This order construes, applies, implements, and interprets the provisions of SB 772. Therefore, applications for rehearing and judicial review of this order are subject to §§ 1731 and 1769. These laws provide that any application for rehearing must be filed within 10 days of the final order. The Commission must issue its decision on any application for rehearing within 20 days of the filing for rehearing. Any court challenge must be made directly to the California Supreme Court and must be filed within 10 days after the Commission denies rehearing.
1. Since 1996, BART has purchased federal preference power through firm long term contracts and, except for very limited amounts of supplemental power necessary to balance deliveries of federal preference power with actual loads, has not purchased power from PG&E.
2. Rates adopted pursuant to the RDSA included charges necessary to recover costs of the regulatory asset, but PG&E's transmission rates and other charges related to BART's federal preference power deliveries did not include regulatory asset charges.
3. BART has neither been billed for, nor paid, any charges related to the regulatory asset for deliveries of preference power.
4. SB 1201 is specific to BART, and was enacted during the same legislative session as, but slightly after, SB 772.
5. Assessing ERB Charges on BART for deliveries of preference power shifts costs "related to the emergence of PG&E from bankruptcy" to BART, while exempting BART from ERB Charges for deliveries of preference power does not shift costs to other PG&E customers.
6. Exempting BART from ERB Charges is a unique situation and causes no leakage.
7. SierraPine was the only qualifying customer to apply, and receive authorization, for waiver of the DA CRS, and waiver of the entire DA CRS was granted for the Rocklin facility, making the level of SierraPine's DA CRS cap zero.
8. PG&E did not seek to collect regulatory asset charges from SierraPine, and SierraPine paid no costs related to the regulatory asset as a result of the waiver of the DA CRS.
9. Nothing in this order with respect to either BART or SierraPine revises recovery costs, reduces or impairs the value of recovery property or has any effect on ERB Charges, other customers, or the SPE.
1. The law authorizes BART to access lower cost sources of power, such as federal preference power and local publicly owned utility power, and requires PG&E to deliver this power over its transmission and distribution lines without discrimination or delay, for the purpose of facilitating BART's ability to reduce its electricity costs. (§ 701.8.)
2. We ordered that BART may raise the issue of its exemption from ERB Charges in this proceeding, preserving the issue for decision here. (D.04-11-015, Ordering Paragraph 60.)
3. The extent to which the Financing Order is irrevocable is specified in § 848.1(g), and nothing in this order conflicts with § 848.1(g).
4. SB 1201 recognizes an exemption for BART from ERB Charges created pursuant to SB 772, as confirmed by the published letter of intent of the author of SB 1201.
5. The ERB refinancing authorized by SB 772 is intended to reduce, not increase, costs related to the regulatory asset, and lower costs borne by PG&E's ratepayers.
6. BART should be exempt from ERB Charges on deliveries of preference power.
7. Applicant should return the balance in the BART memorandum account regarding ERB Charges to BART with interest within 30 days of the date of this order.
8. Urgency legislation adopted in 2003 provided that a qualifying direct transaction customer may apply to the Commission for a waiver of the DA CRS. (§ 367.3.)
9. Regulatory asset charges, and the replacement ERB Charges, are to be collected under, and subject to, the DA CRS cap.
10. SierraPine should be exempt from ERB Charges assessed under, or as part of, the DA CRS.
11. The period to apply for exemption from the DA CRS pursuant to § 367.3 has passed and no other customer can now seek and be granted such exemption.
12. This order should be effective immediately so that applicant, BART and SierraPine may obtain certainty about responsibility for ERB Charges.
13. This order construes, applies, implements, and interprets the provisions of SB 772. Therefore, applications for rehearing and judicial review of this order are subject to §§ 1731 and 1769. These laws provide that any application for rehearing must be filed within 10 days of the final order. The Commission must issue its decision on any application for rehearing within 20 days of the filing for rehearing. Any court challenge must be made directly to the California Supreme Court and must be filed within 10 days after the Commission denies rehearing.
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The San Francisco Bay Area Transit District (BART) is exempt from Energy Recovery Bond (ERB) Charges assessed by Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) pursuant to the Financing Order (Decision 04-11-015) on all federal preference power and local publicly owned utility power purchased by and delivered to BART under Public Utilities Code Section 701.8. PG&E shall refund the entire balance in the BART Memorandum Account (used to accumulate BART payments of ERB Charges pursuant to the Financing Order) with interest within 30 days of the date this order is mailed. Interest shall be at the rate earned on prime, three-month commercial paper as reported in Federal Reserve Statistical Release H.15, and shall be calculated from the date each payment was received by PG&E from BART to the date the refund is made.
2. SierraPine Ltd. is exempt from ERB Charges collected under or as part of the Direct Access Cost Responsibility Surcharge.
3. This proceeding remains open.
This order is effective today.
Dated , at San Francisco, California.
APPENDIX A
List of Appearances
Applicant: Gail L. Slocum, Attorney at Law, for Pacific Gas & Electric Company.
Interested Parties: Alcantar & Kahl, LLP, by Michael Alcantar, for Cogeneration Association of California; Evelyn Kahl, Attorney at Law, for Energy Producers and Users Coalition; Nora Sheriff, Attorney at Law, for Valero Refining Company - California and Karen Terranova, for Occidental Elk Hills, Inc.; Devra Bachrach, for Natural Resources Defense Council; Barkovich and Yap, Inc., by Barbara R. Barkovich, for CLECA/Consultants; Tom Beach of Crossborder Energy, for CA Manufacturers & Technology Association; Law Office of William Booth, by William H. Booth, for California Large Energy Consumers Association; McCracken, Byers & Haesloop, by David J. Byers, Attorney at Law, for California City - County Street Light Association; Joseph Peter Como, for the City and County of San Francisco; Sheila Day, for Western Manufactured Housing Communities; Grueneich Resource Advocates, by Dian M. Grueneich and Jack P. McGowan, for University of California and California State University; Ellison, Schneider & Harris, LLP, by Lynn Haug, Attorney at Law, for East Bay Municipal Utility District and Douglas K. Kerner, Attorney at Law, for Duke Energy North America; Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan, by Keith McCrea, Attorney at Law, for CA Manufacturers & Technology Association; Karen Norene Mills, Attorney at Law, for California Farm Bureau Federation; Anderson & Poole, by Edward G. Poole, for Western Manufactured Housing Community Association; Bruce A. Reed, Attorney at Law, for Southern California Edison Company; James Ross, of RCS, Inc., for Coalinga Cogeneration Company; Goodin, MacBride, Squeri, Ritchie & Day, LLP, by James D. Squeri, for California Retailers Association; Downey, Brand, LLP, by Ann L. Trowbridge, for Distributed Generation/Distributed Energy Resources and Merced Irrigation District; Ed Yates, for California League of Food Processors; Department of the Navy, by Norman J. Furuta, Attorney at Law, for Federal Executive Agencies; Davis, Wright, Tremaine, LLP, by Jeffrey P. Gray, Attorney at Law, for BART; and Irene K. Moosen, Attorney at Law, for WMA.
Intervenors: Mike Florio and Matthew Freedman, for The Utility Reform Network; Morrison & Foerster, LLP, by Peter W. Hanschen, and Steven Moss, of M.Cubed, for Agricultural Energy Consumers Association; John R. Redding, of Arcturus Energy Consulting; for Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group; and Scott T. Steffen, for Modesto Irrigation District.
State Service: Patrick L. Gileau, Attorney at Law, Christopher Danforth, and Dexter E. Khoury; for the Office of Ratepayer Advocates; Donald J. LaFrenz, and Maria Vanko, for the Energy Division.
(END OF APPENDIX A)