COM/SPK/cvm Mailed 11/8/2004
Decision 04-10-034 October 28, 2004
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Application of Pacific Gas and Electric Company for Authority, Among Other Things, to Increase Revenue Requirements for Electric and Gas Service and to Increase Rates and Charges for Gas Service Effective on January 1, 2003. |
Application 02-11-017 (Filed November 8, 2002) |
Investigation on the Commission's Own Motion into the Rates, Operations, Practices, Service and Facilities of Pacific Gas and Electric Company. |
Investigation 03-01-012 (Filed January 16, 2003) |
Application of Pacific Gas and Electric Company Pursuant to Resolution E-3770 for Reimbursement of Costs Associated with Delay in Implementation of Pacific Gas and Electric Company's New Customer Information System Caused by the 2002 20/20 Customer Rebate Program. |
Application 02-09-005 (Filed September 6, 2002) |
INTERIM OPINION ON STORM AND RELIABILITY ISSUES
Title Page
INTERIM OPINION ON STORM AND RELIABILITY ISSUES 11
3. Commission Standards for Evaluating Utility Performance 66
3.1 D.96-09-045 - Reliability Standard and Reporting 88
3.2 D. 98-07-097 - GO 166 1212
3.3 D. 00-05-022 - GO 166: Standards 12 and 13 1212
3.4 PG&E Specific Standards 1313
4. PG&E's Existing System 1414
5. PG&E's December 2002 Storm Response 2121
6. Parties' Recommendations 3232
7.1 Value of Service Study 4949
7.2 Funding OIS Improvements 5454
7.3 Other ORA/PG&E Agreements 6161
a. Agreement 1 - Division Level Benchmarks 6161
b. Agreement 2 - Five-Year Average Benchmarks 6262
c. Agreement 3 - Definition of Major Outage 6363
d. Agreement 4 - Tap Fuse Installation Program 6464
7.4 Opening a New Rulemaking for Reliability Metrics and Standards 6767
7.5 Performance Incentive Mechanisms and Metrics 6868
GEOFFREY F. BROWN SUSAN P. KENNEDY 107107
1. Summary
This interim decision addresses Storm and Reliability issues raised in PG&E's General Rate Case (GRC) for test year (TY) 2003. Today's decision evaluates PG&E's response to the December 2002 storms and PG&E's reliability performance in general. We approve several "improvement initiatives" identified by PG&E in response to problems with the Outage Information System (OIS) and Customer Information Systems that arose during the December 2002 storms. We find that PG&E's recommended initiatives are likely to improve outage communication and reduce outage duration and should be approved. We approve a change in the call center measurement standard requested by PG&E.
Today's decision also considers joint testimony submitted by PG&E and the Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) addressing the issues raised by ORA's testimony. With regard to the PG&E/ORA joint proposal, we concur with six of the Agreements, modify two of the Agreements, and reject one of the Agreements. We do not adopt Agreement 6 of the PG&E/ORA joint proposal. As discussed in this decision, we believe that the existing value of service data is too dated to rely on, and that little would be gained by further "assessment" of this data. In lieu of the value of service assessment proposed in Agreement 6, we direct PG&E to conduct a new value of service study prior to its next GRC. This decision approves Agreement 7 with modifications.
The decision also addresses the reliability performance incentive mechanism presented in joint testimony filed by PG&E and the Coalition of California Utility Employees (CUE). We adopt the PG&E/CUE performance incentive mechanism with modifications. We find that the PG&E/CUE performance incentive mechanism as proposed is not in the public interest because the performance targets fail to appropriately account for existing funding commitments and commensurate reliability improvements, and the mechanism would result in an unjustified increase in PG&E's revenue requirement. However, we find that a more narrowly refined performance incentive mechanism than proposed by PG&E/CUE has value in encouraging improvements in system reliability.
Today's decision does not find that PG&E's response to December 2002 storms was reasonable. Our review of PG&E's response to the December 2002 storms finds that while the multiple outages and severe damage caused by the storm were not the result of PG&E's performance, the inadequacy of PG&E's OIS resulted in several unacceptable consequences, including customers being unable to receive accurate outage information in a timely manner, certain single customer outages being extended for an unnecessary amount of time, and emergency personnel being required to stand by hazardous conditions for excessive periods of time during the storms.
