STATE OF CALIFORNIA ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
505 VAN NESS AVENUE
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298
June 24, 2004 Agenda ID #3697
(Alternate to Agenda ID #3431)
Ratesetting
TO: PARTIES OF RECORD IN APPLICATION 02-11-017, et al.
RE: NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF ALTERNATE PROPOSED DECISION OF
CARL WOOD ON STORM AND RELIABILITY ISSUES.
Consistent with Rule 2.3(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, I am issuing this Notice of Availability of the above-referenced alternate proposed decision. The proposed decision was issued by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Halligan on April 6, 2004. An Internet link to these documents was sent via e-mail to all the parties on the service list who provided an e-mail address to the Commission. An electronic copy of this document can be viewed and downloaded at the Commission's Website ( www.cpuc.ca.gov). A hard copy of this document can be obtained by contacting the Commission's Central Files Office [(415) 703-2045].
Any recipient of this Notice of Availability who is not receiving service by electronic mail in this proceeding or who is unable to access the link to the Commission's web site given above may request a paper copy of the above documents from the Commission's Central Files Office, at (415) 703-2045; e-mail cen@cpuc.ca.gov.
When the Commission acts on the proposed decision or alternate proposed decision, it may adopt all or part of them as written, amend or modify them, or set them aside and prepare its own decision. Only when the Commission acts does the decision become binding on the parties.
As set forth in Rule 77.6, parties to the proceeding may file comments on the alternate at least seven days before the Commissioner meeting or no later than July 1, 2004. Reply comments should be served by noon on July 6, 2004. An original and four copies of the comments and reply comments with a certificate of service shall be filed with the Commission's Docket Office and copies shall be served on all parties on the same day of filing. The Commissioners and ALJ shall be served separately by overnight service. These rules are accessible on the Commission's website at http://www.cpuc.ca.gov. Pursuant to Rule 77.3 opening comments shall not exceed 15 pages.
Consistent with the service procedures in this proceeding, parties should send comments in electronic form to those appearances and the state service list that provided an electronic mail address to the Commission, including ALJ Julie Halligan at jmh@cpuc.ca.gov. Service by U.S. mail is optional, except that hard copies should be served separately on Manuel Ramirez, Advisor to Commissioner Wood (mzr@cpuc.ca.gov). For that purpose I suggest hand delivery, overnight mail or other expeditious methods of service. In addition, if there is no electronic address available, the electronic mail is returned to the sender, or the recipient informs the sender of an inability to open the document, the sender shall immediately arrange for alternate service (regular U.S. mail shall be the default, unless another means - such as overnight delivery is mutually agreed upon). The current service list for this proceeding is available on the Commission's Web page, www.cpuc.ca.gov.
/s/ ANGELA K. MINKIN
Angela K. Minkin, Chief
Administrative Law Judge
ANG:mnt
COM/CXW/mnt ALTERNATE DRAFT Agenda ID # 3697
(Alternate to Agenda ID #3431)
Ratesetting
Decision ALTERNATE PROPOSED DECISION OF COMMISSIONER CARL WOOD (Mailed 06/24/2004)
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 55
3.1 D.96-09-045 - Reliability Standard and Reporting 77
3.2 D. 98-07-097 - GO 166 1010
3.3 D. 00-05-022 - GO 166: Standards 12 and 13 1010
3.4 PG&E Specific Standards 1111
4. PG&E's Existing System 1212
5. PG&E's December 2002 Storm Response 1919
6. Parties' Recommendations 3030
7.1 Value of Service Study 4747
7.2 Funding OIS Improvements 5252
7.3 Other ORA/PG&E Agreements 5959
a. Agreement 1 - Division Level Benchmarks 5959
b. Agreement 2 - Five-Year Average Benchmarks 6060
c. Agreement 3 - Definition of Major Outage 6161
d. Agreement 4 - Tap Fuse Installation Program 6262
7.4 Performance Incentive Mechanisms and Metrics 6565
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.
