6. Assignment of Proceeding
Rachelle B. Chong is the assigned Commissioner and Karl Bemesderfer is the assigned Administrative Law Judge in this proceeding.
Findings of Fact
1. Electricity load reduction during peak periods can be achieved through direct utility control of customer premises AC.
2. Either Switches or PCTs may be used to directly control customer load.
3. PCTs are significantly more expensive than Switches.
4. The alternative to reducing electricity demand through direct control of customer load during periods of peak demand is to bring additional generation capacity on line.
5. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, no more than 40% of the direct load control devices initially installed by PG&E will be PCTs.
6. The Settlement Agreement is estimated to achieve 305 MW of demand reduction capacity by June 2011.
7. The Settlement Agreement is estimated to cost $178.8 million by June 2011.
8. PG&E estimates that the cost-benefit ratio of the Settlement Agreement is 91% under one set of assumptions and 136% under alternate assumptions.
Conclusions of Law
1. The Settlement Agreement is reasonable in light of the whole record.
2. The Settlement Agreement is consistent with law.
3. The Settlement Agreement is in the public interest.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The application of Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) for approval of its 2008-2020 Air Conditioning direct load control program, as modified by the Settlement Agreement between and among PG&E, the Division of Ratepayer Advocates and The Utility Reform Network, attached hereto as Exhibit 1, is approved.
2. This proceeding is categorized as Ratesetting and hearings are not necessary.
3. The Supplemental Testimony of Bruce Perlstein is admitted in the record as PG&E Exhibit S-1.
4. Application 07-04-009 is closed.
This order is effective today.
Dated February 14, 2008, at San Francisco, California.
