Motion

The PG&E motion sought two immediate actions: suspension of QFs' ability to switch to PX pricing and adoption of an alternative payment basis for QFs that switched, on a going-forward basis. IEP argues that, as a matter of fact, QFs can no longer be paid based on the PX price after January 19, 2001 because of the status of PX operations and therefore recommends that QF production after January 19, 2001 should be paid based on the Transition Formula. CCC supports using the Transition Formula for payments after January 31, 2001.

The most controversial aspect of the motion deals with PG&E's request for an immediate true-up of payments made to switching QFs since June 2000. PG&E requests that payments be trued-up to Transition Formula energy rates, or, in the alternative, capping of payments at $67.45/megawatt-hour (MWh). PG&E argues that its current financial situation, described by its Director of Business and Financial Planning in a declaration, requires immediate action on the part of the Commission to reduce its payment obligations to QFs. PG&E would accomplish this by eliminating the ability of QFs to switch to PX pricing and to reduce past payments in reliance on the true-up provisions in D.99-11-025.

Calpine argues that D.99-11-025 limited the possibility of implementing a true-up of the PX price to consideration of other market clearing prices and the determination of capacity value as provided in §390(d). Calpine argues that the Commission's intent was to adjust the payments to QFs who utilize the one time switch option compared to the methodology ultimately adopted pursuant to § 390, not on a de novo basis. CCC filed similar comments.

We will not take up the question of whether or how to implement a true-up consistent with D.99-11-025 at this time but will instead consider it in a future decision.