IV. Discussion
We conclude that CMUA is correct in its interpretation of the extent of the new MDL exception within the geographic region covered by the PG&E Bypass Report. Accordingly, there is no specific numerical cut-off for energy usage of new MDL served by existing POUs within the geographic areas covered by the PG&E Bypass Report. By contrast, the 80 MW exemption adopted in D.04-12-059 applies only to new MDL served by POUs that were formed and serving at least 100 customers as of July 10, 2003, that are only serving `new load' but no transferred load.
We likewise conclude that PG&E has drawn incorrect inferences concerning the limitations that apply to new MDL exemptions. Because (1) the CRS exception for transferred MDL is capped at the level set forth in the PG&E Bypass Report, and (2) the transferred MDL exception is to "apply equally to new load" associated with the transferred load, PG&E infers that the new MDL exception must (in combination with the transferred load exception) also be capped at the level set forth in PG&E's Bypass Report.
Contrary to PG&E's argument, the directive that the transferred MDL exception shall "apply equally to new load" does not mean that the excluded load identified in the Bypass Report can interchangeably represent either transferred load or new load. If the load amounts in the PG&E Bypass Report are fully applied as a transferred load exception, those load amounts are no longer available for any new MDL exception. Any new MDL would be in addition to-not interchangeable with-the transferred load exception within the geographic areas identified in the PG&E Bypass Report.
Accordingly, the sense in which the CRS exception for transferred load shall "apply equally to new load" is with respect to its equivalent eligibility status, but not with respect to interchangeability of MW load between the transferred and new MDL categories. Thus, for any given unit of new MDL within the geographic area covered by the transferred load identified in the PG&E Bypass Report, the CRS exception shall apply on the same equivalent basis as for a given unit of transferred MDL within that geographic area.
In this respect, the new MDL exception is, indeed, limited in terms of the geographic area within which it applies. There is no specific cut-off, however, in terms of the numerical level of MW of new MDL served by existing POUs with transferred load within those geographic boundaries that may qualify for the CRS power charge exception.2 There is no basis to set a specific numerical MW cut-off on the new MDL within the geographic area covered by the transferred MDL. Because the transferred MDL was never included in the DWR forecasts utilized as basis for procuring power, it is logical to infer that any subsequent growth in those areas attributable to new load served by the POUs would likewise not have been captured in DWR forecasts of future load to be served. Thus, since such new load was never captured within the DWR forecasts, no specific DWR contractual commitments were made for such new load. Therefore, no cost shifting results from excluding such new load from cost responsibility for the DWR power charge. Consequently, there is no basis upon which to calculate a specific numerical MW limit for such new MDL subject to the CRS power charge exception. Accordingly, we agree with CMUA's interpretation to that extent.
PG&E argues that to the extent any new MDL associated with the POUs named in the PG&E Bypass Report receive an "unlimited" exemption from the DWR power charge, then the Commission should revisit its findings concerning the level of the transferred MDL. Specifically, PG&E seeks reconsideration of its argument that the exemption for transferred MDL should be netted by subtracting the year 2000 cumulative actual amounts from the year 2003 cumulative forecast totals.
Contrary to PG&E's argument, the new MDL exemption is not unlimited. The limitation applicable to new MDL of existing POUs with transferred load as identified in the PG&E Bypass Report, however, is defined by the limits of the geographic coverage. Such new MDL exemption is not a specific numerical cut-off on the MW of such new MDL eligible for the power charge exemption. PG&E's argument seeking to reduce the transferred MDL exemption based on reconsideration of the net-versus-cumulative forecast approach also raises a separate issue beyond the scope of the new load issue dispute at issue in the CMUA Petition. Moreover, we have already decided the issue in D.04-12-059 of whether to apply the transferred load exemption on the basis proposed by PG&E. PG&E's attempt to relitigate this issue through comments in response to the issues raised in the CMUA Petition is beyond the scope of the Petition to Modify.
2 By contrast, new MDL served by new POUs formed on or after July 10, 2003 remains subject to the interim 80 MW exemption cap adopted in D.04-12-059.
