11. Comments on Proposed Decision

The proposed decision of ALJ Gottstein was mailed to the parties in accordance with Section 311(d) of the Public Utilities Code and Rule 77.1 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure. Comments were filed on _____________ and reply comments were filed on _______________.

Findings of Fact

1. The modeling approach used in this proceeding to establish the reliability need for new transmission capability to the Southwest has never been used before by either the utilities or the ISO. The matrix model used in this proceeding was benchmarked against the results of a Southern California power flow study, using one set of similar input assumptions.

2. The results of the matrix model are the same as those of the Southern California power flow study only if transmission capability is derated in the matrix model.

3. The one-to-one derating assumption used by the ISO in benchmarking the model has not been confirmed with power flow studies.

4. The derating formula was not applied consistently in the scenario analyses presented on the record. In addition, the formula does not deduct capacity retirements when calculating the gap between in-state generation resources and loads or the resulting derate of transfer capability.

5. The record indicates that derating would not be needed on a one-to-one basis, or perhaps not even at all, if sufficient additional reactive voltage support is installed. However, the derate formula used by the ISO does not factor in any relationship between reactive voltage support and required reduction in transfer capability.

6. If the one-to-one derate ratio is inaccurate, or should not be applied at all, the matrix model results will not match the Southern California study for the benchmarked case and will underestimate the need for new transmission by approximately 2-3 years.

7. Based on the record, the transfer capability of existing transmission interties is higher than the input assumptions used in the matrix model. Path 45 transfer capacity will be increased from 408 MW to 800 MW, effective in 2002. The transfer capability of Southern California import transmission has been increased from 13,200 MW to 14,300 MW due to the installation of new reactive voltage support.

8. The outage and retirements assumptions used for Scenarios 2, 4, and 5 are more consistent with the evidentiary record than those assumed under the Joint Parties' Planning Scenario.

9. Projections of load between base load and base load minus 10% assumptions are consistent with the record concerning future demand and conservation efforts. Load projections at 10%-20% above base load projections appear highly unlikely.

10. Based on the number of new generation projects under construction and the number that have already received financing for Southern California, the "very low" new internal generation case (720 MW) appears highly unlikely.

11. Because utilities have never before had a large number of generators wanting to build in California, it is difficult at this time to assess the likelihood of the "low" to "maximum" (5,500 MW to 20,500 MW) of new in-state generation coming on line.

12. Assessing the likelihood of projects coming on line for export from Mexico is difficult at this time because: 1) there have been no exports from Mexico to Southern California in the past; 2) construction and financing on new projects requesting interconnection studies have not been completed; 3) contracts and commitments for power projects have not been finalized in all cases.

13. The assumptions for external resources available from Arizona and Nevada are inflated because they are based on a resource potential estimate that is approximately 10,000 MW larger than the amounts generally used in CEC load and resource assessments.

14. Reruning the matrix model with updated assumptions on transfer capability and with the derating formula applied consistently (and incorporating retirements into the formula), yields the following results:

15. The Joint Parties did not present an economic analysis of additional Southwest transfer capability on the record, but intend to pursue an RFP process initiated by the ISO to develop a joint methodology for such an analysis.

16. The Joint Parties presented preliminary cost estimates for transmission upgrades to the Southwest. The total estimates ranged between three-quarters billion to three and three-quarters billion dollars, depending upon the route and ultimate cost of transmission line per line.

17. Transmission owners, ISO staff, and interested stakeholders participate in the ISO's annual transmission planning process to identify projects needed for system reliability purposes. At the completion of this process, transmission projects under $20 million are approved by ISO management, i.e., the Regional Transmission Manager in the Grid Planning Department in consultation with ISO officers, as needed. Projects over $20 million are approved by the ISO Board. The ISO has never assessed the economic need for transmission projects since its inception in 1997. Since the ISO has been established, all of the projects approved (over 200) have involved upgrades to address reliability requirements. Less than 10 of those projects have required ISO Board approval.

18. The ISO does not conduct evidentiary proceedings to scrutinize the assumptions or methods utilized in its transmission planning process.

19. Based on the record in this proceeding, we find that new transmission to the Southwest (including Mexico) is not likely to be needed for reliability purposes before 2008. Our conclusions take account of recent updates to transmission transfer capability identified on the record, as well as potential bias in the model utilized by the Joint Parties.

20. The Commission should monitor the reliability efforts conducted through the ISO's Grid Coordinated Planning Process in order to update and confirm these results with the detailed power flow studies conducted during that process. As discussed in this decision, Energy Division should report to the Assigned Commissioner and ALJ if the power flow studies indicate a need for new Southwest transfer capability earlier than 2008.

21. The issues raised by Coral Power in this proceeding regarding the need to reduce congestion west of Miguel should be addressed in the separate set of evidentiary hearings scheduled this fall.

22. To the extent that significant ratepayer funding is involved to further upgrade Path 45, this issue may be included in the evidentiary hearings on the economic need for new transmission to the Southwest.

23. No findings can be made from this record regarding the adequacy of the in-state transmission grid in the Southern California region.

Conclusions of Law

1. Decisions concerning the economic need of major transmission projects, as well as the allocation of costs among ratepayers and other project beneficiaries, should not be left to the discretion of ISO management personnel or Board. Instead, this assessment should be made at the Commission, which has both a statutory mandate and authority to protect ratepayers' interests and an open evidentiary process to scrutinize the methodologies and assumptions used to reach such determinations.

2. In order to proceed with further evaluation of transmission upgrades to the Southwest as soon as possible, this order should be effective today.

INTERIM ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Energy Division shall monitor the reliability modeling efforts conducted through the California Independent System Operator's (ISO) Grid Coordinated Planning Process or other planning processes in order to update and confirm the results of this proceeding on an ongoing basis. Specifically, Energy Division shall report by letter to the Assigned Commissioner and Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) if the power flow studies indicate a need for new transmission capacity to Arizona, Nevada, and Mexico for reliability purposes earlier than 2008. This report shall be filed and served in this proceeding.

2. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E), and Southern California Edison Company shall jointly file the results of the ISO/stakeholder Request for Proposal process in this proceeding within 15 days from the date the consultant's final report is completed. Copies of the full report shall be served on Energy Division and the assigned ALJ. A notice of the availability of this report shall also be served in this proceeding. As soon as practicable thereafter, the assigned ALJ will hold a further prehearing conference to schedule evidentiary hearings on the economic need for new transmission to the Southwest.

3. SDG&E shall submit information on the status of discussions or actions to further upgrade Path 45 in its monthly transmission status reports.

This order is effective today.

Dated , at San Francisco, California.

     

Table 1

     
 

SUMMARY OF RESULTS: SCENARIOS WITH NO RETIREMENTS AND ISO OUTAGE FIGURES

                 

Case #

Description of Load

 

Availability of External

Year That New Line Needed

 

and Internal Generation

 

Generation Levels

(2001-2011 Planning Period) *

           

With Derate

 

Without Derate

                 

J1.1, J1.2

Maximum internal generation

Maximum and medium

after 2011

 

N/A

J1.3, J1.4

Baseload, Baseload plus 10%

         

J1.5, J1.6

Baseload plus 20%

           

J3.1, J3.2

Baseload less 10%

           

J3.3, J3.4

Baseload less 20%

           

J3.5, J3.6

Average Load

           
                 

J2.1, J2.2

Medium internal generation

Maximum and medium

after 2011

 

N/A

J2.4, J2.5

Baseload, Baseload plus 10%

         

J2.6, J4.1

Baseload less 10%, less 20%

         

J4.2, J4.4

Average load

           

J4.5, J4.6

               
                 

J5.1, J5.2

Low internal generation

Maximum and medium

after 2011

 

N/A

J5.4, J5.5

Baseload, Baseload plus 10%

         

J5.6, J6.1

Baseload less 10%, less 20%

         

J6.2, J6.4

Average load

           

J6.5, J6.6

               
                 

J7.4, J7.5

Very low internal generation

Maximum and medium

after 2011

 

N/A

J7.6, J8.4

Baseload less 10%, less 20%

         

J8.5, J8.6

Average load

           
                 

J2.3 &J4.3

Medium internal generation levels

Maximum and medium

2011

 

N/A

 

Base load plus 20%

           
                 

J5.3 & J6.3

Low internal generation levels

Maximum and medium

2009

 

N/A

 

Base load plus 20%

           
                 

J7.1 & J8.1

Very low internal generation levels

Maximum and medium

2008

 

after 2011

 

Base load

             
                 

J7.2 & J8.2

Very low internal generation levels

Maximum and medium

2005

 

2008

 

Base load plus 10%

           
                 

J7.3 & J8.3

Very low internal generation levels

Maximum and medium

2001

 

2001

 

Base load plus 20%

           
                 

NOTES:

               

NA= "not applicable". Derating was only done for the baseload, baseload plus 10%

   

and baseload plus 20% load runs under the "very low internal generation" cases.

   

* For some or all of the years, there may be insufficient external resources for import to meet

all of the load demand within California.

         

       

Table 2

           
 

SUMMARY OF RESULTS: SCENARIOS WITH RETIREMENTS AND CEC OUTAGE FIGURES

     
                       

Case #

Description of Load

 

Availability of External

Year That New Line Needed

     
 

and Internal Generation

 

Generation Levels

(2001-2011 Planning Period) *

 

With Post-2004

 
           

With Derate

 

Without Derate

 

Retirements**

 
                       

J1.1, J1.2

Maximum internal generation

Maximum and medium

after 2011

 

N/A

 

After 2011

 

J1.3, J1.4

Baseload, Baseload plus 10%

               

J1.5, J1.6

Baseload plus 20%

                 

J3.1, J3.2

Baseload less 10%

                 

J3.3, J3.4

Baseload less 20%

                 

J3.5, J3.6

Average Load

                 
                       

J2.1, J2.4

Medium internal generation

Maximum and medium

after 2011

 

N/A

 

After 2001

 

J2.5, J2.6

Baseload

                   

J4.1, J4.4

Baseload less 10%, less 20%

               

J4.5, J4.6

Average load

                 
                       

J5.1, J5.4

Low internal generation

 

Maximum and medium

after 2011

 

N/A

 

After 2011

 

J5.5, J5.6

Baseload

                   

J6.1, J6.4

Baseload less 10%, less 20%

               

J6.5, J6.6

Average load

                 
                       
                       

J7.5, J7.6

Very low internal generation

Maximum and medium

after 2011

 

N/A

 

After 2011

 

J8.5, J8.6

Baseload less 20%

                 
 

Average load

                 
                       

J2.2 & J4.2

Medium internal generation levels

Maximum and medium

2010

 

N/A

 

2008

 
 

Base load plus 10%

                 
                       

J2.3 & J4.3

Medium internal generation levels

Maximum and medium

2006

 

N/A

 

2005

 
 

Base load plus 20%

                 
                       

J5.2 & J6.2

Low internal generation levels

Maximum and medium

2008

 

N/A

 

2007

 
 

Base load plus 10%

                 
                       

J5.3 & J6.3

Low internal generation levels

Maximum and medium

2004

 

N/A

 

2004

 
 

Base load plus 20%

                 
                       

J7.1 & J8.1

Very low internal generation levels

Maximum and medium

2004

 

2006

 

2004

 
 

Base load case

                 
                       

J7.2

Very low internal generation levels

Maximum

 

2001

 

2002

 

2001

 
 

Base load plus 10%

                 
                       

J7.3

Very low internal generation levels

Medium

 

2001

 

2001

 

2001

 
 

Base load plus 20%

                 
                       

J7.4 & J8.4

Very low internal generation levels

Maximum and medium

2011

 

N/A

 

2008

 
 

Base load less 10%

                 
                       

J8.2

Very low internal generation levels

Medium

 

2001

 

2002

 

2001

 
 

Base load plus 10%

                 
                       

J8.3

Very low internal generation levels

Medium

 

2001

 

2001

 

2001

 
 

Base load plus 20% more

                 
                       
                       

NOTES:

                     

NA= "not applicable". Derating was only done for the baseload, baseload plus 10% and baseload plus 20% load runs under the
"very low internal generation" cases.

 
 

* For some or all of the years, there may be insufficient external resources for import to meet all of the load demand within California.

** Scenario with Post-2004 Retirements includes derating.

             
                       

     

Table 3

         
 

SUMMARY OF RESULTS: SCENARIOS WITH NO RETIREMENTS AND ISO OUTAGE FIGURES

     

WITH UPDATED TRANSFER CAPABILITY AND DERATE CONSISTENTLY APPLIED

                     

Case #

Description of Load

 

Availability of External

Year That New Line Needed

   
 

and Internal Generation

 

Generation Levels

(2001-2011 Planning Period) *

   
           

With Derate

Without Derate

   
                     

J1.1, J1.2

Maximum internal generation

Maximum and medium

after 2011

 

after 2011

   

J1.3, J1.4

Baseload, Baseload plus 10%

             

J1.5, J1.6

Baseload plus 20%

               

J3.1, J3.2

Baseload less 10%

               

J3.3, J3.4

Baseload less 20%

               

J3.5, J3.6

Average Load

               
                     

J2.1, J2.2

Medium internal generation

Maximum and medium

after 2011

 

after 2011

   

J2.4, J2.5

Baseload, Baseload plus 10%

             

J2.6, J4.1

Baseload less 10%, less 20%

             

J4.2, J4.4

Average load

               

J4.5, J4.6

                   
                     

J5.1, J5.2

Low internal generation

 

Maximum and medium

after 2011

 

after 2011

   

J5.4, J5.5

Baseload, Baseload plus 10%

             

J5.6, J6.1

Baseload less 10%, less 20%

             

J6.2, J6.4

Average load

               

J6.5, J6.6

                   
                     

J7.4, J7.5

Very low internal generation

Maximum and medium

after 2011

 

after 2011

   

J7.6, J8.4

Baseload less 10%, less 20%

             

J8.5, J8.6

Average load

               
                     

J2.3 &J4.3

Medium internal generation levels

Maximum and medium

after 2011

 

after 2011

   
 

Base load plus 20%

               
                     

J5.3 & J6.3

Low internal generation levels

Maximum and medium

2011

 

2011

   
 

Base load plus 20%

               
                     

J7.1 & J8.1

Very low internal generation levels

Maximum and medium

2010

 

after 2011

   
 

Base load

                 
                     

J7.2 & J8.2

Very low internal generation levels

Maximum and medium

2007

 

2009

   
 

Base load plus 10%

               
                     

J7.3 & J8.3

Very low internal generation levels

Maximum and medium

2004

 

2004

   
 

Base load plus 20%

               
                     

NOTES:

                   

NA= "not applicable".

                 
                     

* For some or all of the years, there may be insufficient external resources for import to meet all of the load demand within California.

       

Table 4

         
 

SUMMARY OF RESULTS: SCENARIOS WITH RETIREMENTS AND CEC OUTAGE FIGURES

   
     

WITH UPDATED TRANSFER CAPABILITY AND DERATE CONSISTENTLY APPLIED

                     

Case #

Description of Load

 

Availability of External

Year That New Line Needed

   
 

and Internal Generation

 

Generation Levels

(2001-2011 Planning Period) *

 

With Post-2004

           

With Derate

 

Without Derate

 

Retirements**

                     

J1.1, J1.2

Maximum internal generation

Maximum and medium

after 2011

 

after 2011

 

after 2011

J1.3, J1.4

Baseload, Baseload plus 10%

             

J1.5, J1.6

Baseload plus 20%

               

J3.1, J3.2

Baseload less 10%

               

J3.3, J3.4

Baseload less 20%

               

J3.5, J3.6

Average Load

               
                     

J2.4, J2.5

Medium internal generation

Maximum and medium

after 2011

 

after 2011

 

after 2011

J2.6, J4.4

Baseload less 10%, less 20%

             

J4.5, J4.6

Average load

               
                     

J5.4, J5.5

Low internal generation

Maximum and medium

after 2011

 

after 2011

 

after 2011

J5.6, J6.4

Baseload less 10%, less 20%

             

J6.5, J6.6

Average load

               
                     
                     

J2.1, J4.1

Medium internal generation

Maximum and medium

after 2011

 

after 2011

 

2011

Baseload

                 
                     

J5.1, J6.1

Low internal generation

Maximum and medium

after 2011

 

after 2011

 

2009

Baseload

                 
                     

J7.6, J8.6

Very low internal generation

Maximum and medium

after 2011

 

after 2011

 

after 2011

 

Average load

               
                     

J2.2 & J4.2

Medium internal generation levels

Maximum and medium

2011

 

after 2011

 

2008

 

Base load plus 10%

               
                     

J2.3 & J4.3

Medium internal generation levels

Maximum and medium

2007

 

2007

 

2006

 

Base load plus 20%

               
                     

J5.2 & J6.2

Low internal generation levels

Maximum and medium

2009

 

2009

 

2007

 

Base load plus 10%

               
                     

J5.3 & J6.3

Low internal generation levels

Maximum and medium

2005

 

2005

 

2005

 

Base load plus 20%

               
                     

J7.1 & J8.1

Very low internal generation levels

Maximum and medium

2004

 

2007

 

2004

 

Base load case

               
                     

J7.2

Very low internal generation levels

Maximum

 

2004

 

2004

 

2004

 

Base load plus 10%

               
                     

J7.3

Very low internal generation levels

Medium

 

2001

 

2001

 

2001

 

Base load plus 20%

               
                     

J7.4 & J8.4

Very low internal generation levels

Maximum and medium

2007

 

after 2011

 

2006

 

Base load less 10%

               
                     

J8.2

Very low internal generation levels

Medium

 

2004

 

2004

 

2001

 

Base load plus 10%

               
                     

J8.3

Very low internal generation levels

Medium

 

2001

 

2001

 

2001

 

Base load plus 20% more

               
                     

J7.5, J8.5

Very low internal generation

Maximum and medium

2011

 

after 2011

 

2007

Baseload less 20%

               
 

                 
                     
                     

NOTES:

                   

NA= "not applicable".

                 
                     

* For some or all of the years, there may be insufficient external resources for import to meet all of the load demand within California.

Figure 1 -Summary of Planning Scenario 1

Figure 2 - Summary of Scenario 2 -
CEC's Alternate Retirement and Outages Assumptions

************ APPEARANCES ************

Dennis W. De Cuir
Atty At Law
A LAW CORPORATION
2999 DOUGLAS BLVD., SUITE 325
ROSEVILLE CA 95661
(916) 788-1022
dennis@ddecuir.com

For: Transmission Agency of Northern California

David Marcus
ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO
PO BOX 1287
1541 JUANITA WAY
BERKELEY CA 94701-1287
(510) 528-0728
dmarcus@slip.net

For: Coalition of California Utility Employees

Marc D. Joseph
Attorney At Law
ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO
651 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, SUITE 900
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CA 94080
(650) 589-1660
mdjoseph@adamsbroadwell.com

For: Coalition of California Utility Employees

Michael Alcantar
Attorney At Law
ALCANTAR & KAHL LLP
1300 SW 5TH AVENUE., SUITE 1750
PORTLAND OR 97201
(503) 402-9900
mpa@a-klaw.com

For: Cogeneration Association of California

Evelyn Kahl
LINDA SHERIF
Attorney At Law
ALCANTAR & KAHL, LLP
120 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 2200
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94104
(415) 421-4143
ek@a-klaw.com

For: Energy Producers & Users Coalition

Barbara R. Barkovich
BARKOVICH AND YAP, INC.
31 EUCALYPTUS LANE
SAN RAFAEL CA 94901
(415) 457-5537
brbarkovich@earthlink.net

For: California Large Energy Consumers Association & Silicon Valley Manufacturers Group


Scott Blaising
Attorney At Law
8980 MOONEY ROAD
ELK GROVE CA 95624
(916) 682-9702
blaising@braunlegal.com

For: California Municipal Utilities Association

A Brubaker
BRUBAKER & ASSOCIATES, INC.
1215 FERN RIDGE PARKWAY, SUITE 208
ST. LOUIS MO 63141
(314) 275-7007
mbrubaker@consultbai.com


Fernando De Leon
Attorney At Law
CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION
1516 NINTH STREET, MS-14
SACRAMENTO CA 95814-5512
(916) 654-4873
fdeleon@energy.state.ca.us

For: California Energy Commission

Theresa L. Mueller
Attorney At Law
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
CITY HALL, ROOM 234
1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102-4682
(415) 554-4640
theresa_mueller@ci.sf.ca.us

For: City and County of San Francisco

Grant Kolling
Senior Assistant City Attorney
CITY OF PALO ALTO
PO BOX 10250
PALO ALTO CA 94303
(650) 329-2171
grant_kolling@city.palo-alto.ca.us

For: City of Palo Alto

Frederick M. Ortlieb
Deputy City Attorney
CITY OF SAN DIEGO. CIVIL DIVISION
1200 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 1100
SAN DIEGO CA 92101-4100
(619) 236-6318
fmo@sdcity.sannet.gov

For: City of San Diego




Marcie Milner
CORAL POWER, L.L.C.
4320 LA JOLLA VILLAGE DRIVE, NO. 250
SAN DIEGO CA 92122
(858) 526-2106
mmilner@coral-energy.com


Barbara Dunmore
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
4080 LEMON STREET, 12TH FLOOR
RIVERSIDE CA 92501-3651
(909) 955-1158
bdunmore@rceo.org


Robert Buster
Supervisor-District 1
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
4080 LEMON STREET, 14TH FLOOR
RIVERSIDE CA 92501-3651
district1@co.riverside.ca.us


Lindsey How-Downing
MYLIE BEESON
Attorney At Law
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, STE 600
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111-3834
(415) 276-6512
lindseyhowdowning@dwt.com

For: Calpine Corporation

Edward W. O'Neill
Attorney At Law
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, LLP
ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, SUITE 600
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111-3834
(415) 276-6500
edwardoneill@dwt.com

For: El Paso Merchant Energy

Norman J. Furuta
ROGER GREEN
Attorney At Law
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
900 COMMODORE DRIVE
SAN BRUNO CA 94066-5006
(650) 244-2100
furutanj@efawest.navfac.navy.mil

For: Federal Executive Agencies

Douglas K. Kerner
Attorney At Law
ELLISON, SCHNEIDER & HARRIS
2015 H STREET
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
(916) 447-2166
dkk@eslawfirm.com

For: Duke Energy North America

Diane Fellman
Attorney At Law
ENERGY LAW GROUP LLP
1999 HARRISON STREET, SUITE 2700
OAKLAND CA 94612-3572
(415) 703-6000
difellman@energy-law-group.com

For: NEO Corporation

Laura Roche
JSOLE@CAISO.COM

Attorney At Law
FARELLA, BRAUN & MARTEL, LLP
RUSS BUILDING, 30TH FLOOR
235 MONTGOMERY STREET
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94104
(415) 954-4400
lroche@fbm.com

For: California Independent System Operator

Barry R. Flynn
President
FLYNN AND ASSOCIATES
4200 DRIFTWOOD PLACE
DISCOVERY BAY CA 94514-9267
For: CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Brian T. Cragg
JAMES D. SQUERI
Attorney At Law
GOODIN, MACBRIDE, SQUERI, RITCHIE & DAY
505 SANSOME STREET, NINTH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111
(415) 392-7900
bcragg@gmssr.com

For: Ridgetop, LLC

Jan Green
GRUENEICH RESOURCE ADVOCATES
582 MARKET STREET, SUITE 1020
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94104
(415) 834-2300
jgreen@gralegal.com

For: UC/CSU




Gayatri Schilberg
JBS ENERGY
311 D STREET, SUITE A
WEST SACRAMENTO CA 95605
(916) 372-0534
gayatri@jbsenergy.com

For: The Utility Reform Network (TURN)

Jeff Nahigian
JBS ENERGY, INC.
311 D STREET, SUITE A
WEST SACRAMENTO CA 95605
(916) 372-0534
jeff@jbsenergy.com

For: JBS Energy, Inc.

Susan E. Brown
Attorney At Law
LATINO ISSUES FORUM
785 MARKET STREET, 3RD FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103-2003
(415) 284-7224
lifcentral@lif.org

For: Latino Issues Forum

C. Susie Berlin
Attorney At Law
LAW OFFICES OF BARRY F. MC CARTHY
2105 HAMILTON AVENUE, SUITE 140
SAN JOSE CA 95125
(408) 558-0950
sberlin@mccarthylaw.com

For: City of Anaheim

William H. Booth
Attorney At Law
LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM H. BOOTH
1500 NEWELL AVENUE, 5TH FLOOR
WALNUT CREEK CA 94596
(925) 296-2460
wbooth@booth-law.com

For: California Large Energy Consumers Association

John W. Leslie
Attorney At Law
LUCE FORWARD HAMILTON & SCRIPPS, LLP
600 WEST BROADWAY, SUITE 2600
SAN DIEGO CA 92101-3391
(619) 236-1414
jleslie@luce.com

For: Coral power

Barry F. Mc Carthy
Attorney At Law
2105 HAMILTON AVENUE, SUITE 140
SAN JOSE CA 95125
(408) 558-0950
bmcc@mccarthylaw.com

For: Northern California Power Agency

Daniel W. Meek
RUTHANNE WILLIAMS
Attorney At Law
10949 S.W. 4TH AVENUE
PORTLAND OR 97219-7715
(503) 293-9021
dan@meek.net

For: Residential Service Companies United Effort Rescue

Diane E. Pritchard
Attorney At Law
MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP
425 MARKET STREET
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105-2482
(415) 268-7188
dpritchard@mofo.com

For: Pacific Gas and Electric Company and National Energy Group

Sara Steck Myers
Attorney At Law
122 28TH AVENUE
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94121
(415) 387-1904
ssmyers@worldnet.att.net

For: Center for Energy Efficiency & Renewable Technology; and City of San Diego

Kay Davoodi
NAVY RATE INTERVENTION OFFICE
1314 HARWOOD STREET SE
WASHINGTON NAVY YARD DC 20374-5018
(202) 685-0130
DavoodiKR@efaches.navfac.navy.mil

For: Navy Rate Intervention

David T. Kraska
Attorney At Law
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
MAILCODE B30A PO BOX 7442
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94120-7442
(415) 973-7503
dtk5@pge.com

Don Schoenbeck
RCS, INC
900 WASHINGTON STREET, SUITE 1000
VANCOUVER WA 98660
(360) 737-3877
dws@keywaycorp.com

For: Coalinga Cogen Co.

James A. Ross
RCS, INC
500 CHESTERFIELD CENTER, SUITE 320
CHESTERFIELD MO 63017
(636) 530-9544
jimross@r-c-s-inc.com

For: Midway Sunset Cogen Co.

William L. Nelson
RUTHANNE WILLIAMS
REECH, INC.
KERN-INYO LIAISON SITE, POSTNET PMB #424
785 TUCKER ROAD, SUITE G
TEHACHAPI CA 93561
(661) 823-8913
reechpubpol@mail.com

For: REECH, Inc.

Arlen Orchard
Attorney At Law
SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT
PO BOX 15830, MS-B406
SACRAMENTO CA 95852-1830
(916) 732-5830
aorchar@smud.org

For: Sacramento Municipal Utilities District

E. Gregory Barnes
Attorney At Law
SEMPRA ENERGY
101 ASH STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101-3017
(619) 699-5019
gbarnes@sempra.com

For: SDG&E

Joseph R. Kloberdanz
Regulatory Affairs Case Management
SEMPRA ENERGY
101 ASH STREET; HQ14A
SAN DIEGO CA 92101
(619) 696-4319
jkloberdanz@sempra.com

Steven C. Nelson
Attorney At Law
SEMPRA ENERGY
101 ASH STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92101-3017
(619) 699-5136
snelson@sempra.com

For: San Diego Gas and Electric Company

Richard Esteves
SESCO, INC.
77 YACHT CLUB DRIVE
LAKE FOREST NJ 07849
(973) 663-5125
sesco-lf@att.net

For: SESCO, Inc.

Marc B. Mihaly
Attorney At Law
SHUTE MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP
396 HAYES STREET
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102
(415) 552-7272
armi@smwlaw.com

For: Save Southwest Riverside County

Osa Armi
Attorney At Law
SHUTE MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP
396 HAYES STREET
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102
(415) 552-7272
armi@smwlaw.com

For: Save Southwestern Riverside County

David M. Norris
Attorney At Law
SIERRA PACIFIC POWER COMPANY
6100 NEIL ROAD
RENO NV 89511
(775) 834-3939
dnorris@sppc.com

For: SIERRA PACIFIC POWER COMPANY

Michael D. Montoya
JENNIFER.HASBROUCK@SCE.COM

Attorney At Law
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
RM 345
2244 WALNUT GROVE AVENUE
ROSEMEAND CA 91770
(626) 302-6057
mike.montoya@sce.com

For: Southern California Edison Company

Keith Mc Crea
Attorney At Law
SUTHERLAND, ASBILL & BRENNAN LLC
1275 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON DC 20004-2415
(202) 383-0705
kmccrea@sablaw.com

For: California Manufacturers & Technology Association

James E. Scarff
Legal Division
RM. 5121
505 VAN NESS AVE
San Francisco CA 94102
(415) 703-1440
jes@cpuc.ca.gov

For: CPUC Office of Ratepayer Advocates

Itzel Berrio
R. GNAIZDA
THE GREENLINING INSTITUTE
785 MARKET STREET, 3RD FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103-2003
(415) 284-7202
iberrio@greenlining.org

For: Greenlining and Latino Issues Forum

Carl C. Lower
THE POLARIS GROUP
717 LAW STREET
SAN DIEGO CA 92109-2436
(619) 969-7150
clower@earthlink.net


Marcel Hawiger
Attorney At Law
THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK
711 VAN NESS AVENUE, SUITE 350
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102
(415) 929-8876

Maury Kruth
Executive Director
TRANSMISSION AGENCY OF NORTHERN CALIF.
PO BOX 15129
SACRAMENTO CA 95851-0129
(916) 852-1673
For: TRANSMISSION AGENCY OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

Joseph M. Karp
Attorney At Law
WHITE & CASE LLP
2 EMBARCADERO CENTER, SUITE 650
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111
(415) 544-1103
jkarp@whitecase.com

For: California Cogeneration Council


(END OF ATTACHMENT 1)

ATTACHMENT 2

LIST OF ACRONYMS

AB Assembly Bill

ALJ Administrative Law Judge

Board Board of Governors of the California Independent

Btu British thermal units

CEC California Energy Commission

CFE Comision Federale de Electricidad

Coral Power Coral Power L.L.C.

CPCN Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity

D. Decision

Exh. Exhibit

ISO California Independent System Operator

Joint Parties California Independent System Operator, California
Energy Commission, Southern California Edison
Company, and San Diego Gas & Electric Company

kWh kilowatt hour

MW megawatt

Path 45 SDG&E/Mexico transmission intertie

PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company

PHC Prehearing Conference

RFP Request for Proposals

RT Reporter's Transcript

SCE Southern California Edison Company

Scenario 1 Joint Parties' Planning Scenario

SDG&E San Diego Gas & Electric Company

Southwest Arizona, Nevada or Mexico

SSRC Save Southwest Riverside County

"the utilities" San Diego Gas & Electric Company and
Southern California Edison Company, collectively

WSCC Western System Coordinating Council

(END OF ATTACHMENT 2)

Previous PageTop Of PageNext PageGo To First Page