IV. Assignment of Proceeding
Carl W. Wood and Geoffrey F. Brown are the Assigned Commissioners and Thomas R. Pulsifer is the assigned Administrative Law Judge in this proceeding.
1. In D.03-04-057, the Commission clarified that the "standstill" policy is aimed at "maintaining the then-current levels of DA" (i.e., as of September 20, 2001).
2. In D.03-04-057, the Commission clarified that "normal usage variations" means "daily and seasonal load fluctuations," and thus does not include growth of load on DA accounts from expanding customer operations, as proposed by Petitioners' modification.
3. Joint Parties' proposed modification to Rule 6 of D.03-04-057 fails to provide a definition of "normal increases in load" that would permit enforcement of the "standstill principle" adopted in D.02-03-055.
4. Granting the requested Modification of Rule 6 of D.03-04-057 would not address the concerns raised by Joint Parties opposed to SCE's two-meter policy.
5. The proposal of PG&E and SDG&E (i.e., to permit DA load growth up to the point where capacity requires a panel upgrade) would violate the standstill principle under D.02-03-055.
6. A panel upgrade request signifies that peak load has grown substantially, typically more than 10 %. At least in some cases, such growth probably exceeds what might be considered a "normal load fluctuation."
7. SCE's proposal would impose additional burdens on DA customers, but its proposed criteria for installing second meters fail to relate to any relevant benchmark that corresponds to September 20, 2001 DA suspension levels.
8. SCE's reference to "current levels" of load in its proposed process for second meters is unduly vague and provides no means to determine whether such levels necessarily correspond to the authorized contract limits in effect as of September 20, 2001, taking into account "normal load fluctuations" as allowed under existing suspension rules.
9. SCE has not justified that its proposed modifications are an appropriate way to implement the Commission's standstill principle, or that the modifications are fair to DA customers.
10. The most efficient and practical way to account for any potentially excess DA load growth beyond the levels that are permissible under the DA suspension rules is through the periodic process for monitoring and adjusting the DA CRS cap.
11. In order to capture the effects of any impermissible DA load growth beyond the authorized levels under contract as of September 20, 2001, such growth in load levels must be included as incremental load subject to an assessment of DWR-related costs in performing the DA-in/DA-out indifference cost calculations.
12. To the extent that the effects of including such impermissible DA load growth in the DA-in/out incremental volume calculation affects the overall DA cost responsibility obligation, an adjustment in either the DA CRS cap or DA CRS undercollection would provide a reasonable vehicle to maintain bundled customer indifference.
1. The modifications to D.03-04-057 sought by Petitioners would violate the "standstill principle" adopted in D.02-03-055 and related statutory DA suspension requirements of AB 1 X and AB 117.
2. The modifications of D.03-04-057 proposed by Petitioners is overly broad and vague with respect to the definition of "normal load growth."
3. Without adequately addressing the bundled customer cost impacts of removing DA load restrictions, parties have not justified the proposed modification to D.03-04-057.
4. The Joint Parties' Petition to Modify Rule 6 of D.03-04-057 should be denied, but the typographical error in Conclusion of Law 8 in that decision should be corrected.
5. SCE has failed to justify that its proposed procedures for requiring a second metered account for DA customers is an appropriate way to enforce the Commission's "standstill" rule.
6. SCE's Petition to clarify D.02-03-055 should be denied.
7. PG&E and SDG&E have failed to justify that their alternative criteria for requiring DA customers to install a second meter are consistent with the Commission's "standstill principle."
8. To the extent that increases in the load level served through a DA account subsequent to September 20, 2001 are based upon contractual load commitments that were executed on or before September 20, 2001, such load levels thus are properly entitled to DA treatment since they were negotiated prior to the date of suspension.
9. Incremental load growth at existing DA accounts attributable to "add-on" commitments for new DA load that were executed by contract after September 20, 2001 would violate the DA suspension rules adopted in D.02-03-055.
10. In order to capture the effects of any impermissible DA load growth beyond the authorized levels under contract as of September 20, 2001, such growth in load levels should be examined and accounted for as part of the Commission's periodic assessment of the DA CRS cap and cost responsibility undercollection.
11. Incremental DA load growth identified as being in excess of permissible volumes under the Commission's suspension rules should be treated as incremental load subject to an assessment of DWR cost responsibility in performing the DA-in/DA-out indifference cost calculations.
12. In determining any adjustment to the DA cost responsibility obligation for the effects of load growth beyond permissible suspension limits, it is reasonable to apply an appropriate materiality threshold to consider only DA accounts whose load demand is large enough to make a significant difference with respect to bundled customer indifference.
13. The DA CRS cap should be adjusted as part of the DA CRS periodic review process, to the extent necessary to recognize the effects of DA load growth in excess of authorized suspension limits and to maintain the Commission's goal of achieving full DA CRS payback no later than the end of the DWR contract term.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The Petition to Modify Rule 6 in Decision (D.) 03-04-057 filed by SBC Services, University of California/California State University, and California Large Energy Consumers Association (CLECA) (Joint Petitioners) is hereby denied.
2. The following typographical correction is hereby made to Conclusion of Law 8 of D.03-04-057, inserting the word "not":
"The limitations on DA eligibility of load from replacement or relocation of facilities as adopted in the modifications herein to D.02-03-055 are not intended to prohibit load changes associated with normal usage, variations for accounts at other locations that are eligible for DA as of September 20, 2001." (Correction in bold face.)
3. The Petition to clarify D.02-03-055 filed by Southern California Edison is hereby denied.
4. The modifications to the Commission's standstill policy proposed jointly by Pacific Gas & Electric Company and San Diego Gas & Electric Company are hereby denied.
5. Comments shall be filed 15 business day after the effective date of this order to develop the record on the issues outlined above regarding a process to distinguish or delineate "normal load fluctuations" from load growth in excess of permissible Direct Access suspension limits, and means by which to recognize, measure, and bill such excess load on a bundled service basis. Reply comments shall be due 10 business days thereafter.
6. As part of the next periodic review of DA CRS cap levels pursuant to D.03-07-030, we hereby require that increases in DA load volumes shall be examined (subject to a reasonable materiality threshold on DA account size) to ascertain if any have occurred that exceed the authorized amounts under contract as of September 20, 2001, taking into account, as appropriate, "normal load fluctuations," as allowed under the standstill principle.
7. In conjunction with the review process, the ALJ shall provide opportunity for parties to comment on appropriate processes for identifying an appropriate materiality threshold for each utility for purposes of evaluating excess DA load, if any, subject to "normal load fluctuations."
8. To the extent that it is found that any such excess load volumes beyond permissible limits under the Commission's standstill principles are receiving DA billing treatment, an appropriate adjustment shall be required, either to the DA CRS cap or to the cost responsibility undercollection accrual, as necessary to account for such excess DA load and to maintain bundled customer indifference consistent with the principles adopted in D 02-03-055 and related orders.
This order is effective today.
Dated _____________________, at San Francisco, California.
