use of a quantity-based exemption limited specifically to 10 MW. PWRPA believes that a "qualitative" based limit is more appropriate.
6 PG&E uses the term new "Greenfield" load to refer to load that is truly new and not simply former PG&E retail load that is newly qualified for WAPA service.
7 PG&E confirmed its intent to apply CRS on Qualifying New Delivery Points and Additional Customer Load in a data response dated September 22, 2005 (attached as Exhibit B to the Robertson Declaration).
