ALJ/TRP/sid Mailed 2/17/2006
Decision 06-02-030 February 16, 2006
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) |
OPINION RESOLVING PETITION FOR CLARIFICATION
I. Introduction and Background
This decision resolves the Petition for Clarification of Decision (D.) 03-09-052 filed on May 10, 2005, by the Regents of the University of California on behalf of the University of California, Davis (UC Davis).
In D.03-09-052, issued on September 18, 2003, the Commission addressed issues relating to a "cost responsibility surcharge" (CRS) for customers who met a portion of their requirements through bundled service from Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) on or after February 1, 2001, and the remainder through the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA)1 on a "split wheeling" basis.2
The Commission determined in D.03-09-052 that WAPA customers should pay a "fair share" of CRS on departing load as directed by state legislation. In D.03-09-052, the Commission also set forth procedures for resolving the remaining technical questions which are the subject of the UC Davis Petition for Clarification.
D.03-09-052 directed the affected parties to meet and confer to reach agreement on methods for calculating the amount of electricity to be subjected to CRS for WAPA split-wheeling customers, and the manner in which such CRS would be identified, billed, and collected. To the extent that parties could not reach timely agreement, D.03-09-052 provided that parties could file a subsequent motion for clarification.
Affected parties subsequently met to discuss technical implementation issues, but were unable to resolve all issues and did not reach formal agreements. Subsequent to the meet-and-confer sessions, UC Davis requested that PG&E codify in writing its understanding both of issues that had been resolved and those still under discussion, in the form of a draft CRS tariff for WAPA customers. UC Davis claims that PG&E did not develop a set of proposed rules for application of the CRS in a timely manner for use in continuing the meet-and-confer process.
UC Davis claims that PG&E bypassed proper procedures for resolving the remaining technical issues by filing Advice Letter (AL) 2579-E on November 5, 2004, proposing to implement draft E-SDL tariff. UC Davis protested the E-SDL tariff and requested that it be remanded back to PG&E for completion of the meet-and-confer process. The Commission staff prepared Draft Resolution E-3918 on May 26, 2005, to address the issues presented in PG&E's AL 2579-E.
Pursuant to D.03-09-052, Ordering Paragraph 6, UC Davis filed the instant Petition for Clarification, seeking to have the Commission set aside the Draft Resolution approving PG&E's tariff, and to resolve the disputes relating to the determination of CRS for WAPA Split-Wheeling Customers in this proceeding through a Commission decision. UC Davis is a split-wheeling customer of WAPA.
An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruling issued on June 23, 2005, in response to the UC Davis Petition for Clarification, granted the request of UC Davis to resolve parties' disputes over technical implementation issues through a Commission decision. Accordingly, the ALJ ruling acknowledged that Draft Resolution E-3918 had been withdrawn, provided procedural guidance to the parties, and directed that a Draft Decision would be prepared for the Commission's consideration addressing the substantive disputes set forth in the UC Davis Petition.
Although PG&E had previously served AL 2579-E on parties in this proceeding, protests to AL 2579-E had not been served on parties in this proceeding. Protests were filed by UC Davis on November 24, 2004, by the Power and Water Resources Pooling Authority (PWRPA) on November 26, 2004, and NASA-Ames Research Center (NASA-Ames) on November 29, 2004. In order to provide a complete record and notice relating to the issues raised in the Petition, protests to AL 2579-E were directed to be filed and served in this proceeding. Because AL 2579-E relates to implementation of the "Regulatory Asset" in the PG&E Bankruptcy proceeding (Investigation (I.) 02-04-026), protests to AL 2579-E were also directed to be served on parties in I.02-04-026. PG&E served a copy of AL 2579-E on parties of record in I.02-04-026. These service and filing requirements were completed by July 1, 2005.
Parties to this proceeding were permitted to file one round of concurrent comments regarding issues raised in the protests and in the UC Davis Petition for Clarification. Concurrent comments were filed on July 15, 2005, by UC Davis and PG&E.
We hereby affirm the procedural approach set forth in the ALJ ruling, and issue this formal decision resolving parties' outstanding disputes. The record for the disposition of these issues was developed by notice and written comments, as outlined above. Although parties were provided the opportunity to request evidentiary hearings by July 15, 2005, no party did so. Accordingly, no evidentiary hearings are required. Based on the record before us, including filed comments on the Petition as well as the protests to PG&E's advice letter, we resolve the disputes regarding technical implementation of CRS provisions to Split-Wheeling Customers in the manner discussed below.
1 WAPA is a federal power marketing agency within the United States (US) Department of Energy that sells capacity and energy generated by the US Bureau of Reclamation at Central Valley Project (CVP) hydroelectric plants that is surplus to the CVP's own project power consumption.
2 "Split-wheeling" customers receive both retail electric service from PG&E (on a bundled service basis) and preference power from WAPA (wheeled over PG&E's transmission system). Service is "split" between these two sources of supply.
