VII. RPS Requirements

In Section V, Requested Findings, Settling Parties ask the Commission to find that "PG&E is entitled to and shall receive full credit for all energy purchased pursuant to the Amendments from Renewable QFs in satisfaction of PG&E's RPS requirements." Because RPS obligation issues are the subject of another Commission proceeding, R.06-02-012, and not all parties to R.06-02-012 are parties to the QF proceedings, notice was given to the RPS service list that an RPS issue was being considered in the QF proceeding. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruling on May 18, 2006, invited comments from the service lists for both R.06-02-012 and R.06-02-013 on the RPS.

In response to the ALJ ruling, TURN, SCE, Central Hydroelectric Company And Mega Renewables, a General Partnership, aka Shasta Hydro (Shasta Hydro) and PG&E filed comments. Responding parties all agree that this provision in the Settlement Agreement is consistent with applicable state and federal laws and Commission decisions. As PG&E states, this provision is intended to "preserve the status quo, i.e., that the renewable QFs' output PG&E now purchases may continue to be counted towards PG&E's RPS requirements for the term of the Amendment for those QFs that have signed the Amendment." (PG&E Comments, June 1, 2006, p. 2.)

PG&E made it clear that it is not seeking to change the status quo vis-à-vis renewable energy credits (REC) and does not purport to bind any other party or require a determination by the Commission with respect to issues raised in R.06-02-012.

We agree with the parties that we can make the finding requested by PG&E without compromising any issues yet to be resolved in R.06-02-012.