Comments on Draft Decision
Rule 77.7 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure provides for public review and comment for draft decisions, consistent with the provisions of Pub. Util. Code § 311(g). Normally, draft decisions are subject to a 30-day "sunshine" period and the same public review and comment period that is required for proposed decisions. Rule 77.7(f) allows the Commission to reduce or waive the period for public review and comment for draft decisions under various circumstances.2 Rule 77.7(f)(9) specifically provides for an exemption:
For a decision where the Commission determines, on the motion of a party or on its own motion, that public necessity requires reduction or waiver of the 30-day period for public review and comment. For purposes of this subsection, "public necessity" refers to circumstances in which the public interest of the Commission adopting a decision before expiration of the 30-day review and comment period clearly outweighs the public interest in having the full 30-day period for review and comment. "Public necessity" includes, without limitation, circumstances where failure to adopt a decision before expiration of the 30-day review and comment period would place the Commission or a Commission regulatee in violation of applicable law, or where such failure would cause significant harm to public health or welfare. When acting pursuant to this subsection, the Commission will provide such reduced period for public review and comment as is consistent with the public necessity requiring reduction or waiver.
Pursuant to Rule 77.7(f)(9), we determine that public necessity requires a reduced period for public review and comment. This comment period provides notice and opportunity to be heard regarding the modification of these decisions.
1. Ratepayers in SDG&E's service territory should be shielded from the unreasonably high wholesale electric costs for an interim period.
2. While the Commission did not initiate electric restructuring in order to shield consumers from the market, we must consider the impact of high energy prices on consumers.
3. We recognize that, in a workably competitive market, masking prices results in incomplete and inefficient market structure and system demand, and compromises system reliability. It is reasonable to implement interim rate caps for SDG&E through December 2003, because wholesale electric markets are not workably competitive.
1. It is reasonable to modify D.00-06-034 to require SDG&E to cap rates for its residential, small commercial, and lighting customers for an interim period.
2. Pursuant to Rule 77.7(f)(9), we determine that public necessity requires a reduced period for public review and comment. The comment period for this draft decision provides notice and opportunity to be heard.
3. This order should be effective today, so that these requirements may be implemented expeditiously.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Decision (D.) 00-08-021 is modified to order San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) to implement a rate cap for its residential, small commercial, and lighting customers. SDG&E shall cap its residential, small commercial and lighting customer rates at levels not to exceed 110% of frozen electric rate levels that were in effect as of June 30, 1998 from the effective date of this decision through December 2003. The following findings of fact in Decision (D.) 00-08-021 shall be modified: :
1. UCAN's motion to re-institute the rate freeze for SDG&E for the months of August, September, and October could lead to unintended consequences and higher winter bills; however, we recognize that immediate rate relief is required now.
2. UCAN's proposal should be examined and evaluated in the context of the OII order we vote upon today in order to determine the jurisdictional and practical implementation of a solution. We will hold evidentiary hearings on recovery of the shortfall, but will ensure that SDG&E is made whole.
2. D.00-06-034 is modified to require San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) to cap rates for its residential, small commercial, and lighting customers on an interim basis. The following findings of fact shall be modified and now read as follows:
21. We reject PG&E's proposal that it is necessary to cap rates in order to protect residential and small commercial customers from potential price volatility and corresponding rate increases, however, it is reasonable to adopt an interim rate freeze for SDG&E through December 2003.
22. We did not initiate electric restructuring in order to shield consumers from the market. We agree with Weil and TURN that customers need accurate price signals in order to react and protect themselves against periodic price spikes, however, affirmative action is required to provide immediate rate relief for ratepayers in SDG&E's service territory.
23. In a workably competitive market, we recognize that masking prices results in incomplete and inefficient market structure and system demand, and compromises system reliability. Only through accurate price signals can customers understand how their usage impacts the system and make economically efficient choices; however, it is reasonable to implement rate caps on an interim basis for SDG&E.
3. Within five days of the effective date of this decision, SDG&E shall file an advice letter to implement the interim rate caps in compliance with this decision and to establish a balancing account for future recovery of the corresponding shortfall.
This order is effective today.
Dated _______________, at San Francisco, California.
2 Public review and comment on alternate decisions may be reduced but not waived.
