2. Procedural History
On April 21, 2005, the Commission issued Decision (D.) 05-04-053. Ordering Paragraph 2 directed the utilities to "file new critical peak pricing proposals including testimony, in these dockets on August 1, 2005, consistent with the principles adopted today." The key ordering paragraphs of that decision are as follows:
3. In its August 1, 2005 filing, each utility shall designate the specific system conditions that will trigger a critical peak pricing event call, consistent with the system conditions used in its rate design and resource adequacy requirements.
4. In each August 1, 2005 filing, the number of events shall be determined based on the forecasts and system conditions used to allocate revenue to the critical peaks.
5. In their August 1, 2005 filing, the utilities shall calculate rates for the non-critical peak hours based on an adopted revenue requirement for all hours that reflects costs in a year with no critical peak events and separately establish the rate for the critical peak period to reflect the utility's anticipated marginal cost to procure power during critical peak periods.
8. Upon completion of these rate design proceedings for each utility, bundled customers shall be placed on a critical peak pricing tariff as a default, with the ability to convert without cost the standard TOU rates adopted for each utility.
On August 1, 2005, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E), and Southern California Edison Company (SCE) filed new proposals and associated testimony to implement default critical peak pricing tariffs for customers with demand in excess of 200 kW in compliance with D.05-04-053. On August 24, 2005, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) held a prehearing conference. Various supplemental exhibits were served prior to non-utility opening testimony on October 6, 2005. On October 19, 2005, parties served rebuttal testimony.
On September 12, 2005, pursuant to Rule 51.1(b), notice was provided to all parties that an initial settlement conference would take place on September 22, 2005. Follow-up settlement discussions were held amongst most of the active parties in subsequent weeks through a series of conference calls. On October 20, 2005, the parties to the settlement discussions reached agreements in principle on the terms of the settlements. After receiving notice of the agreements, ALJ Cooke suspended the hearings scheduled for the week of October 31, 2005.
On November 14, 2005, a motion to accept the settlement by the Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA) of California, California Manufacturers and Technology Association (CMTA), City of San Diego, Energy Producers and Users Coalition (EPUC), Indicated Commercial Parties (ICP), Industrial Environmental Association, J.C. Penney Company, Inc. (Penney), SDG&E, Silicon Valley Leadership Group, and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Wal-Mart) was filed. On November 14, 2005, a separate motion to accept the settlement by the Agricultural Energy Consumers Association, BOMA of San Francisco and of California, California Farm Bureau Federation (Farm Bureau), California Large Energy Consumers Association, California League of Food Processors (CLFP), CMTA, California Retailers Association (CRA), EPUC, ICP, Penney, Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. (Kinder), Lowe's Companies, Inc., PG&E, San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART), SCE, Wal-Mart, and Western Power Trading Forum (WPTF) was filed. Comments on the settlements were filed by The Utility Reform Network (TURN) and PG&E. Replies were filed by SCE, SDG&E, PG&E, and jointly by Penney, Kinder, and Wal-Mart.1
PG&E filed a petition to modify Ordering Paragraph 8 of D.05-04-053 on November 14, 2005. SDG&E filed a response on November 30, 2005, and PG&E filed a reply on December 7, 2005.
One day of evidentiary hearings was held on the settlements on November 17, 2005. All exhibits were received into evidence at that time. By stipulation of the parties, late-served exhibits were also received into evidence.
1 The motion for acceptance of the late-filed reply comments by Penney, Kinder and Wal-Mart is granted.
