II. Procedural Background
We opened this rulemaking to complete the design for implementing the RPS program mandated by Senate Bill (SB) 1078 (Sher) that was carried out in Rulemaking (R.) 01-10-024 and R.04-04-026, and to coordinate and integrate our implementation of the RPS program with new initiatives and programs. In May 2006, we closed R.04-04-026 and opened R.06-05-027 to continue the ongoing administration of the RPS program, including annual procurement, reporting, compliance, and enforcement.
The Order Instituting Rulemaking (OIR) for this proceeding assigned to this proceeding a number of implementation tasks that were identified in R.04-04-026 but had not been completed.2 These issues include:
a. The manner in which ESPs, CCAs, small utilities, and multi-jurisdictional utilities will participate in the RPS program;
b. The potential for use of unbundled and/or tradable renewable energy credits (RECs) for compliance with RPS requirements, including the characteristics or attributes of any RECs allowed for RPS compliance;
c. The status of RECs associated with renewable energy generated by qualifying facilities (QFs); and
d. The status of RECs associated with utility-funded distributed generation.3
In accordance with Rule 7.1(d) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, a preliminary scoping memo was included in the OIR.4 Comments on the preliminary scoping memo were filed March 16, 20065. Pursuant to an Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) Ruling Setting Prehearing Conference and Requesting Prehearing Conference Statements (March 27, 2006), prehearing conference (PHC) statements were filed April 5, 2006.6 A PHC was held April 7, 2006, followed by the issuance of the Assigned Commissioner's Scoping Memo and Ruling (April 28, 2006) (scoping memo). The scoping memo confirmed the preliminary categorization of this proceeding as ratesetting and determined that an evidentiary hearing was needed on at least some issues.
The scoping memo divided the issues in this proceeding into two rough groups. In the first, the manner of participation of ESPS, CCAs, small utilities, and multi-jurisdictional utilities would be considered. Other issues related to their participation, but potentially applicable to all RPS-obligated LSEs, such as the use of contracts of less than 10 years' duration to procure eligible renewable resources and the potential for use of unbundled RECs, were also in the first group.
Work on some of the issues set out in the scoping memo began in R.04-04-026 in order to follow up on D.05-11-025. A PHC in R.04-04-026 was held on December 14, 2005. An ALJ Ruling Setting Schedule for Submission of Proposals for RPS Participation (January 3, 2006) required ESPs, CCAs, small utilities, and multi-jurisdictional utilities to file their proposals for RPS participation on February 17, 2006.7 An ALJ Ruling on Filing and Service of Documents (February 27, 2006) incorporated the proposals into the record of R.06-02-012. Comments on the proposals were filed March 78; reply comments were filed March 17, 2006.9
D.05-11-025 also required ESPs, potential CCAs, small utilities, and multi-jurisdictional utilities to file preliminary renewable portfolio reports, setting forth their current and projected renewable energy portfolios. An ALJ Ruling Setting Prehearing Conference and Requesting Prehearing Conference Statements (November 28, 2005) required that the preliminary reports be filed not later than December 12, 2005.10 After a series of ALJ rulings responding to motions and clarifying the requirements for the preliminary renewable portfolio reports,11 a number of ESPs filed and served their preliminary reports on January 26, 2006 in R.04-04-026.12
As noted in the OIR, staff of the Division of Strategic Planning produced a staff white paper on a range of issues related to RECs. The white paper, "Renewable Energy Certificates and the California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program" (REC white paper) was published April 20, 2006.13 On the same date, an ALJ Ruling Requesting Comments asked parties to this proceeding and R.06-03-004 (distributed generation and the California Solar Initiative) to file comments on the REC white paper. Comments were filed May 31, 2006 and reply comments were filed June 14, 2006.14
As set forth in the scoping memo and the ALJ Ruling Setting Schedule for Limited Evidentiary Hearing (April 20, 2006), an evidentiary hearing was held May 15-17, 2006, on the issues related to the use of contracts of less than 10 years' duration for RPS procurement. Opening briefs were filed June 16, 2006.15 Reply briefs were filed July 6, 2006.16
Because the many topics on which parties have contributed to the record in this proceeding to date are interrelated, we draw on all parts of the record in our discussion and resolution of the issues presented in this decision.
2 We note that the OIR erroneously named Central California Power as a respondent in this proceeding. Central California Power has been an active participant, and will remain on the service list as a party, but should be removed from the category of respondent.
3 Some technical issues associated with renewable distributed generation were referred to R.06-03-004, which covers the California Solar Initiative and other distributed generation programs.
4 All subsequent references to rules are to the Rules of Practice and Procedure, unless otherwise specified.
5 Comments were filed by Aglet Consumer Alliance (Aglet), Alliance for Retail Energy Markets (AReM), Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technology (CEERT), Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), San Diego Gas and Electric Company (SDG&E), Southern California Edison Company (SCE), and The Utility Reform Network (TURN).
6 PHC statements were submitted by AReM, CEERT, Central California Power, City and County of San Francisco (CCSF), Golden State Water Company, Green Power Institute (GPI), Mountain Utilities, Occidental Power Services, Inc., PG&E, Pacificorp, Pilot Power Group, Inc. (Pilot Power), SDG&E, Sempra Energy Solutions, Sierra Pacific Power Company (Sierra Pacific), SCE, and Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).
7 Proposals were filed by CCSF and the City of Chula Vista (Chula Vista) jointly (on CCA participation), by AReM (on ESP participation), by Pacificorp, and by Sierra Pacific.
8 Comments were filed by Aglet, Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA), Mountain Utilities, PG&E, SCE, and TURN and UCS jointly.
9 Reply comments were filed by Aglet, AReM, CCSF and Chula Vista, Mountain Utilities, PG&E, SCE, Sierra Pacific, and TURN and UCS.
10 This ruling was served on the service list for R.04-04-026 and was sent to all ESPs registered with the Commission pursuant to Pub. Util. Code § 394(b).
11 ALJ's Ruling Granting Motion for Extension of Time for Electric Service Providers to Submit Preliminary Renewable Portfolio Reports (December 13, 2005); ALJ's Ruling Extending Time for Electric Service Providers to Submit Preliminary Renewable Portfolio Reports (January 9, 2006); ALJ's Ruling Granting in Part AReM's Motion Concerning Contents of Electric Service Provider Preliminary Renewable Portfolio Reports and Motion for Adoption of Protective Order (January 19, 2006); ALJ's Ruling Denying AReM's Motion for Stay, Reconsideration Of Ruling Concerning Motion for Adoption of Interim Protective Order Governing Access to Electric Service Provider Data Submittals, and for Shortened Comment Period (January 23, 2006).
12 APS Energy Services, CalpinePowerAmerica-CA, LLC, Commerce, Energy, Inc., Constellation Energy, Inc., Pilot Power, Praxair Plainfield, Inc., Sempra Energy Solutions, and Strategic Energy, LLC filed and served redacted versions of their preliminary reports on January 26, 2006. They filed motions for leave to file under seal with their unredacted versions, on February 1, 2006. Coral Power, LLC filed a public report.
Four ESPs filed their preliminary reports on July 31, 2006, in response to an ALJ Ruling Requiring Submission of Preliminary Renewable Reports (July 20, 2006): 3 Phases Energy Services, American Utility Network, City of Corona Department of Water & Power; and Energy America, LLC. 3 Phases and the City of Corona requested confidential treatment.
13 Found at http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/Published/Report/55606.htm.
14 Comments were filed by Aglet; AReM and Western Power Trading Forum (jointly); California Large Energy Consumers Association and California Manufacturers and Technology Association (jointly); California Solar Energy Industries Association, Clean Power Markets, Inc., PV Now, and Vote Solar Initiative (jointly); CEERT; Central California Power; DRA; GPI; Independent Energy Producers Association (IEP); Mountain Utilities; PG&E; Pilot Power; Powerex Corp.; SDG&E; SCE; Sustainable Conservation; TURN; and UCS.
Reply comments were filed by Aglet; AReM; CEERT; Central California Power; GPI; IEP; Mountain Utilities; PG&E; Pilot Power; Powerex Corp.; SDG&E; SCE; TURN; and UCS.
15 Opening briefs were filed by Aglet, AReM, California Wind Energy Association (CalWEA) and TURN jointly, CCSF, CEERT, Central California Power, DRA, GPI, PG&E, SDG&E, SCE, and UCS.
16 Reply briefs were filed by Aglet, AReM, CalWEA, CCSF, CEERT, Central California Power, PG&E, SCE, TURN, and UCS.
