STATE OF CALIFORNIA ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor

PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

505 VAN NESS AVENUE

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298

February 15, 2005 Agenda ID #4327

TO: PARTIES OF RECORD IN RULEMAKING 02-01-011

This is the draft decision of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Pulsifer. It will not appear on the Commission's agenda for at least 30 days after the date it is mailed. The Commission may act then, or it may postpone action until later.

When the Commission acts on the draft decision, it may adopt all or part of it as written, amend or modify it, or set it aside and prepare its own decision. Only when the Commission acts does the decision become binding on the parties.

Parties to the proceeding may file comments on the draft decision as provided in Article 19 of the Commission's "Rules of Practice and Procedure." 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. Finally, comments must be served separately on the ALJ and the assigned Commissioner, and for that purpose I suggest hand delivery, overnight mail, or other expeditious method of service.

/s/ ANGELA K. MINKIN  

Angela K. Minkin, Chief

Administrative Law Judge

ANG:tcg

Attachment

ALJ/TRP/tcg DRAFT Agenda ID #4327

Ratesetting

Decision DRAFT DECISION OF ALJ PULSIFER (Mailed 2/15/2005)

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Order Instituting Rulemaking Regarding the Implementation of the Suspension of Direct Access Pursuant to Assembly Bill 1X and Decision 01-09-060.

Rulemaking 02-01-011 (Filed January 9, 2002)

OPINION IMPLEMENTING AFFIDAVIT PROCESS
FOR DIRECT ACCESS ACCOUNTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page

OPINION IMPLEMENTING AFFIDAVIT PROCESS
FOR DIRECT ACCESS ACCOUNTS 1

I. Introduction and Background 2

II. Affidavit Language and Format 3

A. Sections 1 and 2 of the Affidavit 3

B. Section 3 of the Affidavit 4

1. Check-Box Requirement 4

2. Disclosure of Contractual Volumes in the Affidavit 5

C. Section 4 of the Affidavit 8

D. Section 5 of the Affidavit 10

E. Section 6 of the Affidavit 11

III. Other Affidavit Implementation Issues 11

A. Limitations on Customer Requirement to Provide Contract Copy 11

B. Restrictions on DA Customers that Must Sign the Affidavit 13

C. IOU Obligations to Review Submitted Affidavits 16

D. Schedule for Sending, Completing, and Submitting Affidavits 17

E. Recourse for Noncompliance with Affidavit Requirements 17

IV. Comments on Draft Decision 18

Assignment of Proceeding 18

Findings of Fact 19

Conclusions of Law 20

ORDER 22

OPINION IMPLEMENTING AFFIDAVIT PROCESS
FOR DIRECT ACCESS ACCOUNTS

I. Introduction and Background

This decision implements affidavit requirements as prescribed in Decision (D.) 04-07-025, in which we adopted rules governing Direct Access load growth. We adopt the affidavit format as set forth in Appendix 1 of this decision.

In D.04-07-025, we directed that an affidavit process be implemented as a means for DA customers to verify, under penalty of perjury, that they are not exceeding their contractual limits for DA usage.¹ D.04-07-025 also determined that a customer's total DA load must not exceed the volumes set forth in its DA contract executed on or before September 20, 2001.²

In order to implement the affidavit process, we directed that a Rule 22 Working Group Meeting be convened. The Rule 22 Working Group meeting was convened on October 13, 2004, to address the implementation of the affidavit process. The Meeting was moderated by the Commission's Energy Division and attended by participants representing: Alliance for Retail Energy Markets (AReM), California Large Energy Consumers Association (CLECA), California Manufacturers and Technology Association (CMTA), Constellation New Energy, ElectricAmerica, Hitachi, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E), Sempra Energy Solutions, SBC, Southern California Edison, The Utility Reform Network (TURN), University of California/California State University, and Wal-Mart.

Meeting participants distributed and discussed two separate proposed versions of affidavits and implementation processes. One of the versions was sponsored by AReM. The other was sponsored jointly by the utilities. Meeting participants reached agreement on the majority of issues regarding the contents of the affidavit. The areas of parties' dispute are discussed below.

Participants submitted a Rule 22 Working Group Meeting Report (Report)³ on October 28, 2004. The Report summarized: 1) discussions during the Meeting regarding the DA Load Growth Affidavit/Declaration, 2) areas of agreement and disagreement, and 3) communications subsequent to the Meeting. Copies of the two proposed affidavits were attached to the Report. Parties filed comments on the Report on November 15, 2004.

Based on our review of the Working Group Report and comments thereon, we resolve the disputes presented by parties, and adopt a final affidavit form as set forth in Appendix 1 for DA customers to attest that their DA load does not exceed permissible limits, as prescribed by Commission directives.