Public Agenda 3250

Thursday, March 11, 2010 10:00 a.m.

San Francisco, California

Michael R. Peevey, President

John A. Bohn

Dian M. Grueneich

Nancy E. Ryan

Timothy Alan Simon

Scheduled Commission Meetings

505 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco

For each agenda item, a summary of the proposed action is included; the Commission's decision may,

however, differ from that proposed.

Ratesetting Deliberative Meeting*

Room 5305

(1:30 p.m.)

Closed to the Public

Commission Meeting

Auditorium

(10 a.m.)

Open to the Public

Monday, April 05, 2010 (San

Francisco)

Thursday, April 08, 2010 (San

Francisco)

Thursday, April 22, 2010 (Los

Angeles)

Monday, April 19, 2010 (San

Francisco)

Thursday, May 06, 2010 (San

Francisco)

Monday, May 03, 2010 (San

Francisco)

Monday, May 17, 2010 (San

Francisco)

Thursday, May 20, 2010 (San

Francisco)

Thursday, June 03, 2010 (San

Francisco)

*Ratesetting Deliberative Meeting dates are reserved as noted but will be held only if there are ratesetting matters to be

considered and a Commissioner has requested that a Ratesetting Deliberative Meeting be held.

This location is accessible to people with disabilities.  If specialized accommodations for the disabled

are needed, e.g. sign language interpreters, please call the Public Advisor at (415) 703-2074 or TTY#

(415) 703-5282 or toll free # 1-866-836-7825 three business days in advance of the meeting.

The following items are not subject to public comment:

· All items on the closed session agenda.

· 19, 27

Item

1

[9232]

Preliminary Categorizations and Hearing Determinations for

Recently Filed Formal Applications

PROPOSED OUTCOME:

® Ratification of preliminary determination of category for proceedings initiated by application. The

preliminary determinations are pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and

Procedure.

ESTIMATED COST:

® None.

Item

2

[8474]

R06-02-013

Order Instituting Rulemaking to integrate procurement policies and consider long-term procurement plans.

PROPOSED OUTCOME:

® Declines to modify D07-12-052 defining the inclusion of qualified facilities in the Long Term

Procurement Planning process as only a “planning assumption.”

® The Commission believes planning is a preliminary step before actual procurement of energy.

® No one energy source is only included as a planning assumption.

® There is a presumption that including qualified facilities in the planning process will result in

procuring energy and capacity from qualified facilities.

® Closes the proceeding.

ESTIMATED COST:

® None.

(Comr Peevey - ALJ Long)

Pub. Util. Code § 311 – This item was mailed for Public Comment.

Pub. Util. Code §1701.1 -- This proceeding is categorized as Ratesetting.

Agenda 3234, Item 14 5/21/2009 (Staff);

Agenda 3235, Item 2 6/4/2009 (Simon);

Agenda 3236, Item 5 6/18/2009 (Staff);

Agenda 3237, Item 2 7/9/2009 (Staff);

Agenda 3238, Item 3 7/30/2009 (Staff);

Agenda 3239, Item 2 8/20/2009 (Staff);

Agenda 3240, Item 2 9/10/2009 (Staff);

Agenda 3241, Item 2 9/24/2009 (Staff);

Agenda 3242, Item 2 10/15/2009 (Staff);

Agenda 3243, Item 2 10/29/2009 (Staff);

Agenda 3244, Item 2 11/20/2009 (Staff);

Agenda 3245, Item 2 12/3/2009 (Staff);

Agenda 3246, Item 2 12/17/2009 (Staff);

Agenda 3247, Item 2 1/21/2010 (Staff);

Agenda 3249, Item 2 2/25/2010 (Staff)

Item

3

[8768]

Clarifies the Rules of the Community Choice Aggregation

Opt-Out Provisions, as Set Forth in the Statute

PROPOSED OUTCOME:

® Directs Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, and San Diego

Gas & Electric Company to modify their Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) tariffs and clarifies

rules that are intended to:

® Describe when customers may opt-out of CCA service.

® Prevent utilities from refusing to sell electricity to CCAs.

® Prevent utilities from offering goods, services, or programs as an inducement for a local

government not to participate in a CCA.

ESTIMATED COST:

® No impact on utilities’ revenue requirements.

Agenda 3240, Item 20 9/10/2009 (Staff);

Agenda 3241, Item 9 9/24/2009 (Staff);

Agenda 3242, Item 7 10/15/2009 (Staff);

Agenda 3243, Item 4 10/29/2009 (Staff);

Agenda 3244, Item 3 11/20/2009 (Staff);

Agenda 3245, Item 3 12/3/2009 (Staff);

Agenda 3247, Item 3 1/21/2010 (Staff);

Agenda 3248, Item 2 2/4/2010 (Staff);

Agenda 3249, Item 3 2/25/2010 (Staff)

Item

4

[8848]

Determines Ratemaking Treatment for Rural Telephone

Bank Stock Dissolution Proceeds

A07-12-026

Application of Calaveras Telephone Company, Cal-Ore Telephone Co., Ducor Telephone Company,

Happy Valley Telephone Company, Hornitos Telephone Company, Kerman Telephone Co., The

Ponderosa Telephone Co., Sierra Telephone Company, Inc., The Siskiyou Telephone Company, Volcano

Telephone Company, and Winterhaven Telephone Company for Ratemaking Determination regarding

Dissolution of Rural Telephone Bank.

PROPOSED OUTCOME:

® Ratepayers or the California High Cost Fund A credited with the Rural Telephone Bank Stock

redemption proceeds.

® Applicants ordered to Show Cause why they should not be fined for failing to disclose receipt of

Rural Telephone Bank Stock redemption proceeds.

ESTIMATED COST:

® Jurisdictional portion of 30 million in aggregate rate relief.

(Comr Peevey - ALJ Bushey)

Pub. Util. Code § 311 – This item was mailed for Public Comment.

Pub. Util. Code §1701.1 -- This proceeding is categorized as Ratesetting.

Agenda 3242, Item 19 10/15/2009 (Staff);

Agenda 3243, Item 9 10/29/2009 (Staff);

Agenda 3244, Item 7 11/20/2009 (Staff);

Agenda 3245, Item 6 12/3/2009 (Staff);

Agenda 3246, Item 4 12/17/2009 (Staff);

Agenda 3247, Item 6 1/21/2010 (Staff);

Agenda 3248, Item 4 2/4/2010 (Staff);

Agenda 3249, Item 5 2/25/2010 (Simon)

Item

5

[8864]

Petition of The Utility Reform Network for a Rulemaking

Regarding Arrearage Management and Shutoff Prevention

PROPOSED OUTCOME:

® Denies the petition of The Utility Reform Network for a rulemaking or investigation to address

arrearage management and shutoff prevention for residential customers of the major jurisdictional

electric and natural gas utilities.

® Closes the proceeding.

ESTIMATED COST:

® None.

(Comr Bohn - ALJ O'Donnell)

Pub. Util. Code § 311 – This item was mailed for Public Comment.

Pub. Util. Code §1701.1 -- This proceeding is categorized as Quasi-Legislative.

Agenda 3243, Item 11 10/29/2009 (Grueneich);

Agenda 3244, Item 8 11/20/2009 (Simon);

Agenda 3245, Item 7 12/3/2009 (Staff);

Agenda 3246, Item 5 12/17/2009 (Staff);

Agenda 3247, Item 7 1/21/2010 (Grueneich);

Agenda 3248, Item 5 2/4/2010 (Staff)

Item

6

[8868]

R05-06-040

Order Instituting Rulemaking to implement Senate Bill No. 1488 (2004 Cal. Stats., Ch. 690 (Sept. 22,

2004)) relating to confidentiality of information.

PROPOSED OUTCOME:

® Modifies Decision (D) 06-12-030 and D08-04-023 regarding conditions of access to market

sensitive information.

® Closes the Proceeding.

ESTIMATED COST:

® None.

(Comr Grueneich - ALJ Yacknin)

Pub. Util. Code § 311 – This item was mailed for Public Comment.

Pub. Util. Code §1701.1 -- This proceeding is categorized as Quasi-Legislative.

Agenda 3243, Item 12 10/29/2009 (Staff);

Agenda 3244, Item 9 11/20/2009 (Staff);

Agenda 3245, Item 8 12/3/2009 (Staff);

Agenda 3247, Item 8 1/21/2010 (Bohn );

Agenda 3249, Item 6 2/25/2010 (Peevey)

Item

7

[9128]

California-American Water Company to Establish a Cease

and Desist Order Memorandum Account

PROPOSED OUTCOME:

® Authorizes the establishment of the Cease and Desist Order Memorandum Account.

ESTIMATED COST:

® None.

Agenda 3247, Item 30 1/21/2010 (Simon);

Agenda 3248, Item 8 2/4/2010 (Bohn );

Agenda 3249, Item 8 2/25/2010 (Staff)

Item

8

[9187]

PROPOSED OUTCOME:

® Denies the request of Lodi Gas Storage to modify Decision 00-05-048 to replace the currently

required $10 million surety bond with a parental guarantee in the same amount.

® Lodi is required to retain the $10 million surety bond as condition of its certificate of public

convenience and necessity.

® Closes the proceeding.

ESTIMATED COST:

® Approximately $122,000 to Lodi Gas Storage in 2009, continuing annually while the gas storage

facility operates.

(Comr Bohn - ALJ Vieth)

Pub. Util. Code § 311 – This item was mailed for Public Comment.

Pub. Util. Code §1701.1 -- This proceeding is categorized as Ratesetting.

Item

9

[9191]

I07-01-022, A06-09-006, A06-10-026, A06-11-009, A06-11-010, A07-03-019 - Related matters.

Order Instituting Investigation to Consider Policies to Achieve the Commission’s Conservation Objectives

for Class A Water Utilities.

PROPOSED OUTCOME:

® Affirms Decision 08-02-036.

® Authorizes Class A water utilities to track legal and related costs incurred in participating in this

proceeding from the date of issuance of the Order Instituting Investigation in memorandum accounts.

ESTIMATED COST:

® None.

(Comr Bohn - ALJ Grau)

Pub. Util. Code § 311 – This item was mailed for Public Comment.

Pub. Util. Code §1701.1 -- This proceeding is categorized as Ratesetting.

Item

10

[9199]

Selection of Grant Recipients of the California Solar Initiative

Research, Development, Deployment and Demonstration

Program

PROPOSED OUTCOME:

® Program Manager will enter into grant agreements with the eight selected recipients.

ESTIMATED COST:

® No additional cost is associated with this Resolution.

Item

11

[9204]

Electric Generation Performance Branch's Final Report of La

Paloma Power Plant

PROPOSED OUTCOME:

® Approves the Final Report on the Audit of La Paloma Generating Station (La Paloma), performed

by the Electric Generation Performance Branch (EGPB) of the Consumer Protection and Safety

Division, and authorizes public disclosure of the Final Audit Report.

® The Final Audit Report (Appendix A to EGPB- 9) will be attached to the public version of the Final

Resolution.

® The Final Audit Report orders La Paloma to complete corrective actions for eleven violations of

General Order 167, which includes Maintenance and Operations Standards for Electric Generators.

ESTIMATED COST:

® None.

Item

12

[9206]

Authorizes the disclosure of records concerning the California Public Utilities Commission Consumer

Protection and Safety Division’s investigation of a train accident that resulted in a fatality which occurred

on May 7, 2008, located at the Valley View Avenue Crossing, in La Mirada, Los Angeles County.

Item

13

[9209]

Appeal of Evans Industrial, Inc. of the Clearinghouse

Determination of Status Under General Order 156

PROPOSED OUTCOME:

® Denies appeal.

ESTIMATED COST:

® None.

Item

14

[9213]

A07-02-032, A07-02-033 - Related matters.

Application of Pacific Gas and Electric Company for Approval of Demand Response Agreements.

PROPOSED OUTCOME:

® Declines to modify Decision 07-05-029 to expand a Demand Response contract between Pacific

Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and Energy Curtailment Specialists.

® PG&E did not provide updated information on the cost effectiveness of its proposed contract

expansion.

® Certain terms of the existing contract are not consistent with current Commission policy for

demand response activities set in Decision 09-08-027.

® Closes the proceeding.

ESTIMATED COST:

® None.

(Comr Grueneich - ALJ Hecht)

Pub. Util. Code § 311 – This item was mailed for Public Comment.

Pub. Util. Code §1701.1 -- This proceeding is categorized as Ratesetting.

Item

15

[9214]

Final Report of the 2009 Safety Review of San Diego Trolley,

Inc.

PROPOSED OUTCOME:

® Grants approval of San Diego Trolley, Inc's Safety Review Report dated December 31, 2009.

ESTIMATED COST:

® Not within the scope of this resolution.

Item

16

[9221]

Transfer of Control and Fining Applicants for Violation of

Section 854 of the Public Utilities Code

A09-11-008

Application of NobelTel, LLC and Nobel Holding, Inc. for approval of an Indirect Transfer of Control of

NobelTel, LLC.

PROPOSED OUTCOME:

® Grants transfer of control.

® Fines Applicants $5,000 based on their failure to obtain authorization before the closing of the

sale.

® Application 09-11-008 is closed.

ESTIMATED COST:

® None.

(Comr Bohn - ALJ Wilson)

Pub. Util. Code § 311 – This item was mailed for Public Comment.

Pub. Util. Code §1701.1 -- This proceeding is categorized as Ratesetting.

Item

17

[9225]

Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Renewable Energy

Contract With AV Solar Ranch 1, LLC

Res E-4315, Advice Letter (AL) 3469-E filed on June 4, 2009 and Supplemental AL 3469-E-A filed on

December 4, 2009 - Related matters.

PROPOSED OUTCOME:

® Approves cost recovery for a power purchase agreement resulting from Pacific Gas and Electric

Company’s (PG&E) 2008 Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) solicitation between PG&E and AV

Solar Ranch 1, LLC., pursuant to California’s RPS program.

ESTIMATED COST:

® Actual costs are confidential at this time.

Item

18

[9228]

San Diego Gas and Electric Company's Updated Revenue

Requirement

PROPOSED OUTCOME:

® Approves San Diego Gas & Electric Company’s request to decrease the revenue requirement

associated with the completion of the Miramar Energy Facility II pursuant to Decision 09-01-008.

ESTIMATED COST:

® None.

Item

19

[9230]

C09-07-013

Xiaotian Sun vs. Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

PROPOSED OUTCOME:

® Complainant seeks to be placed on a rate schedule closed to new customers.

® Held: Relief denied.

® Closes the proceeding.

ESTIMATED COST:

® None.

(Comr Simon - ALJ Barnett)

Item

20

[9237]

Construction of two New Pedestrian Underpasses Under

Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Tracks

A09-12-013

Application of the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board for authority to construct two new pedestrian

underpasses at MPs 10.94 & 11.06 at the San Bruno Caltrain Station, City of San Bruno, County of San

Mateo.

PROPOSED OUTCOME:

® Grants the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board authorization to construct two new

grade-separated pedestrian rail crossings under their tracks on the Caltrain mainline.

® Closes the proceeding.

ESTIMATED COST:

® Discretionary project, not within scope of applicant request.

(Exam Clark)

Item

21

[9241]

Bauer’s Limousine Service, Inc. to Extend its Passenger

Stage Corporation Certificate

A09-12-019

Application of Bauer’s Limousine Service, Inc. for authority to expand its current Passenger Stage

Corporation authority to operate in additional counties and between fixed points within and between such

counties, over specified routes in San Diego, Orange, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, San

Joaquin, Marin, Alameda, Contra Costa, Yolo, Sacramento, Placer, Nevada, Tehama, Shasta, and

Siskiyou Counties in the State of California, and to Establish a Zone of Rate Freedom for its services.

PROPOSED OUTCOME:

® Grants the application of Bauer’s Limousine Service, Inc. to extend its scheduled passenger

stage corporation service to include additional routes in Northern California, a new service in

Southern California, and service between San Diego and Yreka.

® Establishes a zone of rate freedom.

® Closes the proceeding.

ESTIMATED COST:

® None.

(Exam Clark)

Item

22

[9242]

A09-12-009

In the Matter of the Application of Amarjit Singh, doing business as Prince Shuttle for Authority to operate

as an on call Passenger Stage Operation between points in the Counties of Alameda, Santa Clara, San

Mateo, Contra Costa and the City and County of San Francisco, and the following International Airports:

Oakland, San Francisco, and San Jose.

PROPOSED OUTCOME:

® Grants the application of Amarjit Singh to operate as an on-call passenger stage corporation

between certain cities in Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, Santa Clara Counties, the City and

County of San Francisco, San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose International Airports.

® Closes the proceeding.

ESTIMATED COST:

® None.

(Exam Clark)

Item

23

[9248]

Authority to Remove and to Reconstruct an At-Grade

Crossing Above BNSF Railway Company's San Jacinto

Subdivision Tracks

A09-03-013

Application of the California Department of Transportation for an order authorizing replacement of an

existing grade separated crossing (Frontage Road Overhead) per General Order 26-D over one rail line

operated by BNSF at State Route 60 and near State Route 215/60 Interchange in the City of Riverside

and Moreno Valley, County of Riverside, State of California.

PROPOSED OUTCOME:

® Grants Caltrans authorization to construct the grade-separated frontage road highway-rail

crossing above the BNSF tracks.

® Closes the proceeding.

ESTIMATED COST:

® Discretionary project, not within scope of applicant request.

(Exam Clark)

Item

24

[9249]

R05-12-013

Order Instituting Rulemaking to Consider Refinements to and Further Development of the Commission’s

Resource Adequacy Requirements Program.

PROPOSED OUTCOME:

® Extends the deadline for resolving the proceeding to June 18, 2010.

ESTIMATED COST:

® None.

(Comr Peevey - ALJ Wetzell)

Item

25

[9250]

A09-02-006

In the matter of the Application of the City of Sacramento in cooperation with California State Railroad

Museum and the California State Parks to construct a permanent at-grade pedestrian crossing located at

railroad mile post 0.80 in the City of Sacramento, County of Sacramento, California.

PROPOSED OUTCOME:

® Grants City of Sacramento (City) authority to construct a new at-grade pedestrian crossing of the

tracks of the California State Railroad Museum in the City.

® Closes proceeding.

ESTIMATED COST:

® Discretionary project, not within scope of applicant request.

(Exam Clark)

Item

26

[9252]

A08-06-034

In the Matter of the Application of Golden State Water Company for Authority to Increase Rates for

Electric Service by its Bear Valley Electric Service Division.

PROPOSED OUTCOME:

® Grants petition to modify Decision (D) 09-10-028 filed by Golden State Water Company.

® Closes the proceeding.

ESTIMATED COST:

® No change to the revenue requirement adopted in D09-10-028.

® Amortization of the balance in a memorandum account will result in a rate change of

approximately $0.00324/kWh for 24 months.

(Comr Simon - ALJ Farrar)

Item

27

[9256]

C09-03-024

Jurupa Community Services District vs. Empire Water Company, LLP.

PROPOSED OUTCOME:

® Order Extending Statutory Deadline from March 22, 2010, to December 16, 2010.

ESTIMATED COST:

® None.

(Comr Bohn - ALJ Weatherford)

Item

28

[9257]

Blue Rooster Telecom, Inc. Certificate of Public Convenience

and Necessity

A09-09-017

Application of Blue Rooster Telecom, Inc. for a certificate of public convenience and necessity to provide:

(i) resold and facilities-based competitive local exchange service throughout the service territories of

Pacific Bell Telephone Company, Verizon California, Inc., SureWest Telephone, and Citizens

Telecommunications Company of California, Inc.; and (ii) resold and facilities-based interexchange

service statewide.

PROPOSED OUTCOME:

® Grants certificate of public convenience and necessity to Blue Rooster Telecom, Inc.

® Application 09-09-017 is closed.

ESTIMATED COST:

® None.

(Comr Grueneich - ALJ MacDonald)

Item

29

[9188]

A07-11-011, I08-01-026 - Related matters.

Application of Southern California Edison Company for Authority to, Among other Things, Increase its

Authorized Revenues for Electric Service in 2009, and to Reflect that Increase in Rates.

PROPOSED OUTCOME:

® Awards Inland Aquaculture Group, L.L.C. $57,443.16 for substantial contribution to Decision

09-03-025.

® Application 07-11-011 and Investigation 08-01-026 are closed.

ESTIMATED COST:

® Ratepayers of Southern California Edison Company will pay $57,443.16, plus interest.

(Comr Peevey - ALJ DeAngelis)

Pub. Util. Code § 311 – This item was mailed for Public Comment.

Pub. Util. Code §1701.1 -- This proceeding is categorized as Ratesetting.

Item

30

[9251]

A08-11-014

Application of San Diego Gas & Electric Company for Authority to Update Cost Allocation and Electric

Rate Design.

PROPOSED OUTCOME:

® Awards Utility Consumers’ Action Network $19,744.64 for substantial contribution to Decision

09-09-036.

® Closes the proceeding.

ESTIMATED COST:

® Ratepayers of San Diego Gas & Electric Company will pay $19,744.64, plus interest.

(Comr Bohn - ALJ Long)

Item

31

[9253]

A08-12-021

Application of San Diego Gas & Electric Company for Review of its Proactive De-Energization Measures

and Approval of Proposed Tariff Revisions.

PROPOSED OUTCOME:

® Awards Utility Consumers’ Action Network $54,189.60 for substantial contribution to Decision

09-09-030.

ESTIMATED COST:

® Ratepayers of San Diego Gas & Electric Company will pay $54,189.60, plus interest.

(Comr Simon - ALJ Kenney)

Item

32

(Rev.)

[8406]

Tradable Renewable Energy Credits for the California

Renewables Portfolio Standard Program Compliance

R06-02-012

Order Instituting Rulemaking to Develop Additional Methods to Implement the California Renewables

Portfolio Standard Program.

PROPOSED OUTCOME:

® Authorizes use of tradable renewable energy credits (TRECs) for RPS compliance.

® Clarifies classification of transactions as TREC or bundled RPS procurement.

® Sets market rules for TREC market.

® Sets compliance and reporting rules for use of TRECs.

® Sets temporary cap of $50.00/REC on TRECs used by utilities for RPS compliance.

® Sets temporary usage limit of 25% of RPS annual procurement target for TRECs used by three

large utilities.

ESTIMATED COST:

® None.

(Comr Peevey - ALJ Simon)

Pub. Util. Code § 311 – This item was mailed for Public Comment.

Pub. Util. Code §1701.1 -- This proceeding is categorized as Ratesetting.

Agenda 3248, Item 23 2/4/2010 (Staff);

Agenda 3249, Item 42 2/25/2010 (Peevey)

Item

33

(Rev.)

[8994]

R05-12-013

Order Instituting Rulemaking to Consider Refinements to and Further Development of the Commission’s

Resource Adequacy Requirements Program.

PROPOSED OUTCOME:

® Adopts, as a matter of Commission policy, the Bilateral Trading Group’s recommendations for the

Resource Adequacy Program. The program is continued in effect without major structural

modification.

® Closes the proceeding.

ESTIMATED COST:

® No direct incremental cost foreseen.

(Comr Peevey - ALJ Wetzell)

Pub. Util. Code § 311 – This item was mailed for Public Comment.

Pub. Util. Code §1701.1 -- This proceeding is categorized as Ratesetting.

Agenda 3246, Item 61 12/17/2009 (Peevey);

Agenda 3247, Item 43 1/21/2010 (Staff);

Agenda 3248, Item 24 2/4/2010 (Staff);

Agenda 3249, Item 43 2/25/2010 (Staff)

Item

34

[9195]

Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Solar Photovoltaic

Program

A09-02-019

Application of Pacific Gas and Electric Company to Implement and Recover in Rates the Costs of its

Photovoltaic Program.

PROPOSED OUTCOME:

® Adopts a new program to develop 500 Megawatts of photovoltaic facilities by Pacific Gas and

Electric Company (PG&E) and independent power producers in PG&E’s service territory.

® Closes the proceeding.

ESTIMATED COST:

® Prices for utility-owned generation and power purchase agreements will be capped at the

weighted average price of photovoltaic projects from PG&E’s 2009 renewables portfolio standard

solicitation.

(Comr Peevey - ALJ Ebke)

Pub. Util. Code § 311 – This item was mailed for Public Comment.

Pub. Util. Code §1701.1 -- This proceeding is categorized as Ratesetting.

Item

34a

(Rev.)

[9196]

The Alternate Proposed Decision (APD) differs from the Proposed Decision (PD) in the following

substantive ways:

® The APD authorizes Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) to recover the costs of up to 250 MW

of utility owned generation (UOG) solar PV projects through cost-of service ratemaking treatment. The

APD adopts revised operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, and contingency amounts. With regard to

the PG&E's O&M costs, the APD finds that the cost estimates are reasonable however authorizes PG&E

to collect only the actual costs it incurs.

® The APD establishes a minimum performance standard whereby PG&E's O&M costs will be subject to

a reasonableness review should system performance fall, on average, below 80% of anticipated output.

® The APD allows PG&E to pursue some limited number of UOG projects on roof-tops and/or sized less

than 1 MW, provided these deployments constitute less than 5% of the overall authorized capacity.

® Although the APD relies on the same competitive solicitation process as the PD for projects

undertaken by independent power producers, the APD adopts a different cost cap for projects pursued for

the PPA portion of the program.

® The APD encourages PG&E to deploy UOG projects on utility owned land near its substations,

however, unlike the PD, it does not require PG&E to file advice letters if it elects to pursue projects on land

not currently owned by the utility or near a substation.

(Comr Peevey)

Item

35

[9220]

R07-05-025

Rulemaking regarding whether, or subject to what Conditions, the suspension of Direct Access may be

lifted consistent with Assembly Bill 1X and Decision 01-09-060.

PROPOSED OUTCOME:

® Authorizes increased limits in the allowed level of direct access transactions within the service

territories of California’s three major investor-owned electric utilities, Pacific Gas and Electric

Company, Southern California Edison Company, and San Diego Gas & Electric Company,

implemented in accordance with the provision of Senate Bill 695 (Stats. 2009, ch. 337).

® Effective April 11, 2010, all qualifying customers will be eligible to take direct access service, up

to the new maximum cap subject to the conditions as set forth herein.

ESTIMATED COST:

® Uncertain.

(Comr Peevey - ALJ Pulsifer)

Pub. Util. Code § 311 – This item was mailed for Public Comment.

Pub. Util. Code §1701.1 -- This proceeding is categorized as Ratesetting.

Pub. Util. Code §1701.1 -- This proceeding is categorized as Quasi-Legislative.

Item

36

[9223]

Southern California Gas Company for Approval of Advanced

Metering Infrastructure

A08-09-023

Application of Southern California Gas Company for Approval of Advanced Metering Infrastructure.

PROPOSED OUTCOME:

® Rejects the Southern California Gas Company request for approval of activities and budgets to

implement a gas-only advanced metering infrastructure system throughout its service territory.

® Closes the proceeding.

ESTIMATED COST:

® None.

(Comr Grueneich - ALJ Hecht)

Pub. Util. Code § 311 – This item was mailed for Public Comment.

Pub. Util. Code §1701.1 -- This proceeding is categorized as Ratesetting.

Item

36a

(Rev.)

[9224]

PROPOSED OUTCOME:

® The Alternate Proposed Decision approves the application with the following modifications to

Southern California Gas Company's (SoCalGas) proposal:

® Approves contingency funding at 7%, rather than 10% as proposed by SoCalGas.

® Modifies SoCalGas’ proposed sharing mechanism such that cost overruns of less than $100

million shall be allocated 50/50 to shareholders and ratepayers.

® Establishes a $1 million fund for retraining and retention of meter reading workforce impacted by

the Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) project.

® Directs SoCalGas to develop a plan for AMI outreach and conservation support.

® Requires semi-annual reporting to track the gas conservation impacts of the AMI project to date.

ESTIMATED COST:

® A total cost of $1.0507 billion.

(Comr Grueneich)

Item

37

[8518]

PROPOSED OUTCOME:

® Affirms a prior Executive Director’s Action Resolution E-4225 findings related to Southern

California Edison’s (SCE’s) proposed Moorpark-Newbury 66 kV Subtransmission line.

® Finds that: (1) SCE complied with the notice requirements for the proposed construction of

facilities; (2) The proposed facilities were exempt from Permit to Construct requirements; (3) Facts

claimed in protests to Executive Director’s Action Resolution did not support a finding that General

Order 131-D exemption criteria applied.

® Dismisses protests.

ESTIMATED COST:

® Moorpark-Newbury 66kV Subtransmission Line was filed as Advice Letter 2272-E Notice of

Proposed Construction Project Pursuant to General Order 131-D; therefore, no cost information is

provided or required for Permits to Construct.

Agenda 3235, Item 25 6/4/2009 (Staff);

Agenda 3236, Item 43 6/18/2009 (Staff);

Agenda 3237, Item 32 7/9/2009 (Staff);

Agenda 3240, Item 46 9/10/2009 (Staff);

Agenda 3241, Item 38 9/24/2009 (Staff);

Agenda 3242, Item 46 10/15/2009 (Staff);

Agenda 3243, Item 51 10/29/2009 (Staff);

Agenda 3244, Item 64 11/20/2009 (Peevey);

Agenda 3245, Item 34 12/3/2009 (Staff);

Agenda 3247, Item 49 1/21/2010 (Staff);

Agenda 3248, Item 27 2/4/2010 (Staff);

Agenda 3249, Item 46 2/25/2010 (Staff)

Item

38

[8520]

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric

Company, and Southern California Edison Company

Qualifying Facilities Contracts

Res E-4242, Advice Letter (AL) PG&E AL 3197-E, SDG&E AL 1958-E and SCE AL 2200-E, filed on

January 14, 2008, Supplemental AL PG&E AL 3197-E-A, SDG&E AL 1958-E-A and SCE AL 2200-E-A,

filed on July 11, 2008, and Supplemental AL PG&E AL 3197-E-B, et al. - Related matters.

PROPOSED OUTCOME:

® Adopts, with modifications, the Qualifying Facility (QF) Standard Offer Contracts proposed by

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), Southern California Edison Company (SCE) and San

Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E). Upon adoption, there will be one QF Standard Offer

Contract across all three electric Investor Owned Utilities (IOUs).

® The new contract may be signed by new and existing QFs with expired contracts in addition to

QFs pursuing other contracting methods such as participating in an IOU’s Request for Offer process

or negotiating a bilateral contract.

ESTIMATED COST:

® Adoption of this resolution does not imply any specific cost. However, upon adoption, the utilities

may enter into contracts with new or existing QFs.

® These contracts will form part of the utilities’ procurement costs for electricity.

® It is impossible to know in advance the total cost of those contracts but, in the past, QF power has

represented no more than 20% of the utilities’ portfolio.

® Contracts executed with existing QFs should not result in any additional costs as the utilities were

already purchasing power from these QFs in the past.

® Contracts signed with new QFs will represent new incremental expenditures, but this spending will

be offset by the reduced need for new generation as a result of contracting with the new QF.

Agenda 3235, Item 26 6/4/2009 (Staff);

Agenda 3236, Item 44 6/18/2009 (Staff);

Agenda 3237, Item 33 7/9/2009 (Staff);

Agenda 3238, Item 47 7/30/2009 (Staff);

Agenda 3239, Item 55 8/20/2009 (Staff);

Agenda 3240, Item 47 9/10/2009 (Staff);

Agenda 3241, Item 39 9/24/2009 (Staff);

Agenda 3242, Item 47 10/15/2009 (Staff);

Agenda 3243, Item 52 10/29/2009 (Staff);

Agenda 3244, Item 65 11/20/2009 (Staff);

Agenda 3245, Item 35 12/3/2009 (Staff);

Agenda 3246, Item 69 12/17/2009 (Staff);

Agenda 3247, Item 50 1/21/2010 (Staff);

Agenda 3248, Item 28 2/4/2010 (Staff);

Agenda 3249, Item 47 2/25/2010 (Staff)

Item

39

[9132]

San Gabriel Valley Water Company Conservation Rate

Design and Memorandum Accounts

A08-09-008

In the Matter of the Application of San Gabriel Valley Water Company for authority to establish a

conservation rate design, including a Water Revenue Adjustment Mechanism, modified cost balancing

account, and Conservation Memorandum Account in compliance with Decision 08-06-022.

PROPOSED OUTCOME:

® Authorizes conservation rate designs, water revenue adjustment mechanism, and cost balancing

accounts.

® Denies conservation and proceeding memorandum accounts.

® Closes the proceeding.

ESTIMATED COST:

® No change in revenue requirement.

® Reduces service charges, shifting higher proportion of revenues to quantity charges within a

two-tier increasing block rate design.

(Comr Bohn - ALJ Weatherford)

Pub. Util. Code § 311 – This item was mailed for Public Comment.

Pub. Util. Code §1701.1 -- This proceeding is categorized as Ratesetting.

Item

40

[9207]

San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency Central

Subway Project

PROPOSED OUTCOME:

® Authorizes San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency to construct three new at-grade

light-rail-transit crossings, and an additional track at one existing crossing, in the City of San

Francisco.

ESTIMATED COST:

® Not within the scope of this resolution.

Item

41

[9245]

Comments Before Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Regarding Barriers of Variable Energy Resources

® The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) seeks comment on the extent to which barriers

may exist that impede the reliable and efficient integration of variable energy resources into the electric

grid, and whether reforms are needed to eliminate those barriers.

® In the January 21, 2010 Notice of Inquiry establishing this docket, FERC indicated its intention to

explore whether reforms are necessary in order to meet the challenges posed by the integration of

increasing numbers of variable energy resources, to ensure that jurisdictional rates are just and

reasonable, to eliminate impediments to open access transmission service for all resources, to facilitate

the efficient development of infrastructure, and to ensure that the reliability of the grid is maintained.

® The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has previously provided comments to FERC on

various issues relating to the development if the infrastructure needed to access increasing amounts of

renewable energy resources.

® However, the CPUC has never explicitly addressed in comments to FERC the narrower question of

how such renewable energy resources can most effectively be integrated into the existing grid.

® Staff accordingly seeks Commission authority to comment on particular issues raised in FERC’s

Notice of Inquiry that have not been the subject of previous Commission authorizations.

Item

42

[9246]

Comments Before Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Regarding a Notice of a Proposed Rulemaking

® Staff seeks Commission authorization to comment on Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's

(FERC) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking which seeks to amend FERC regulations to reform credit

practices in organized wholesale electricity markets.

® Proposed reforms include but are not limited to shortening the settlement cycle, reducing unsecured

credit limits, and extending credit reforms to the financial transmission rights markets.

Item

43

[9247]

Comments Before Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Regarding a Notice of Inquiry

® Staff seeks Commission authorization to comment on Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's

(FERC) Notice Of Inquiry which seeks input on whether FERC should apply its Electricity Quarterly Report

(EQR) filing requirements to market participants (e.g., municipalities) that are excluded from FERC’s

jurisdiction under the Federal Power Act.

® In addition, FERC seeks comments on proposed refinements to the EQR filing requirements aimed at

improving electricity market transparency.

Item

44

[9254]

Petition for Declaratory Ruling Regarding Fees Charged for

Late Payments

® On January 14, 2010, five California consumers filed a Petition for Expedited Declaratory Ruling

asking the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to interpret 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(3)(A), in response

to a referral from the Federal District Court in California in which petitioners filed a class action complaint.

® Petitioners ask the FCC to find that penalty fees which wireless carriers impose on consumers for late

bill payments are not “rates” under § 332(c)(3)(A).

® Staff proposes to file comments agreeing with petitioners that late payment fees are “terms and

conditions” of service, not “rates”.

Item

45

[9244]

Commissioner Reappointment to the Low-Income Oversight

Board

Item

46

[9233]

Item

47

[9235]

Disposition of Application for Rehearing of Decision 09-08-027 (Decision) filed by Transphase Company.

The Decision adopted 2009-2011 demand response (DR) activities and budgets for Pacific Gas and

Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company and San Diego Gas & Electric Company.

The total combined budget for the three utilities is $349,509,463. The funding will support a range of DR

programs and activities including Emergency Programs, Price Responsive Programs, Utility Programs,

Emerging Markets and Technologies Programs, and Pilot Programs for 2010-2011. The Decision also

evaluated various Permanent Load Shifting proposals.

Item

48

[9236]

Disposition of Application for Rehearing of Decision 09-11-017 (Decision) filed by Jerome D. Monkarsh

(Monkarsh). The Decision dismissed a complaint filed by Monkarsh against Southern California Gas

Company (SoCalGas). The complaint alleged that SoCalGas engaged in predatory billing practices by

manipulating the billing cycles in a manner that forces customers into a higher tier with increased rates.

The complaint alleged that SoCalGas achieved this result by billing for 34/35 day billing cycles rather than

30/31 day cycles during colder winter months in which there is greater gas consumption. The Decision

dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action because there was no evidence that

SoCalGas violated any rule, order, regulation, tariff or other law.

Consideration of possible Commission initiation of, or intervention in, litigation.

Gov. Code § 11126(e)(2)(C)(i) and/or § 11126(d)(2), allows this item to be considered in Closed

Session.

Significant exposure to litigation

Gov. Code § 11126(e)(2)(B), allows this item to be considered in Closed Session

Significant exposure to litigation in federal agency or court proceedings.

Gov. Code § 11126(e)(2)(B), allows this item to be considered in Closed Session

Consideration of possible Commission initiation of, or intervention in, federal agency or court

proceedings.

Gov. Code § 11126(e)(2)(C)(i), allows this item to be considered in Closed Session.

Item

49

[9234]

California Independent System Operator Corporations, FERC Docket No. ER06-615, also known as

Market Redesign and Technology Update (MRTU).

Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; San Diego Gas & Electric Co., FERC Docket No.

EL00-95, Investigation of Practices of the California Independent System Operator and the California

Power Exchange, FERC Docket EL00-98, and related dockets, CPUC v. FERC, Ninth Circuit Nos.

01-71051, et al., and 01-71934, et al., and related dockets.

Gov. Code § 11126(e)(2)(A), allows this item to be considered in Closed Session.

Consideration of appointment, employment, evaluation of performance, or dismissal of a public employee

or to hear complaints or charges brought against that employee by another person or employee.

Gov. Code § 11126(a), allows this item to be considered in Closed Session