Pulsifer Agenda Dec. Opinion Adopting Cost Responsibility Surcharge Mechanisms for Customer Generation Departing Load
Word Document PDF Document

ATTACHMENT A:

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

137768

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)

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

This Settlement Agreement is entered into by and among Arden Realty, Inc., Building Owners and Managers Association of California, California Energy Commission, California Independent Petroleum Association, Clarus Energy Corporation, Cummins West, Inc., Energy Producers and Users Coalition,1 Goodrich Aerostructures Group, Hawthorne Power Systems, Hess Microgen, International Power Technology, Kern Oil and Refining Company, Kimberly Clark Corporation, next>edge, Inc., Nextek Power Systems, Inc., Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Onsite Energy Corporation, Paramount Petroleum Corporation, RealEnergy, Inc., Southern California Edison Company, The Utility Reform Network, University of California/California State University and USS-POSCO Industries this 15th day of October, 2002, and any other parties as join at a later date in this Settlement Agreement.

1. Background

In the summer of 2000, wholesale spot prices for electricity began to escalate to levels unanticipated by the State, the Utilities and Utility customers. The rising prices translated into dramatically increased power purchase costs and revenue undercollections for the Utilities. On January 17, 2001, the State, through the CDWR, assumed the responsibility for power procurement to meet the Utilities' net-short electricity requirements. The State further assisted by providing financing to bridge the gap between the power costs incurred by the CDWR, and the revenues received from the Utilities ratepayers. The CDWR during that time engaged in a long-term power procurement strategy, executing numerous short- and long-term contracts with suppliers for future electricity deliveries to the Utility customers.

The costs of the power purchased during the crisis, along with the costs of forward purchase obligations incurred by CDWR, must now be recovered. On March 29, 2002, the Administrative Law Judge issued a ruling in this proceeding, providing that R.02-01-011 would be the forum in which to assess whether and how CDWR costs or Utility past undercollections may be recovered from Departing Load customers. This Settlement Agreement represents an effort by the Parties to resolve these issues in a manner that fairly balances the legal and policy positions presented by the Parties to date in legal briefing and testimony.

2. Summary of Agreement

Departing Load served by Customer Generation shall pay a share of past and future costs incurred by the CDWR and the Utilities. A summary of operative terms of the Settlement Agreement is as follows:

3. Definitions

For purposes of this Settlement Agreement only, the following terms shall be defined as follows:

.

4. Scope of Settlement Agreement

5. Recovery of CDWR Historical Costs

6. Recovery of CDWR Forward Costs

7. Recovery of Utility Past Costs

8. "Tail" Competition Transition Charge

9. Other Existing Nonbypassable Charges

10. Direct Access Load

11. Support and Advocacy of Settlement Agreement

APPENDIX A

CDWR Forward Costs

This Appendix establishes the procedure under which Departing Load will qualify for an exemption from CDWR Forward Costs pursuant to ¶6.2.2.2 of the Settlement Agreement.

1. Departing Load Cap

2. Carryover of Unused Cap Amounts

3. Departing Load commencing service from Customer Generation in a particular year that does not fall within the specified cap for that year shall be deemed the first Departing Load in the subsequent year to qualify for the exemption provided under ¶6.2.2.2. Departing Load that qualifies in a year for a partial exemption shall be granted a partial exemption in that year with the remainder of its load deemed the first Departing Load in the subsequent year to qualify for exemption.

4. The determination of whether a Departing Load falls within the annual cap shall be made on a first-come, first-served basis determined by the date of departure. The Energy Commission, as a Party to this Settlement Agreement, agrees to make this determination and shall:

APPENDIX B

SCE Historical Procurement Charge

1. The Historical Procurement Charge (HPC) responsibility for Departing Load receiving bundled service at the time of the departure shall be computed on a customer-specific basis as provided in this Appendix B.

2. The generation revenues received from the customer since May 2000 shall be compared with the procurement costs incurred to serve the customer's recorded kWh usage. The procurement costs prior to January 17, 2001 shall be based on the Schedule PX prices. The procurement costs from January 17, 2001 though August 31, 2001 shall be based on the amounts in SCE's Energy Cost Accounting system as reflected in Schedule PE. The procurement costs for September 2001 forward shall be equal to the generation-related recoverable costs incurred on behalf of bundled service customers and reflected in SCE's Settlement Rate Balancing Account on a cents per kilowatt-hour basis.

3. A customer-specific HPC cost responsibility will be determined by multiplying the customer's cumulative undercollection on August 31, 2002, by the ratio of the starting Procurement Related Obligations Account (PROACT) balance to the cumulative SCE procurement-related liabilities identified in the Settlement Agreement and verified by the Commission's Energy Division.

4. The customer's monthly contributions to the PROACT will be calculated by subtracting the customer's monthly generation-related costs from the customer's monthly generation-related revenues.

5. The customer's HPC obligation at the time of departure will be the difference between the customer-specific HPC cost responsibility at the beginning of the recovery period designated in the settlement agreement entered into by SCE and the Commission in Federal District Court Case No. 00-12056-RSWL, and the cumulative contributions to Surplus reflected in the PROACT, but never less than zero.

6. The customer's HPC obligation will be adjusted by the estimated proportion of energy to be served by Customer Generation to the amount of energy used prior to departure.

7. The customer's HPC obligation, at the customer's election, may be amortized and paid over a two-year period or in a single lump sum.

APPENDIX C

CDWR Historical Shortfall Determination,

August 6, 2002 Response to Data Request in A.00-11-038

Request No. 3

Please provide the fund levels to reflect a hypothetical bond issuance as of September 20. 2001 to recover the Department's undercollections from January 17, 2001 up to an including September 20, 2001.

Response No. 3

Based on the bond structure and interest rate assumptions used in the Department's June 14th Proposed Determination of Revenue Requirements, we have completed an analysis of a hypothetical $8,570,670/000 bond issue that would generate sufficient bond proceeds to:

· Finance the carrying costs of the undercollections from the date of cost incurrence through a hypothetical bond closing date of October 10, 2002

· Fund bond-related accounts at levels required to comply with the Bond Indenture

The sizing of the bond issue does not reflect the financing of any of the Departments power purchasing program reserves, the funding of which will be a condition of the rating agencies in order to secure the Department's desired level of investment grade ratings on the bonds.

The hypothetical sources and uses of the bond proceeds would be as follows:

Total Uses $8,636,689,405

1 EPUC is an ad hoc group representing the electric end use and customer generation interests of the following companies: Aera Energy LLC, BP America Inc. (including Atlantic Richfield Company), Chevron U.S.A. Inc., Texaco Exploration and Production Inc., Equilon Enterprises LLC dba Shell Oil Products US, ExxonMobil Power and Gas Services Inc., on behalf of Exxon Mobil Corporation, THUMS Long Beach Company, Occidental Elk Hills, Inc., Tosco Corporation a Subsidiary of Phillips Petroleum Company, and Valero Refining Company - California. 2 Nothing in this Settlement Agreement shall affect the right of any Party to challenge the applicability of the definition of Departing Load to changes in the distribution of load among accounts at a customer site with multiple accounts load resulting from the reconfiguration of distribution facilities on the customer site, provided that the changes do not result in a discontinuance or reduction of service from the Utility at that location as defined in ¶3.12. 3 Nothing in this Settlement Agreement shall affect the right of any Party to make a proposal regarding or contest the applicability of any Departing Load charge to load that physically disconnects from the Utility grid.

Top Of PageGo To First Page