COM/LYN/abw - California
COM/LYN/abw * Mailed 5/16/2001
Decision 01-05-064 May 15, 2001
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
| | |
|Application of Southern California Edison Company (E 3338-E) for Authority to Institute |Application 00-11-038 |
|a Rate Stabilization Plan with a Rate Increase and End of Rate Freeze Tariffs. |(Filed November 16, 2000) |
| | |
|Emergency Application of Pacific Gas and Electric Company to Adopt a Rate Stabilization |Application 00-11-056 |
|Plan. (U 39 E) |(Filed November 22, 2000) |
| | |
|Petition of THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK for Modification of Resolution E-3527. |Application 00-10-028 |
| |(Filed October 17, 2000) |
(See Appendix A for List of Appearances.)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page
INTERIM OPINION REGARDING RATE DESIGN……………………………… 2
I. Summary 2
II. Background 10
A. The March 27, 2001 Order 10
B. Record Development 11
C. Rate Design Principles and Goals 12
1. Equity 13
2. Conservation 14
III. Rate Design and Revenue Requirement Increases 15
IV. Revenue Allocation Between Customers 17
A. Methodology for Revenue Allocation Among Customers 18
B. Revenue Requirement Shortfalls 23
1. Allocating the 130% of Baseline Residential Revenues 23
2. Allocating CARE and Medical Baseline Exemption Revenues 27
3. Exempting Direct Access Customers 28
4. Amortizing Rate Surcharges From The Effective Date 29
V. Preliminary Matters in Rate Design 31
A. Moving to Time of Use Meters for Commercial Customers 31
B. Changing Agricultural Tariff Definitions 32
C. Bill Limiters and Special Schedules 33
D. Residential Rate Design 34
E. PG&E’s E-8 Schedules 36
VI. Non-Residential Rate Design 37
A. Tiering 37
B. Non-TOU Schedules 38
C. Time of Use 39
D. “Super Peak” Rate 40
E. County of Los Angeles’ Proposal to Cap Rates for Essential
Customers 40
F. Federal Generation Based Tariffs 41
G. Agricultural Rates 43
H. Master Meter Customers 44
I. Streetlight and Traffic Light Schedules 45
J. CIPA’s Credit for Interruptible Customers 46
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Cont'd)
Title Page
VII. Other Issues 46
A. Tracking and Posting Data 46
B. Expedited Installation of Meters 48
C. 10% Rate Discount Associated with Rate Reduction Bonds 49
D. Bill Display 50
E. Payment to CDWR 52
VIII. Next Steps 52
IX. Issuance of the Proposed Alternate 54
Findings of Fact……………………………………………………………………….. 55
Conclusions of Law…………………………………………………………………… 61
INTERIM ORDER……………………………………………………………………. 63
Attachment A
Attachment B
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
INTERIM OPINION REGARDING RATE DESIGN
Summary
This decision responds to the energy crisis that has burdened California’s consumers and economy for the past twelve months by:
• Adopting rates for various types of customers;
• Applying a rate design to existing electric energy revenue needs for the purchase and supply of electricity by the California Department of Water Resources (CDWR), Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and Southern California Edison Company (Edison); and
• Expediting the allocation among customers of the three-cent-per-kilowatt-hour average rate increase adopted on March 27, 2001.
These new rates must be implemented as soon as practicable to provide sufficient revenues for power and to maximize conservation this summer.
California consumers are facing an unbounded, unjust, unreasonable and unlawful wholesale price regime for a fundamental economic necessity which has no substitute —electricity. We continue to look to the federal government to moderate wholesale prices. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has refused to perform its legal duty to assure just and reasonable wholesale energy rates. Its failure to restrain wholesale electricity price gouging is directly responsible for the hardship that will be suffered by the families, farms and businesses of California as a result of higher electricity prices. In the face of federal indifference, we are working within the framework established by the Governor and the Legislature to sustain, as best we can, the energy economy of California.
Every consumer in California is justified in feeling outrage at the rates we approve today and the bills they will have to pay tomorrow. We share the sense of outrage.
The rate schedules we approve today will severely affect the electricity bills of every Californian, excepting only the poorest and most vulnerable customers. In moving forward today with revenue allocation and rate design, we do not in any manner concede that the wholesale electricity costs which are the basis for these rates are just or reasonable, or in any way lawful under the Federal Power Act, 16 USC section 824 et seq.
Today’s decision allocates the three–cent-per-kilowatt-hour (kWh) average rate increase authorized to be charged to the customers of CDWR, Edison and PG&E in Decision D. 01-03-082. We recognize that PG&E and Edison are not now purchasing all their customers’ electricity and that some electricity is being sold directly to customers by DWR. We adopted the three-cent per kWh surcharge on March 27, 2001 in order to enable the utilities to comply with their statutory obligation to serve, and to enable CDWR to provide and pay for enough wholesale electricity to serve customers as provided by AB1X.
The estimated revenue increase from this 3¢/kWh surcharge totals approximately $2.5 billion annually to be paid by the customers of each utility. In this decision, we also allocate the recovery of the authorized 3¢ per/kWh rate surcharge from March 27, 2001, the time of authorization, to June 1, 2001, the beginning of surcharge recovery. The amount of additional revenue raised through this period totals $903 million ($420 million from Edison customers and $423 million from PG&E customers) which we amortize in customer bills over the next twelve-month period.
In this decision we fundamentally change how residential customers will pay for the electricity they use. We adopt five residential rate tiers which
correlate to the amount of electricity used per month and allocate the rate surcharge to be paid by the three highest usage tiers as follows:
Tier 1: up to 100% of baseline No increase by statute
Tier 2: 100-130% of baseline No increase by statute
Tier 3: 130-200% of baseline 12% increase or less, depending on usage
Tier 4: 200-300% of baseline 29% increase or less, depending on usage
Tier 5: over 300% of baseline 47% increase or less, depending on usage
As mandated by AB 1x, all residential usage below 130% of baseline is exempted from further rate surcharges. However, for every residential customer who uses more than 130% of baseline, (which is adjusted by climate zone) each additional kilowatt-hour used will be charged at an increasingly higher rate. Thus, those residences who use more than 300% of their baseline usage will pay much more than those who use less than 200% of baseline. As AB 1x removed over 60% of all residential use from the possibility of further rate increases, the remaining non-exempt residential use will bear the costs of higher electric use.
In addition, we exempt all customers who qualify for the California Alternative Rates for Energy (CARE) program from paying the surcharge, as we stated in our March 27, 2001 order,[1] and we also exempt from paying the surcharge all usage of customers on medical baseline rates Finally, in response to the Governor’s proposal to recognize the unique role agriculture plays in California’s and the nation’s economy, we cap agricultural rate increases at a range of 15-20 percent, depending on the agricultural customer tariff.
After accounting for these four adjustments – permitting recovery of the rate increases effective March 27th, exempting residential usage below 130% of baseline as required by statute, exempting CARE-eligible and medical baseline customers from rate increases and capping rate increases for agricultural customers – the rate increases we implement in today’s order average 4.51 cents per kWh for non-exempt customers. Customers may experience higher or lower bill increases depending on their usage. Through the device of a bill limiter, we will attempt to assist customers who experience the most extreme bill increases.
The charts below details the new average electricity rates by customer type. These charts demonstrate that even with the new rates, large commercial and industrial customers will still pay less per kilowatt of electricity used than residential customers and small commercial businesses.
[pic]
[pic]
If the rates were set at the actual cost of energy consumed, the increases allocated among customers today would be substantially higher. These average rates reflect the fact that the real cost of electricity provided by DWR will be financed through the issuance of long-term bonds that will be repaid over time by ratepayers. Unless and until the FERC decides to enforce the law, even these astronomical new average rates may prove inadequate to cover exorbitant wholesale electricity prices in the California market.
Our rate design decision today promotes several objectives. We intend to pursue a fundamentally fair allocation of the costs of the energy consumed by customers of the utilities and CDWR. While rejecting the assigned commissioner’s proposal to tier commercial rates and retaining the original commercial rate structures in effect prior to the increases, we will apply the new increases in a manner that moves the energy cost component of customer’s bills closer to equality, recognizing that the wholesale energy consumed by each customer is fungible and is priced in a manner that bears no relation to its cost under the current FERC regime.
Under the conditions we face in California today, equitably allocating rate increases among California businesses, farms, and families involves inevitable burdens. For a quarter century California has been committed to the principle that electric energy is a necessity of modern life and that a basic quantity of energy usage should remain affordable.[2] Statutory mandates direct the Commission that in establishing all electricity and gas rates, the Commission must “observ[e] the principle that electricity and gas services are necessities, for which a low affordable rate is desirable.” Section 739(c)(2).[3] At the same time, California has been committed to assuring that business energy costs enable companies to remain competitive in the worldwide marketplace. C.f., Sections 743, 743.1 and 744.[4] The unconscionable and unlawful wholesale prices Californians currently face make achieving either of these goals extraordinarily difficult. We have called upon our institutional expertise and experience as well as our understanding of law and policy to make hard choices based on the law, California energy policy and the record before us. These choices will please no one, least of all ourselves.
In addition to the goal of equity, we intend to promote conservation in order to reduce energy demand and energy usage. Wholesale price gouging is occurring at all hours, and under all load conditions. Reducing total consumption at all hours is necessary. Reducing energy consumption at peak hours may also enhance system reliability when California is projected to face the severest shortages.
Many parties argue that rates should be designed to fall primarily on those who consume electricity during peak summer hours, between noon and 6 p.m. All projections indicate and all experts agree that California may generally face electricity supply shortages during summer peak periods. However, as California has experienced since December, our supply and wholesale market pricing challenges are not limited to summer peak periods. Allocating the rate increases only to summer peak fails to promote conservation in all hours and disproportionately disadvantages those families, farms and businesses that cannot shift electricity use away from the summer peak period.
Another goal of the rates we adopt today is to provide customers and this Commission with information and technical tools to respond to the wholesale costs and conditions we will face this summer. Hence we are proposing a real time pricing pilot program and are encouraging large commercial customers to use energy meters to better control electrical use at times of greatest price or demand. We also propose a separate market rate pilot program for federal facilities that comports with federal policy in support of customers’ paying the market costs of wholesale power.[5]
The rates adopted in this order become effective June 1, 2001. We intend to fine-tune these rate charges and categories through additional proceedings by July. Specifically, we seek additional information and analysis of certain rate design options discussed herein. Through the next eight weeks, we also intend to monitor the effects of certain rate design and allocation methods adopted today.
Background
1 The March 27, 2001 Order
Our March 27, 2001 decision, D.01-03-082, adopted an average three cent per kWh rate surcharge but did not adopt a rate design, i.e., specific rates to be applied to specific classes of customers. Conceptually, we expressed our intention to adopt inverted or “tiered” rates for those non-residential customer classes that do not have “time-of-use”(TOU) rates. Section 739.7 requires the Commission to maintain “an appropriate inverted rate structure” for residential rates, an approach we believe appropriately encourages customers to conserve because rates increase as customers use more energy. In a working wholesale market, the last increment of electricity purchased, especially in the summer, will be the most expensive increment. Reducing demand at peak energy use periods should thus result in greater cost savings in overall energy purchases as well as system reliability benefits. This approach, we believe, will encourage customers to conserve energy as directed by Section 747.5.
2 Record Development
No utility may change the rates it charges “…except upon a showing before the commission and a finding by the commission that the new rate is justified….” Section 454. The Commission may determine the procedures by which the showing is made, and has broad discretion in so doing. Wood v. PUC, 4 C. 3d 288, 292 (1970).
The Commission’s development of a tiered rate structure began with the assigned commissioner proposing a specific tiered rate design, inviting comment, and setting a schedule for proceedings. To obtain evidence for rate design and implementation hearings and workshops were conducted. The utilities filed reports proposing billing systems’ changes and detailing practical implementation issues.
The Commission held evidentiary hearings and Public Participation Hearings (PPHs) throughout Edison’s and PG&E’s service territories so customers could state their concerns to the Commission directly. The PPHs were held in Santa Monica, Rosemead, Fresno, Visalia, Fullerton, San Bernardino, Sacramento, Oakland and San Jose. Edison and PG&E informed all customers of the locations and times by a special mailing. At the PPHs, the Commission heard statements from numerous concerned citizens. In Appendix D, we include a summary of the major issues addressed at the PPHs. This Appendix was prepared by the Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) presiding at these PPHs.
After the evidentiary hearings concluded on April 26, 2001, the parties filed briefs. The ALJ issued a proposed decision and the assigned commissioner issued an alternate decision for comment on May 9, 2001. The parties filed and served comments on the proposed decision on May 10, 2001. The Commission heard the parties’ final arguments on May 11, 2001.
3 Rate Design Principles and Goals
The assigned commissioner’s March 27th ruling proposed the following rate design principles:
• Rate differences among customer classes should be adjusted to reduce the disparity in prices paid for energy (on a per kilowatt hour basis) to ensure fairness in the prices paid for all energy purchased for California;
• For all customers, electric bills should be tiered to the amount of electricity used in order to promote conservation – the more you use, the more you pay for that extra electricity above a certain threshold of use; and
• For commercial customers with time-of-use (TOU) or other advanced meters, rates should be set so as to promote the greatest amount of conservation possible during summer peak hours.
After considering parties’ views[6] on the proposed rate design goals, President Lynch issued an ACR on April 11th that provided parties flexibility in constructing their own rate design proposals and established a hearing process to
examine the proposals. As we discuss more fully below, we have extensively modified the original rate design framework in response to the submissions of the parties.
Today we adopt a rate design to achieve the following objectives: (1) reduce energy consumption and thereby reduce California’s liability for exorbitant wholesale power purchases; (2) allocate these wholesale electricity purchase costs fairly among customers, consistent with statutory mandates; (3) protect the most vulnerable customers; (4) minimize the extent to which individual customers experience extreme hardship; and (5) provide customers with ways to manage their energy usage and reduce their energy bills.
1 Equity
Traditional ratemaking outcomes reflect the reasonable cost of the service supplied. Section 451; Pacific Telephone and Telegraph v. PUC, 62 C. 2d 634 (1965); Pacific Telephone and Telegraph v. PUC, 34 C. 2d 822 (1950). In practice this means that the Commission, through ratemaking, establishes rates that will generate the revenue requirement needed to supply electric service. California Manufacturers’ Association v. PUC, 24 C.3d 251, 257 (1979). However, cost recovery as a general ratemaking goal is accompanied by other policy goals, including the equitable pursuit of the public good. Pacific Telephone and Telegraph v. PUC, 7 C.3d 331, 357 (1974).
The goal of equity is essentially one of fairness, viewed in a broad policy context. TURN v. PUC, 22 C. 3d 529, 538 (1978). We cannot precisely address the responsibility for the specific energy supply costs California bears today because CDWR has not provided us with sufficient information concerning the nature and extent of its power purchase costs to date.[7] In any event, equity transcends the application of simple mathematical formulas. We therefore evaluate rate design proposals considering customers’ ability to pay and the hardship that rate increases impose on particularly vulnerable customers. We also consider the relative hardship imposed on various customer groups. [8]
2 Conservation
A fundamental goal of this proceeding is to promote energy conservation and to enable customers to conserve where possible. Wholesale power purchases in the past several months have been prohibitively expensive for all hours. This rate design will mitigate these expenses by promoting conservation at all hours. It is also important to promote conservation during summer peak hours, when prices can be the highest and the grid is most vulnerable to failure caused by shortages. By promoting energy conservation during summer peak hours, we attempt to reduce blackouts and service interruptions in order to preserve public health and safety.[9]
PG&E, Edison and others project there will be inadequate power supplies during summer peak periods. They and others project a need for purchases by CDWR and the ISO to meet anticipated customer needs. Although we do not have sufficient information to determine the specific dollar value of conserving energy in specific peak periods, we do know that 2001 electricity futures contracts are currently priced at $200-800/MW. Spot market prices during the summer peak could be much higher. As Dr. Borenstein testified, all energy purchased this summer will be expensive, and power purchased during peak periods will be even more expensive.
The Governor’s 20/20 program will reward customers who reduce their overall electric consumption by 20% for each month during this summer. This incentive, combined with customer education, energy efficiency programs, and the price signal that higher rates will send customers, can help to promote energy conservation. A reduction in total energy consumption will help protect Californians from blackouts and will reduce the total financing or revenues needed for the state and the utilities to purchase electricity.
We are currently evaluating conservation and demand response programs to promote system reliability and interruptible programs in Rulemaking (R.) 00-10-002. Certain types of customers place an extremely high value on reliability and may be particularly receptive to peak period demand reduction programs. Moreover, the CEC pursuant to SB5X will spend $35 million this year to install interval meters on commercial customers’ facilities with maximum demand of 200 kilowatts or more. These meters will encourage further conservation.
Rate Design and Revenue Requirement Increases
We must determine the revenue requirement increase before we can design rates. On May 2, 2001, after the record closed in this proceeding, CDWR provided the Commission with a revenue requirement in summary which the parties were asked to consider in their testimony (see Exhibit B, received May 4, 2001). CDWR estimates its revenue requirements to be $9.2 billion through June 2002 to purchase less than 40% of the electricity to be consumed. Given the summary nature and the timing of the revenue requirement data we received from CDWR, we could not use CDWR’s numbers to establish a forecast. We therefore adopt the delivers forecasts presented by the utilities by the understanding that they have been subjected to limited scrutiny because of time constraints. We then develop a rate design for all revenue requirements.
We also must determine whether to include the one-cent per kilowatt hour surcharge (adopted January 4, 2001 and made permanent on March 27, 2001) in the rate designs we adopt in this order. On February 1, 2001, the California Legislature enacted and the Governor signed AB1X, which exempted residential usage below 130% of baseline from future rate increases during the period that CDWR recovers its costs for its purchases of electricity. Because the legislation passed after we adopted the 1¢/kWh surcharge on January 4, usage below 130% is not exempt from the 1¢/kWh surcharge, although it is exempt from the 3¢/kWh surcharge. Thus, the two surcharges are subject to different exemptions.
While there may be administrative ease in folding the two surcharges into one, the differing statutory exemptions preclude this simplification. Moreover, in D.01-03-082, we specifically identified the 3¢/kWh surcharge as subject to a new rate design approach. The 1¢/kWh surcharge is already reflected in the rates that are used as the starting point for the rate design considered in this proceeding. Therefore, the revenue allocation and rate design we discuss here apply only to the 3¢/per kWh increase. Applying the 3¢/kWh to Edison’s forecast system-wide deliveries for 2001 of 83.78 billion kWh results in an annual revenue increase of $2.513 billion. Multiplying the 3¢/kWh increase with PG&E’s forecast system-wide deliveries for 2001 results in an annual incremental revenue increase of $ 2.46 billion.
In adopting the 3¢/kWh surcharge in D.01-03-082, we did not allocate the amount of the surcharge that would have accrued to the exempted residential customers. In the context of calculating a revenue requirement, we simply applied the rate increase “to power costs incurred after the effective date of this decision.”
Pursuant to AB1X, our March 27th decision clearly ordered that CDWR will receive the full amount the utilities, as agents, collect on behalf of CDWR from all customers for each kWh of power provided by CDWR. Each power purchaser must recover the costs of each kilowatt-hour of power purchased, regardless of whether the recipient of the power is exempt from the rate surcharge authorized on March 27th. Thus, it is reasonable to base the revenue requirement underlying this rate design on applying the surcharge to all forecast sales. Therefore, while we reiterate our commitment to ensuring that the residential customers exempted from rate increases by AB1X do not pay the 3¢/kWh surcharge, for purposes of determining the overall revenue requirement to be collected, all sales should be included.
Revenue Allocation Between Customers
Having determined the revenue each utility is authorized to collect from customers, we next design rate structures that will permit the utilities to collect the authorized amounts for themselves and as agents for CDWR. We must decide generally how to allocate the revenue increase among customer classes. We must also allocate the shortfall that results from exempting CARE-eligible customers, medical baseline customers, and residential usage up to 130% of baseline consumption from any increase.
The allocation and rate design adopted today concern only those non-exempt customer classes that will pay the 3¢/per kWh surcharge adopted on March 27th. The underlying rate structure of the utilities will not change. Consequently, this decision affects only part of each customer’s electricity bills. By operation of the statutory safe harbor, more than 60% of residential customer sales will be exempt from this and further rate increases.
1 Methodology for Revenue Allocation Among Customers
For the last several years, the Commission’s policy has been that rates charged to various types of customers reflect the costs those customers impose on the utilities’ systems. However, no customer is causing the exorbitant electricity prices faced by the utilities and CDWR. Thus, it would be unfair to attribute the current wholesale market prices as caused by any particular type of customer.
California’s wholesale energy market is irrational, dysfunctional and the prices set in that market are unconscionable and unlawful. These prices bear little, if any, relationship to actual energy production costs. While wholesale prices in California markets have changed and indeed have skyrocketed, the basic costs of production, other than fuel, have not. Simply put, the outrageously priced wholesale energy that forces us to take the extraordinary step of imposing this extraordinary rate surcharge is being produced at the same plants upon which we based our traditional cost allocation procedures. In that respect, the fundamental facts of energy production have not changed. What has changed is that California is beset by wholesale sellers intent upon maximizing revenue and federal regulators who refuse to impose any limitations on those sellers. The price of wholesale energy bears no relationship to the cost of production, but is rather a function of what price can be extracted from the California market through manipulation.
Without a rational relationship between costs and rates, we must rely more on other factors to allocate the revenue to be collected from electricity customers. The parties to this proceeding presented several options:
Historic Generation Cost Allocation – this methodology allocates the incremental revenue requirement based on the percent of generation revenues contributed by each customer group prior to adoption of the 3¢/kWh surcharge.
On Peak Energy Use/Top 100 hours – these two methods allocate costs based on the customer group’s share of either summer on- peak energy use or 100 hours of highest system demand.
1999 Power Exchange (PX) Generation Charges – this method allocates the revenue requirement by each customer group’s contribution to 1999 PX costs.
Equal cents per kWh – this method divides the revenue among the customer classes based on the total units of energy each class is forecast to consume during calendar year 2001.
The Historic Generation Cost allocation proposal and the 1999 PX Generation Charges proposal both suffer from the same flaw. Current costs bear no resemblance to the historic costs that underlie both those methodologies. No party has presented analyses that demonstrate that historic cost information is a reasonable means of allocating current costs, or that these historic cost-based allocations would not substantively change if revised to reflect the costs being incurred today. This concern was addressed by a number of parties, including ORA, which stated the following:
Rather than basing allocations on current conditions, many parties seem to be relying on entirely different conditions such as existed prior to the crisis. They implicitly assume that current cost conditions are similar to those extant when the utilities owned the majority of the generation plants, and when the majority of the generation costs were predictable and orderly. These conditions no longer exist.
Edison and FEA recommend allocating the revenue surcharge based on equal percent of generation costs. The current generation component of rates is based on rates in existence in 1995 before A.B. 1890 went into effect. During various phases of implementation proceedings for A.B. 1890, rate components were unbundled. Components for cost items such as distribution, transmission, CTC and public purpose programs and other costs were subtracted from total rates to determine the generation component on a residual basis. The 1995 rates were partially based on usage and costs from the years before 1995. The data used to calculate the 1995 rates is outdated and a proper calculation of these costs today would almost certainly result in different rates. Calculating the generation component directly would yield a different value than a residual calculation as was done in the unbundling proceedings. While Edison’s and FEA’s methodology has a surface plausibility, it is based on stale information and customer usage data. Thus, it would be improper to base the allocation of the surcharge on outdated and residually determined generation costs. Current generation costs were calculated under different conditions, when marginal energy costs were below average energy costs. Marginal energy costs (as measured on the spot market) currently far exceed historical average costs. ORA Brief, Page 10
Perhaps the most dramatic illustration of how different costs and conditions are now compared to 1995 is the fact that marginal energy costs for off peak hours were based on inexpensive energy imports in 1995. Currently, energy imports are far from inexpensive and are hard to obtain. ORA Brief, Page 12
We cannot conclude based on the record before us that either the Historic Generation Cost Allocation or the 1999 PX Generation Charges approach will result in an equitable allocation of the costs currently being incurred in California.
The On Peak Energy Use/Top 100 Hours proposals also are problematic. These approaches essentially assign more of the high energy costs being incurred round the clock today to those customers which use the most energy during summer peak hours. As stated by Edison’s witness Jazayeri, “…top 100 hours is a method more suitable for allocating capacity costs. And I’m not sure it does a good of allocating energy regulated costs.” (Jazayeri, Edison, Tr.,Vol. 18, p.2338)
There is no evidence to suggest that the high costs that have been incurred over the last year, and primarily during the most recent winter and spring, are in any way related to summer peak usage. In fact, CIPA witness McCann stated that prices are currently ten times higher in both summer peak and non-summer peak periods compared to 1999 (CIPA witness McCann, 18 RT 2390-2391). FEA witness Brubaker concurred that prices are consistently higher through all time periods, stating “But costs have gone up in all periods, which is why I think a percentage applied to the existing generation recoveries makes sense. It hits every period, every kilowatt-hour with some responsibility for the additional costs.” (FEA witness Brubaker, 19 RT 2504). We cannot find that a method of allocating the current high costs that is based solely on summer peak usage is equitable.
Given that energy costs are high in all time periods, and that there is no compelling evidence to support allocating these costs more to one type of customer than another, we find that applying the surcharge as broadly as possible is the fairest way to apportion the non-cost-based price premium now extracted by sellers in the California wholesale electricity market. The Equal Cents Per Kwh proposal best meets this criterion. We think this methodology will gain the widest public acceptance as all other cost-based fine distinctions among customer classes pale in comparison to the magnitude of the sellers’ profit premiums now attaching to every kilowatt sold into California’s wholesale market. This is also consistent with the Commission’s allocation of the 1 cent/kwh surcharge authorized in January of this year.
In addition to equity, another goal of our rate design is to spur conservation. As addressed in more detail below, the use of the Equal Cents Per Kwh approach, combined with an equally broad allocation of revenue shortfalls, results in substantially higher rates for all classes of customers. Industrial, large and small commercial and non-exempt residential usage will all see rate increases of over 4 cents per kwh, with the non-exempt residential seeing the highest increase. This will promote conservation from all classes of customers.
The other allocation methods rejected by the Commission would have further burdened the non-exempt residential demand, while reducing the increase for other customer classes. This appears inequitable, since the non-exempt residential usage already will see the highest rate increase. Further shifting costs to the non-exempt residential would also appear to undermine conservation incentives as only 11% of total usage (based on 2000 usage data) can be affected by allocating price increases to the non-exempt residential class.
[pic]
As the chart above demonstrates, the non-exempt residential usage (which is the only portion of residential rates that the Commission may increase) is only about 11% of total system energy deliveries for Edison and PG&E. Further increasing the rates for this 11% of usage, while decreasing the rates for customers with over 60% of total usage would reduce the incentive for conservation for most of the demand of the utilities. The non-exempt residential demand will already see the highest rates of any customer class. Further increasing this disparity, as would happen under the rejected methodologies,
would likely result in less overall conservation than if rates were more evenly matched among customer classes.
Allocating the revenue requirement to customer classes based on the proportion of forecast 2001 sales to the class most closely meets the twin goals of equity and conservation within the parameters set by AB1X’s exemption. Moreover, such allocation would provide funds for CDWR to purchase electricity in the wholesale market at a time when those costs are expected to be higher in all hours of the year than they were during the same portions of previous years.
Certain usage is exempted from rate increases by statute (residential usage up to 130% of baseline) or by our prior decisions (low-income CARE-eligible customers); we address the steps in allocating these revenue shortfalls below.
2 Revenue Requirement Shortfalls
1 Allocating the 130% of Baseline Residential Revenues
Next, we must allocate the revenue shortfalls resulting from exemptions to the surcharge. In AB1X, the Legislature added Section 80110 to the Water Code, effective February 1, 2001:
In no case shall the commission increase the electricity charges in effect on the date that the act that adds this section becomes effective for residential customers for existing baseline quantities or usage by those customers of up to 130 percent of existing baseline quantities, until such time as the department has recovered the costs of power it has procured for the electrical corporation’s retail end use customers as provided in this division.
This statute exempts from additional rate increases all residential electricity usage that falls within 130% of “baseline” usage. Baseline usage is defined in Section 739(a). That section requires the Commission to establish a quantity of natural gas and electricity that is necessary to supply a “significant portion of the reasonable energy needs of the average residential customer.” The “baseline quantity” is defined to be between 50 and 60 percent of average residential consumption, with allowances for seasonal and climatic variations, Section 739(d)(1). The Commission is further directed to require the utilities to file residential rate schedules that provide for the baseline quantity to be the first or lowest block in an increasing block rate structure. Section 739(c)(1). In addition, the Commission is directed to “establish an appropriate gradual difference between the rates for the respective blocks of usage.” Section 739(c)(1). In 1986, the Commission determined the initial baseline quantities in D.86087, 80 CPUC 182. Subsequent revisions and updates to the baseline quantities and applicable rates have been made in the utilities’ general rate cases.
Taken together, new Water Code § 80110 and Pub. Utils. Code § 739, exempt over 60% of residential sales from the 3¢/kWh rate surcharge we authorized March 27th. The resulting shortfall is significant: 64% of all Edison residential sales are exempt, and 62% of all PG&E residential sales are exempt. These use exemptions result in half of all residential customers—those who use less than 130% of baseline—being protected by statute from further rate increases.
TURN proposes that we simply not collect revenues relating to the power purchases which correlate to energy usage by exempt customers. TURN’s approach results in revenue requirements insufficient to cover power purchase costs. Thus we will recover these revenue requirements by reallocating the revenue among non-exempt customers. We have before us three proposals for allocating this shortfall. The first is to recover the shortfall within residential rates. The second is to reallocate it to all eligible sales, and the third is to allocate the increase to all non-residential sales.
TURN and Aglet propose that the revenue requirement be re-allocated to all non-exempt sales, observing that § 80110 is silent on the issue. Other parties addressing this issue propose to re-allocate the revenue requirement to non-exempt residential sales only. Under the non-exempt residential only re-allocation method, the residential customer group would be allocated significantly more of the revenue requirement and incurs a significantly greater rate increase. The rate increase for Edison customers for the two methods is as follows:
| |Allocation to Non-Exempt |Allocation to |
| |Residential Only |All Non- Exempt |
|Residential |22% |9% |
|Large Power |36% |43% |
The residential customers would also see significantly greater changes in prices for higher-tier usage. For example, PG&E’s E-1 General Residential rate schedule would experience the following increases under the two alternatives:
| |Allocated to Non-Exempt Residential only |Allocated to All Non-Exempt |
|Tier 1 (0 – 100%)[10] |11.4¢/kWh[11] |12.5¢/kWh[12] |
|Tier 2 (100-130%) |13.0¢/kWh |14.32¢/kWh |
|Tier 3 (130 – 200%) |19.5¢/kWh |19.33¢/kWh |
|Tier 4 (Over 200%-300%) |28.9¢/kWh |23.63¢/kWh |
|Tier 5 (Over 300%) |39.0¢/kWh |25.83¢/kWh |
Allocating the entire shortfall only to residential customers creates dramatic price increases from Tier 2 to Tier 3 usage. Spreading the exempt-related revenue requirements to all non-exempt customers creates more gradual (although still significant) rate increases in the non-exempt residential customer classes as usage progresses into the higher tiers.
Re-allocating the entire revenue requirement shortfall to remaining residential sales creates rate spikes that are too severe. Moreover, reallocating the entire exempt customer revenue shortfall only to the remaining non-exempt residential customers fails to produce much additional conservation benefit, as discussed in Section IV A. Thus, the shortfall from this exemption should be allocated equally to all customer groups.
We find that the revenue requirement shortfall caused by applying the 3¢/kWh surcharge approved in D.01-03-082 to sales to residential customers below 130% of baseline shall be re-allocated to all three major customer groups equally. This method spreads the shortfall one-third to the residential class, one-third to commercial customers and one-third to industrial customers, an outcome that takes a middle path between allocating the shortfall equally to all usage, and proposals by parties to allocate the entire shortfall within the residential class. We believe that this method is the most consistent with the legislative intent of AB1X.[13]
We note the concerns expressed by the representatives of industrial customers, CLECA, EPUC and CMTA, that our equitable allocation unfairly results in much larger average increases for industrial customers than for residential customers. (May 10 Joint Comments of EPUC, CLECA and CMTA, page 8). However, their argument fails to consider that the majority of residential usage has been statutorily exempted from any rate increases that this Commission might impose. When the prohibition of increasing rates for residential usage up to 130% of baseline is factored in, the cost allocations adopted in this decision result in higher percentage and cent/kWh increases for non-exempt residential usage than for any other customer class, including industrial. Thus, we do not find the concerns of these industrial representatives regarding the equity of our cost allocation to be compelling. If anything, their own arguments, when corrected to account for mandated exemptions, suggest that additional costs could be shifted to non-residential customers.
However, we are convinced by the arguments presented by the California Industrial Users (CIU) that the rate increases adopted today may have a significant negative impact on business and the California economy. (May 10 Comments of CIU, pages 2 and 3). To balance our concern for the economy with our concerns regarding equity and conservation incentives, we will adopt a cap on the average rate increases to be applied to the industrial customer classes of Edison and PG&E. For PG&E, the average rate increase cap for industrial customers will be 12.3¢/kWh, and for Edison it will be 12.9¢/kWh.
2 Allocating CARE and Medical Baseline Exemption Revenues
The revenue requirement shortfall caused by exempting CARE-eligible customers from the 3¢/kWh surcharge approved in D.01-03-082 shall be re-allocated to all sales other than sales subject to the CARE program and residential customers with usage of or less than 130% of baseline.
The general surcharge we adopt today to pay for extraordinary power costs should be allocated as broadly as possible. However, because of the extraordinary size of the rate increase, it is reasonable to mitigate the impact to the most vulnerable customer classes. This mitigation is consistent with legislative direction in AB1X as well. We therefore direct the utilities to exempt all usage of medical baseline customers from the rate increases adopted in this order. The resulting revenue shortfall will be allocated equally to each of the customer classes, consistent with the allocation of the shortfall from the exemption for 130% of baseline usage.
While no party objects to the medical baseline exemption, it was not discussed at hearing. Therefore, Edison states in its comments and at final oral argument on May 11, 2001 that it has not included this exemption in its billing system modifications for June 1, 2001. Edison states it can make the billing system changes by August 23, 2001. PG&E states it will be able to implement this exemption into its billing system by June 1 and has already begun expedited work on this relatively limited systems change. Edison should notify all its medical baseline customers by certified letter prior to June 1, 2001 that they are eligible for this exemption and will be given a refund of the surcharges on their September 2001 bills.
3 Exempting Direct Access Customers
The 3 cent/kWh surcharge adopted on March 27 is meant to apply to all generation deliveries on the utilities’ systems, including the demand of direct access customers. However, although we authorize the utilities to include the direct access load in calculating the revenue requirement associated with the surcharge, we do not require direct access customers to pay any of the rate increase. Direct access customers are not relying on the utilities or DWR to purchase power on their behalf. The surcharge adopted in D. 01-03-082 is intended to provide payment for DWR purchases which do not include purchases made by direct access customers. By this exemption we intend to “net out” the charges and credits of direct access customers. By refraining from imposing an additional charge on direct access customers we do not intend to cause a windfall through a claim of a credit under the current direct access credit system. Thus, we will proceed to reexamine and redesign the direct access credit system to reflect current structural reality.
As the direct access demand increases the overall revenue requirement associated with the 3¢/kWh surcharge, there will be a shortfall in utility revenues resulting from this decision not to charge any of the rate increase to direct access customers. That shortfall will be allocated on an equal cents/kWh basis to all non-exempt sales. We note that this will likely shift costs to residential consumers since the majority of direct access demand, and thus the majority of the resulting shortfall, is non-residential.
4 Amortizing Rate Surcharges From The Effective Date
In D.01-03-082, we adopted the 3-cent per kilowatt hour rate surcharge effective March 27, 2001. That decision also obligates Edison and PG&E to collect and remit a generation-related rate including the 3¢/kWh surcharge to CDWR. Today’s decision determines the specific rate allocation and design of the surcharge for collection beginning June 1 for PG&E and June 3 for Edison. During the interim between March 27th and the date that Edison and PG&E begin applying the surcharge the rate increase was effective, but not yet collected. PG&E and Edison therefore seek to collect the revenue shortfall from this time period over some period in the future.
Edison proposes to recover this shortfall by amortizing it over three months. This three-month amortization would effectively increase the three-cent surcharge to five cents. PG&E proposes a twelve-month amortization method, increasing the surcharge to 3.6 cents per kWh over the recovery period.
Aglet and TURN contend that the rule against retroactive ratemaking prohibits collection of these amounts, because no balancing or memorandum account has yet been established to authorize such collection.[14] Section 728 requires the Commission to determine the rate “to be thereafter observed and in force.” The right to recover revenues equivalent to the three-cent surcharge was established by D.01-03-082 and affected only electricity delivered from the effective date of that decision forward. Similarly, the precise charges to be collected from customers to recover those revenues will be effective prospectively after the date of today’s decision. We see nothing retroactive in this decision that could possibly violate Section 728.
TURN’s argument assumes, without citation, that creation of a balancing or memorandum account is the only method whereby the Commission can allow a utility to collect sums at a later date. This is simply not so. At most, Section 728 requires a prospective authorization to recover the revenues. While the Commission often accomplishes this result through balancing or memorandum accounts, that method is not required by Section 728. Accordingly, we see no violation of any prohibition against retroactive ratemaking in allowing the amortization of rate surcharges authorized and effective on March 27, 2001.
In its comments on the proposed decision and alternate proposed decision, TURN continues its arguments that what we are doing here is inconsistent with past Commission precedent. However, in D.99-11-057, we stated that following the usual practices in creating memorandum accounts is not the sine qua non for avoiding retroactive ratemaking problems. Thus, for example, while it is often our practice to make memorandum accounts effective from and after filing or approval of a specific tariff sheet, D.99-11-057 emphasized that memorandum accounts could become effective before such date without causing retroactive ratemaking problems so long as the effective date of the memorandum account was on or after the date of a sufficient Commission authorization. As pointed out above, and as Aglet’s comments note and then apparently refuse to recognize, D.01-03-082 expressly stated, at page 3: “We adopt this increase effective today.” We find neither TURN’s nor Aglet’s comments persuasive.
The revenue associated with applying the 3¢/kWh surcharge to all non-exempt energy sales from March 27, 2001 to the date utilities begin collecting the surcharge should be added to the overall revenue requirement allocated among customer classes through this decision. From an equity standpoint, a three month summer amortization would undoubtedly cause undue stress on summer rates, which already will be very high. A three-month surcharge may place a severe hardship upon industries that experience heavy summer electricity usage. We therefore authorize the utilities to amortize the unrecovered amount over twelve months, as PG&E proposes. This shortfall will be allocated consistently with the shortfall allocation for statutory baseline and CARE exemptions.
Preliminary Matters in Rate Design
1 Moving to Time of Use Meters for Commercial Customers
One proposal before us would require certain commercial customers to shift from their current tariff schedules to time-of-use meters and rates. Requiring time-of-use meters would encourage customers to shift their energy use away from periods of peak demand. Such a shift away from periods of peak demand can be expected both to help avoid blackouts and to reduce system energy costs by reducing demand during periods where power is most expensive. It would also promote equity by requiring customers who are most responsible for usage during periods of peak demand to pay more of a share of the costs incurred during those periods.
While requiring large customers to shift to time-of-use meters is appealing, we are not prepared to make metering mandatory, partly because metering programs have not distributed sufficient supplies of meters to these customers to date, and partly because we do not wish to impose additional hardships on large customers. Instead, we encourage customers to choose service options that will reward them for energy conservation efforts. Over the next six weeks we will monitor the CEC’s metering efforts and refine into concrete proposals the metering concepts discussed in briefs and at hearings in this proceeding.
We do find that customers who take advantage of the metering program offered by the California Energy Commission should be able to do so only if they also agree to shift to time-of-use rates. We look forward to the CEC’s plan for its time-of-use meter installation program and will work with the CEC to assure that their programs and utility rate schedules are complementary.
2 Changing Agricultural Tariff Definitions
Several parties, including the California League of Food Processors, the Farm Bureau, and the Wine Institute, urge us to adopt the recommendation of Section 740.11 (added by SB 5X on April 11, 2001), by changing the definition of customers eligible to be served under agricultural tariffs to include agricultural commodity processing customers. Section 740.11 provides, in relevant part:
In recognition of the fact that agricultural and water supplier customers necessarily have high electricity usage during peak summer demand periods, the Legislature strongly urges the commission to consider providing the option to all agricultural commodity processing customers to be included in the definition of customers eligible to be served under agricultural tariffs, consistent with its other constitutional and statutory objectives, and to the extent it does not result in cost shifting to other customer classes.
We acknowledge the uniqueness of this industry, and its heavy dependence upon summer on-peak usage. Changing these tariffs deserves further immediate exploration. Such a change would require that we craft a new definition of “agricultural commodity food processors.” While the parties presented some suggestions as to how to change the definition, we do not have before us a record that analyzes the ramifications of each alternative.
Further, we decline to rework this definition in this order because it might require other customers to assume a consequent revenue shortfall resulting in “cost shifting” that violates Section 740.11. The record in this proceeding does not provide a basis for finding that cost shifting will not occur.
Moreover, PG&E and Edison maintain that it is not feasible to adopt the proposed customer migration before summer’s end. Agriculture-related commercial and industrial customers who qualify for transfer to agricultural tariffs need to be identified and the difference in their usage from that of other industrial customers better understood. Over the next six weeks, we will hold workshops and obtain evidence to analyze this proposal further, explicitly defining the type of customer eligible to migrate, and to examine the impact of cost shifting upon other customer groups.
3 Bill Limiters and Special Schedules
Some parties propose “bill limiters” to protect certain energy consumers from large increases. A “bill limiter” is simply an upper limit on the amount of increase a customer would realize in a single month. In the short term, we prefer the use of bill limiters to address transition concerns while the effects of migration are further analyzed. Customers who currently take service from industrial rate schedules should be protected by bill limiters. Edison and PG&E cannot change their rate schedules to reflect the special constraints of each industry before June 1, although further refining and obtaining industry-specific customer load data deserves further expedited consideration. Therefore, in order to mitigate rate shocks and to provide a transition period for customers to adjust their usage, we adopt the use of bill limiters of 300% for all rate classes other than agriculture and 250% for the agricultural class. While we understand that bill limiters may have some troubling conservation impacts, at some point price signals become unbearable for customers. Bill limiters will protect customers from the unanticipated impacts of increases in electric bills.
We acknowledge that implementing bill limiters may result in a revenue shortfall. We expect this shortfall to be small because bill limiters affect the bills of only a few customers with extremely high usage. PG&E and Edison should allocate shortfalls from bill limiters consistent with the allocation adopted for CARE medical and the 130% of baseline shortfalls. We have questions based on our record as to the specific bill limiter mechanism that will best meet our objectives. Therefore, we direct PG&E and Edison to work with the Energy Division and to propose a mechanism by advice letter within fifteen days of the effective date of this decision. Any bill limiter mechanism proposed should be fully implementable by July 1, 2001. The utilities should also establish a balancing account to track the amount by which these rates over- or undercollect the shortfall due to bill limiters. We will continue to monitor the balance in these accounts and will analyze the kinds of customers affected by bill limiters as well as the amounts affected.
4 Residential Rate Design
We adopt tiered rates for residential customers because of their conservation effects, and because AB1X requires that rates for residential consumption up to 130% of baseline may not increase above the rates in effect on January 5, 2001.
We adopt a 5 tier-rate design:
• Tier 1 applies to usage up to the baseline amount.
• Tier 2 applies to usage from 100 per cent of baseline up to 130 percent of baseline.
• Tier 3 applies to usage from 130 percent of baseline up to 200 percent.
• Tier 4 applies to usage from 200 percent of baseline up to 300 percent.
• Tier 5 applies to usage in excess of 300 percent of baseline.
As mandated by AB 1x, Tier 1 and 2 rates will not increase. The increase between Tier 3 and Tier 4 is approximately double the increase from Tier 2 to Tier 3. The Tier 5 rate is sufficient to allow recovery of the residual revenue requirement for the residential class. Thus, the rate increase allocated to the residential class falls most heavily on Tier 5 users, those residents who use more than 300% of their electricity baseline.
The components of the rate increase in Tiers 3 through 5 include the residential class allocation and the residential class’ share of the shortfalls due to CARE and medical baseline customers, and the statutory exemption protecting usage up to 130% of baseline from further rate increases. Table 1 below, shows the new residential rates.
TABLE 1
NEW RESIDENTIAL E-1 RATES FOR PG&E AND EDISON
(Cents/kWh)
| |PG&E |EDISON |
|TIER 1 |12.6 |13.0 |
|TIER 2 |14.3 |15.2 |
|TIER 3 |19.3 |19.7 |
|TIER 4 |23.6 |23.7 |
|TIER 5 |25.8 |25.9 |
Increasing the number of tier blocks, and thus the stratification of residential rates, is equitable because customers who are the heaviest users will pay more for power than moderate users. Consumers who use less place less strain on the grid and are rewarded with a lower rate for their usage. The tiered rate structure we adopt today is consistent with our goal of encouraging conservation through the imposition of higher rates above threshold amounts of electricity use.
5 PG&E’s E-8 Schedules
The E-8 schedule for residential consumers was implemented well before the rate freeze.[15] Schedule E-8 energy charges do not recover the costs of service to E-8 customers, requiring other customers to make up the difference. E-8 rates are 10% lower than schedule E-1 summer rates and schedule E-8’s low winter seasonal rate is approximately 45 percent less than the schedule E-1 Tier 2 rate.
Schedule E-8 fails to meet the Commission’s objectives of equity and conservation. While the changes we adopt today to these rates help mitigate these problems, we still find the E-8 rate to be problematic. Therefore, we will suspend the availability of this tariff to new customers until such time as the Commission performs a comprehensive review of PG&E’s rate structures.
Non-Residential Rate Design
1 Tiering
The assigned commissioner issued a rate design proposal on March 27, 2001 that provided tiered rates for commercial users. Many parties argued that, in general, non-residential use should not be tiered at this time. TURN and the Farm Bureau proposed tiered commercial and industrial rates. TURN proposes an extremely low first tier, with the majority of usage to be captured in the second tier.
We decline to adopt tiered rates for commercial and industrial customers at this time. Designing new, tiered commercial schedules would present implementation hurdles for the utilities in the short term. We are also concerned that tiering would harm larger consumers to the benefit of smaller consumers within that class, without regard to their efficiency. Moreover, the utilities cannot provide adequate information to commercial customers by Summer 2001 regarding the potentially complex consequences of a tiered rate design. Because of practical implementation hurdles, the possible unintended consequences of tiered rate designs on certain industries, and the need for further analysis and education of customer segments, we believe the adopted rate surcharge of 3¢ /kWh as implemented in this decision for those customers without time of use meters provides the appropriate conservation incentive for commercial and industrial customers. These price signals will combine with the myriad conservation and incentive programs offered through legislation and Commission order to promote enhanced conservation measures for commercial and industrial customers.
One alternative to tiering discussed in our hearings involves specifying rates by standard industry code (SIC) classification. While this proposal deserves further analysis and examination of the practicality of its implementation, at this stage we have neither sufficient time nor sufficient information to create specialized rates by industry segment. Further, neither utility possesses all the SIC classifications of its consumers and both would require significant billing system changes before implementing such a change. For these reasons, we cannot adopt tiering on the basis of industry codes at this time.
We intend to investigate further the idea of industry-specific rates. We are open to considering whether more specialized classifications could help us develop a more equitable rate structure. We direct the utilities to collect data from their customers necessary to analyze the feasibility of rate design by SIC classification.
We reject tiering for time-of-use (TOU) customers for the same reasons that we reject tiering for non-residential, flat-rate customers. Time-of-use signals are more precise and encourage conservation at peak use and price periods. Moreover, we reject tiering for TOU customers due to practical obstacles to its implementation. Neither Edison nor PG&E can implement tiering for TOU customers on their billing systems by June 1, 2001.
2 Non-TOU Schedules
We adopt the rate design methodology proposed by ORA for commercial and industrial customers who do not use time-of-use schedules. For small and large commercial customers with seasonal designation, 70% of the incremental revenue requirement is allocated to the summer period and 30% to the winter period. This approach is reasonable and consistent with our goals because it balances the year-round need for conservation with a stronger conservation signal during the peak summer months.
We reject proposals to provide for increases during only the summer months because of the need for year-round conservation. Further, we are concerned about possible price spikes that could occur by limiting price increases to a single season . The methodology we adopt reconciles differing proposals received from the parties.
For larger customers with declining block schedules, such as GS-2 and PA-2 for Edison, existing declining block rates shall be modified to become increasing block rates. Eliminating the declining block rate structure will improve conservation incentives to this group of customers and adheres to our goal of rewarding customers for lower amounts of usage.
3 Time of Use
Parties proposed three primary proposals to change rates for existing time-of-use schedules. The first, promoted by Edison, ORA and the Street Light Association, would increase rates in all hours. The second, proposed by EPUC and CIPA, places the bulk of the increase on summer on-peak hours. The third, supported by TURN and CLECA, spreads the rate increase over all hours, with the largest increase during summer on-peak hours.
A rate increase spread over all hours has the virtue of simplicity, but it does not promote sufficient conservation during the hours of peak demand for the very customers with the best ability to respond to peak periods.
We reject proposals that increase rates most during summer peak demand periods. Existing time of use rates are already heavily weighted to the summer on-peak period. Conservation during peak periods is essential, but we balance this goal with that of avoiding extraordinarily high prices during any period. In doing so, we reject the methodology advanced in the rate design proposal published by the assigned commissioner ruling on March 27, 2001.
We adopt a surcharge allocation approach for TOU customers that spreads the rate increases over all hours, with a slight differential increase on summer on-peak usage. The differential between on- and off-peak usages is increased, but customers within this class will not be exposed to excessive on-peak prices. In addition, rate limiters will be in effect to ensure that those customers do not suffer extraordinary price shocks.
4 “Super Peak” Rate
The California League of Food Processors proposes a three hour super on-peak period for the food processing industry. The on-peak price proposed would be twice as high as the on-peak price for other members of their class during the traditional six-hour peak. The proposal offers off-peak rates during the remainder of the peak period.
At this time we have insufficient facts and analysis to adopt this proposal. We are concerned that adopting the proposal would not be revenue neutral, as food processors would simply avoid the super-on-peak prices.[16] Moreover, we believe that further facts are needed as to specific customer load profiles to be able to implement these concepts. However, we recognize the creativity of this proposal and will continue this proceeding on an expedited basis to obtain further evidence as to its operation and effects.
5 County of Los Angeles’ Proposal to Cap Rates for Essential Customers
The County of Los Angeles proposes a cap on rates applied to facilities that have a limited ability to reduce consumption The impact of a rate increase is a concern shared by every customer group in this proceeding. At this time we are not convinced that we should treat local governments differently from any other customer. While we share the County’s concern, we cannot justify providing it a special electricity rate. Thus we reject the County of Los Angeles’ proposal to mitigate the impact the rate of increase on essential government facilities.
6 Federal Generation Based Tariffs
ORA proposed a rate for federal agencies that would reflect market prices for their electricity consumption. This proposal for a federal generation-based tariff (FGBT) is consistent with a number of policies historically used by the Commission to set rates and allocate costs, and with specific proposals made in this proceeding. For example, Bradford has stated that one significant factor to consider in rate design is the ability of the customer to pay. Clearly, the Federal government has the ability to pay the increased rates that would occur under ORA’s proposal.
The federal government is also in a unique position to take actions itself to mitigate such costs. Unlike other consumers who can only act to offset the necessary rate increases through reductions in their usage, the federal government can also act to reduce its financial burden by implementing appropriate policies aimed at reducing market prices, which would benefit all consumers.
As stated elsewhere in this decision, another consideration for the Commission is to mitigate negative impacts on the state economy and on California ratepayers in general. Requiring federal customers to pay the full market cost for the energy it consumes will reduce the need to increase rates to other customers. In particular, if the increase in revenues from federal customers is used to offset the revenues collected from other ratepayers within the same customer class, commercial and industrial rates could see a significant decline once a federal rate is established. This would blunt the impact on the state’s economy of the high wholesale electricity costs currently being inflicted upon California.
Another concern the Commission must weigh is the appropriateness of using state funds, from DWR to subsidize the electric use of the federal government. In addition, the federal government itself has stated its belief that the high market prices that would form the basis of an FGBT are reasonable in magnitude and reasonable to charge directly to customers. The federal government has also repeatedly stated a position that charging market-based rates is useful to send customers appropriate price signals in order to modify their consumption patterns and behavior and to achieve a balance of supply and demand:
Market prices send the right signals to both sellers and buyers (at least those not subject to a rate freeze). Market prices will increase supply and reduce demand, thus correcting the current imbalance. Capping prices below market levels through regulation or legislation will have exactly the opposite effect. (FERC testimony before the Committee on Government Reform, April 10-12, 2001)
Establishing a pricing mechanism that enables federal facilities to gain experience with real-time wholesale electricity prices is consistent with the federal government’s public position advocating just such application of market prices. A pilot program for such mechanism can provide useful insights into the impact of real time prices on conservation efforts. We recognize that federal agencies currently take service under a variety of schedules. Creating new tariffs for federal customers will require many modifications to the existing rate schedules. The record in this proceeding is insufficient to permit us to adopt any particular rate schedules for federal customers at this time.
However, in recognition of the federal government’s stated preference for adoption of electric retail rates based on concurrent wholesale costs and the other policy reasons stated above, we will direct the utilities to design and file such tariffs on an expedited basis for implementation in July after review and approval by the Commission. Setting retail rates that reflect wholesale market prices would be most meaningful if the facilities possessed and used real-time meters. We direct the utilities to propose ways to charge federal agencies so that: 1) federal facilities with real time meters will be charged real-time prices; 2) federal facilities with interval meters will be charged the average price over the interval; and 3) federal facilities without interval meters will be charged the monthly average wholesale rate for electricity usage. The utility proposals for FGBTs shall be filed with the Commission’s Energy Division within 30 days of the date of this decision, with comments to be filed thereafter pursuant to a procedural schedule to be set by the assigned Commissioner.
7 Agricultural Rates
Agriculture depends heavily on summer on-peak usage and many agricultural customers have a limited ability to shift demand to other periods. Moreover, the agricultural industry maintains a unique position in the California, and in the nation’s, economy. Especially in this year, when California agriculture is faced with low water availability and, thus, increased water pumping needs which depend upon electricity, agriculture may be uniquely unable to shoulder the burden of the increased costs associated with the exorbitant electricity prices in California’s wholesale markets.
The Governor’s proposal, advocated by the Farm Bureau, limits agricultural increases to 5% for time of use rates and 15% for non-TOU rates. We agree with the direction provided by the Governor’s proposal because of the needs of this class of customers. We will cap agricultural rate increases at 20% for time of use agricultural customer rates and at 15% for non-time-of-use agricultural customers. The shortfall from the agricultural customer rate caps is to be spread over all eligible customer classes in the same manner as other shortfalls are spread over non-exempt customer classes. The caps established for agricultural tariffs today create no precedent for the capping of agricultural rates as an element of subsequent rate changes that may be required to recover CDWR or other future revenue requirements.
We provide additional protection to agriculture customers by adopting a bill limiter of 250%. Both the cap and the bill limiters will protect agricultural customers who are disproportionately affected by the rate increases, which will present particular burdens because of this year’s drought.
8 Master Meter Customers
Master meter customers are required to revise their billing systems to address the rate increase. While they are engaged in that process, these customers must also comply with AB1X, which exempts customers using less than 130% of baseline from the surcharge, and Section 739.5, which requires master meter customers to charge their park residents approximately the same rate they would have been charged if they took service directly from the utility.
We reject WMA’s proposals to exempt master meter customers from any surcharge in the near future and to phase in a surcharge over a year. All eligible customer classes must share the burden of a rate increase. If WMA receives an exemption or an extension, park owners who quickly fix their billing systems could receive a windfall, since they would be exempt from the surcharge but could charge it to customers. We order a surcharge to appear on the master meter customer’s bill, effective June 1. This approach ensures these customers are not exempted from bearing some portion of the energy procurement costs covered by the three-cent surcharge. We also give master meter customers a strong incentive to take immediate steps to implement the necessary billing system changes. Over the longer term, we will continue to encourage movement away from the master meter system.
We recognize that some master meter customers may have difficulties complying with the required rate changes by June 1, 2001. However, we are concerned that a strong price signal for conservation be implemented prior to this summer. Therefore, we encourage master meter customers to modify their billing systems and implement the new rates as expeditiously as possible. However, as suggested by WMA in its May 10, 2001 comments, we will extend the amount of time that master meter customers have to comply with the adopted rate changes to no later than July 17, 2001.
9 Streetlight and Traffic Light Schedules
We allocate a rate increase to the streetlight, outdoor lighting and traffic light schedules on the equal cents per kilowatt-hour basis. TURN proposes an alternative rate tiering method for streetlights, based on the type of lamp rather than the size of lamp or customer size. The goal of TURN’s rate design is to encourage the replacement of more inefficient lighting technologies. We support the replacement of inefficient lighting technologies, but we believe the rate increase, in combination with energy efficiency programs, will encourage cities and counties to invest in more efficient street lighting. The summer initiative energy efficiency program provides communities with significant funding for investment in Light Emitting Display (LED) technology. In addition, these technologies were cost-effective, before any rate increase, and providing a price break through a tiered rate design to encourage their deployment should not be necessary. We therefore adopt an equal cents per kilowatt hour rate increase for streetlighting.
10 CIPA’s Credit for Interruptible Customers
The California Independent Petroleum Association (CIPA) proposes that interruptible customers be exempted from a substantial portion of any surcharge. Interruptible customers receive lower rates for energy in return for curtailing usage when called upon to do so to reduce the demands on the state’s power grid. The three-cent surcharge will not change their interruptible status, or their obligation to comply with the tariff.
Interruptible customers already receive a substantial pricing incentive. Moreover, this Commission has substantially redesigned the interruptible programs to increase flexibility, customer choice and the prices paid to interruptible customers in exchange for their voluntary agreement to drop specified loads when called upon by the utilities or by the Independent System Operator. The costs of these new programs are expected to be more than those of the old programs, and these costs are spread over every other non-interruptible customer class. We decline to provide any additional rate advantage.
Other Issues
1 Tracking and Posting Data
Informing customers of their rate group’s usage pattern with comparison information from the previous year will provide some assessment of the success of conservation efforts. In addition, as pricing information becomes available, such information will enable customers, particularly those on time-of-use schedules, to make decisions about when to consume energy. Data collection this summer is essential both for analysis in future rate proceedings and to raise consumer awareness about the challenges California faces in the months ahead. We direct the utilities to post customer load profiles on their website, with weekly updates. We consider this feedback to customers to be critical to the success of the conservation efforts underway in this state.
We therefore direct PG&E and Edison to post dynamic load profile information for all rate groups for which such information is available on their web sites. Pricing information should also be posted as it becomes available. We also direct the utilities to post the day-ahead ISO price for electricity daily. Consumers will take heed of the magnitude of the wholesale market prices, and it will serve as a tool to understanding generation pricing. Current price data from the ISO will raise consumer awareness of the unjust and unreasonable wholesale market costs for electricity.
Moreover, we direct these utilities, as part of their overall customer service function, to provide such other information on their web sites as may be useful to customers in controlling their energy usage and bills. We appreciate their efforts to date to inform and educate their customers, and we know that they will continue. We also direct our staff to work with the utilities to maximize the potential for information sharing and customer assistance offered by the web site.
PG&E and Edison have explained that they can provide such information. For each rate group, Edison can post on its web site the monthly load pattern and level for this summer and, for comparison purposes, last summer. In addition, load level and patterns of usage for each customer class will be available for June, July, and August. Edison will average the daily load profile by hours over either a week or a month and will present some text analyzing and explaining the significance of the information in an effort to be helpful to consumers. Edison also promises to display pricing information by time of use when it becomes available.
PG&E states that it provides dynamic load profile information with daily updates of the hourly consumption profiles for statistically representative customers served under sixteen separate rate schedules. PG&E cautions that while a comparison of this year’s load profile to last year’s may provide some feedback on the success of conservation efforts, this data is not sufficient to determine individual price responses, and it says that the comparisons should be controlled for weather-related effects.
ORA generally supports the idea of providing more information to customers about the market prices for electricity. Better-informed customers will be more likely to adjust their consumption to avoid high price times and to make conservation investments. ORA recommends that the Commission maintain its own website rather than relying solely on the utilities. We agree and intend to use our website for these purposes, as time and resources become available.
2 Expedited Installation of Meters
Current metering capabilities place significant limitations on rate design. Customers who are able to reduce or shift their load in response to hourly price fluctuations would benefit from a real time pricing model. We find that real time pricing has tremendous potential for reducing the overall costs of supplying energy. Such pricing will enable to customers to control their bills by shifting load to lower cost times. Reducing peak load will lead to more efficient use of our available generation resources. We intend promptly to develop a detailed real time pricing rate structure to capture these benefits for California consumers.
The Legislature has appropriated funding for real time metering systems. AB29X provides $35 million dollars for the installation of RTP metering systems for all bundled service customers with greater than 200 kW in maximum demand. Timely installation of the meters authorized by the Legislature is critical to the success of our plan. Installation of the meters will also assist in implementing our TOU rate design discussed above.
The CEC intends to begin the meter deployment process during this summer and complete it by this fall. The CEC also states that extending the meters to the next size range, 100 – 200 kW, creates another 22,000 end-users requiring meters, approximately doubling the population that is being addressed by the AB29X monies. It is possible for this next set of end-users to have advanced metering systems installed by early 2002 if additional funds are authorized by the legislature, if end-users can be mandated to make self-provision of such meters a condition of service, or if the Commission decides to authorize utility expenditures with a workable cost recovery mechanism.
We will closely monitor the CEC’s progress, and we will provide any necessary assistance to ensure timely installation of the meters. The CEC states that it is working with the utilities and the ISO to meet the price information requirement. Commission staff is cooperating with and is assisting in these efforts.
3 10% Rate Discount Associated with Rate Reduction Bonds
Pursuant to Section 368(a), PG&E’s and Edison’s residential and certain small commercial customers currently receive a 10% reduction to their electricity rates. This rate reduction is financed by rate reduction bonds (RRB) issued pursuant to Section 840-847, and orders of this Commission. The 10% rate reduction applies through the end of the transition period established in Section 368(a), i.e., through as late as March 31, 2002, with the repayment obligation extending for another six years. The Legislature intended that the 10% RRB-financed rate reduction would be followed by additional rate reductions at the end of the transition period, yielding a cumulative reduction of 20% by April 1, 2002. Section 330(a).
TURN proposes that the 10% reduction continue despite the expiration of the RRB-produced financing. TURN reasons that the Legislature’s prohibition on rate increases in AB1X preclude this Commission from ending the 10% rate reduction because an end to the 10% reduction would effectively be an additional rate increase for residential and small commercial customers. Edison opposes this and PG&E states that this proposal is premature.
At this time, we will make no determinations as to any ratemaking ramifications of the expiration of the 10% rate reduction. We therefore need not resolve the issue of whether the 10% rate increase would apply to residential usage below 130% of baseline amounts. Implementing the end of the 10% reduction will require further Commission action.
One related calculation issue, however, does require our determination. Edison raises the question of whether the 10% reduction should be applied to the pre-existing rates, i.e. prior to both the 1¢/kWh and 3¢/kWh, or should be applied after the surcharges are added to rates. Because the bonds that finance the rate reduction were sized to the pre-existing rates, Edison concludes that the 10% reduction should apply only to the pre-existing rates.
The amount financed by the bonds did not provide for these surcharges. Consequently, we are constrained to limiting the 10% reduction to rates in effect prior to the surcharges. In applying the 10% rate reduction for residential customers and certain commercial customers, PG&E and Edison shall apply the rate reduction to rates in effect prior to the surcharges.
4 Bill Display
We also provide direction on how the utilities should format the new rate design on the customer bill. Our intent is to adopt a format which accurately and effectively conveys to customers our stated fundamental rate design goal of promoting conservation to reduce the amount of electricity needed. The customer bill format must communicate the direct correlation between electricity supply, price, usage, and consumption patterns in order to promote price-responsive behavior. The bill format should communicate price signals that are easily understood and should also deliver the message that by managing their electricity usage, customers can assume a significant measure of control over the impacts of the rate increase and reduce their overall bill.
We believe consumers are most likely to respond to these price signals when the bill provides sufficient detail to allow them to clearly identify and understand the differential pricing structures based on usage levels. Customers who use more electricity must pay higher rates. In order to accurately portray this new rate design, the new rates will not be characterized as baseline surcharges. Rather, each differential rate category or tier will identify its respective applicability to usage. On residential customer bills, the new rates will be incorporated through the five designated tiered usage levels: Baseline, from 100% to 130%, 130% to 200%, from 200% to 300% and over 300%. TOU customer bills will categorize the new rates under off-peak, mid-peak and on-peak classifications, as applicable.
Similarly, commercial non-TOU customer bills will reflect the rate increase within the appropriate commodity component or block structure. Any bill reference to total energy charges will include the total cost of all energy consumption during the billing period, not merely baseline usage or some other minimum level of usage. We direct the utilities to work with the Energy Division to design the new bills and we require staff approval of the final bill format.
Today’s order sets schedule-specific rates for each customer class. Previous Commission orders require the utilities to unbundle, on each customer’s bill, the various non-generation related charges. Accordingly, it is now possible for Edison and PG&E to specifically state, on each customer’s bill, the customer’s energy charges (including the 3 cent surcharge and its amortization). We will order them to do so.[17]
5 Payment to CDWR
In D.01-03-081, we implemented an immediate methodology under which the utilities segregate and hold in trust certain sums for CDWR. However, we also stated that a “more precise method for remitting funds to DWR should be arrived at as soon as practicable.” But implementation of this more precise methodology had to await the availability of tariff schedule-specific generation-related or energy rates. As explained above, these schedule-specific energy charges are now available. Accordingly, we will order the utilities, concurrent with the implementation of today’s rate design and recovery of those sums from customers, to switch to this more precise methodology of segregating, holding in trust, and remitting funds to CDWR. The method for calculating the number of CDWR-supplied kilowatt hours under this more precise methodology is spelled out in D.01-03-081. By implementing this more precise methodology, concurrent with collection of the 3 cent surcharge, we provide for the utilities to remit the surcharge (including amortization amounts) to CDWR, based on the number of CDWR-supplied kilowatt hours, once they have collected the money from customers. [18]
Next Steps
As discussed above, we want to implement a real time pricing (RTP) program as soon as the technical impediments can be resolved. The technical impediments are (1) any delays the CEC experiences in implementing its $35 million SB1X authorized program to install interval meters for all customers of PG&E, Edison, and SDG&E who have a connected load of 200Kw or greater; (2) delays caused by the time necessary for PG&E and Edison to make the necessary changes to their billing systems; and (3) posting of real time prices by the ISO for the day-ahead or spot markets.
The proposals presented by CEC and Dr. Borenstein at hearings were general in nature, did not include specific details necessary for implementation, and were based on the premise that the technical impediments listed above posed an effective barrier to implementing actual programs by June 1, 2001. The proposal presented by Enron contained more specific information and addressed the lack of ISO posted price information by using Dow Jones electricity price indices as its marginal price signal. We intend to explore both of these proposals further.
We will proceed expeditiously to develop and adopt a voluntary RTP that will be available to customers when their interval meters are installed. We will direct the Energy Division to work closely with PG&E and Edison on their billing system constraints and the manual billing procedures that can be done for customers until the system changes are complete.
Our RTP process will begin with a workshop conducted by the Energy Division on May 21, 2001. We anticipate adopting a final program later this summer.
We are convinced that a comprehensive review of PG&E’s and Edison’s rate schedules and rate design should be undertaken when the Commission and interested parties have sufficient data and the time and resources necessary to review the issues thoroughly. We plan to embark on this process soon so that a comprehensive, rigorous review of rate design will be undertaken in early 2002.
We recognize that we may need to make a quick mid-course correction this summer and modify the rate design within each customer class to provide more pronounced peak period price signals, and possibly collect a higher energy charge, if CDWR provides information on its energy purchases that require this action. We need information and data to ensure that we are on the right path and to make corrections, if need be.
We direct the Energy Division and the parties to work together at the May 21 workshop to develop a master data request and format for data collection. The master data request should be finalized and issued no later than June 8. We intend to proceed expeditiously in reviewing the responses and anticipate refining our approach by early July.
Issuance of the Proposed Alternate
The proposed decision and the alternate proposed by President Loretta Lynch were issued on May 9, 2001. Parties filed and served comments on the proposed decision on May 10 and May 11 and appeared for final oral argument (FOA) before a quorum of the Commission on May 11. Section 311(e) generally requires, in matters that have gone to hearing, a minimum 10-day period between service of a Commissioner’s alternate decision and the Commission’s issuance of the decision. However, Section 311(e) allows the period to be reduced or waived by the Commission “in an unforeseen emergency situation.”
Although not expressly stated in Section 311(e), the 10-day period provides an opportunity for parties to comment on the proposed decision. In this proceeding, we are considering the rate design to apply to the three-cent surcharge adopted in D.01-03-082. One of the stated goals of this rate design is to encourage conservation to help Californians avoid, to the extent possible, rolling blackouts during the summer months. Given the fact that the Independent System Operator (ISO) has identified over 30 days[19] in which it predicts rolling blackouts to occur, and the State of Emergency called by Governor Davis on January 17, 2001, we believe that this constitutes an unforeseen emergency for these purposes. Such blackouts threaten to severely impair public health and safety.
Accordingly, we will reduce the 10-day advance publication period of Section 311(d) to five days, and will allow parties to file and serve written comments on May 10th, followed by final oral argument on May 11th and Commission consideration of the decision on May 14th.
Findings of Fact
Prices in California’s wholesale electric market are not necessarily based on production costs. The allocation of the utilities’ wholesale power costs to customers, therefore, would not represent an allocation of the costs of energy production.
Reducing energy consumption will help protect Californians from blackouts and reduce the state’s liability for electricity purchases.
PG&E and Edison have the largest supply shortfall projected during summer peak purchases and intend to rely on CDWR and the ISO to purchase that shortfall.
Energy prices for summer 2001 are forecasted to be high, especially during peak periods.
Increasing rates during peak periods for customers on TOU schedules will maximize the value of conserving energy at peak times.
The Governor’s 20/20 program is designed to reward customers who reduce their overall electric consumption by 20% this summer. This incentive, along with customer education, energy efficiency programs and higher rates promote conservation.
Business customers generally place a high value on reliability and are most likely to benefit from peak reduction programs and the interruptible programs adopted in R.00-10-002.
The delivery forecasts presented by Edison and PG&E are adequate for the limited purpose of calculating utility revenue requirements.
AB1X prohibits increases to rates, effective as of January 5, 2001, applicable to residential usage below 130% of baseline levels. Usage below 130% is not exempt from the one-cent surcharge. Usage below 130% of baseline usage is exempt from the three-cent surcharge.
The one-cent surcharge is reflected in the rates that are the foundation for the rate design adopted in this proceeding.
On the basis of the adopted delivery forecast, a three-cent per kilowatt rate increase provides an annual revenue increase in Edison’s service territory of $2.513 billion.
On the basis of the adopted delivery forecast, a three-cent per kilowatt hour rate increase provides an annual revenue increase in PG&E’s service territory of $ 2.46 billion.
Allocating the surcharge revenue requirement on an equal cents per kilowatt hour is equitable and simple.
CDWR presented a summary forecast revenue requirement to the Commission on May 2, 2001, which totals $9.2 billion through June 2002. The Commission has not had an opportunity to analyze this forecast for purposes of the allocation and rate design matters addressed in this proceeding.
Residential sales that are not part of the AB1X exemption from further rate increases total only 11% of all electricity sales in PG&E and Edison territory based on 2000 data.
Allocating the revenue shortfalls that arise from sales that are exempt from rate increases to remaining residential sales results in unreasonably high rate increases to residential customers without concomitant conservation benefits because non-exempt residential sales eligible for such allocation total only 11% of all sales.
Because of the extraordinary size of the rate increase, it is reasonable to exempt customers who have usage above 130% of baseline due to medical conditions.
It is equitable to spread the revenue shortfalls one-third to each of the three main customer classes -- commercial, industrial and residential. Those shortfalls are associated with the exemptions for residential sales below 130% of baseline amounts, medical baseline customers and CARE customers, bill limiters and the cap on agricultural rates.
Direct access customers do not impose liabilities on CDWR, PG&E or Edison for procuring power.
It would be inequitable for direct access customers to pay for their own cost of procurement and a share of the costs incurred on behalf of customers who purchase power from PG&E, Edison and CDWR.
A twelve month amortization period for the collection of the revenue associated with applying the three-cent surcharge to all sales from March 27, 2001 to the day utilities begin collecting the surcharge will mitigate the impact of already high rates compared to applying a shorter amortization period.
Shifting customers to time-of-use metered schedules promotes conservation during periods of peak demand when prices are typically highest and supplies are short. The costs of specific programs have not been compared to the potential benefits in this proceeding.
Bill limiters would mitigate the impact of rate increases on individual customers.
The revenue shortfall from implementing bill limiters is likely to be small and may be recovered by way of accounts that track the undercollection.
Rates that increase as usage increases equitably allocate cost liability among residential customers because customers who use more power pay increasingly higher rates.
It is reasonable to adopt a 5 tier-rate design with incremental block tiers with the following tiers:
a. Tier 1 Up to the baseline amount
a. Tier 2 From 100% – up to 130 % of baseline
b. Tier 3 From 130% – up to 200 % of baseline
c. Tier 4 From 200% – up to 300 % of baseline
d. Tier 5 In excess of 300% of baseline.
The components of the rate increase in tiers 3, 4 and 5 include the residential class allocation, and the residential class’ share of the shortfalls due to CARE and medical baseline exemptions, the 130% exemption, and the agricultural rate caps.
Schedule E-8 energy rates do not recover the costs of serving schedule E-8 customers.
The conservation benefits of tiered rates for nonresidential classes may not offset the practical problems of implementing tiered rates and informing customers of their potential impacts before summer 2001.
A uniformly applied rate increase of 3¢/kWh to the nonresidential class provides a reasonable incentive for those customers to conserve electricity.
Data about utility customers’ usage may permit the Commission to determine whether a more detailed system of rate design by SIC classification would serve the public interest.
Neither Edison nor PG&E can implement tiered commercial TOU rates by June 1, 2001 because of billing system constraints.
Allocating 70% of the non-residential, non-TOU commercial customer revenue requirement to summer use and 30% to winter use balances the year-round need for conservation, with a stronger conservation signal during the peak summer months.
Declining block rates should be eliminated in favor of increasing rate blocks to improve conservation incentives.
A rate increase that is spread equally across all time periods does not sufficiently promote conservation during the hours of peak demand for those TOU customers with the ability to respond to peak periods.
Establishing a 3-hour super on-peak period for the food processing industry would create a revenue shortfall that other customers would have to assume.
Many agricultural customers depend heavily on summer on-peak usage and have a limited ability to shift their demand to other periods.
Agricultural customers are disproportionately affected by the rate increases in this year because the impacts of the energy crisis are compounded by drought.
Capping agricultural rate increases at a range of 15-20% will mitigate the effects of the rate increase.
Capping industrial rates at 12.3¢/kWh for PG&E and 12.9¢/kWh for Edison will mitigate impacts on the California economy.
A bill limiter of 250% for agricultural customers will mitigate the liability of some customers for extraordinary cost increases.
It would be inequitable for master metered customers to be exempt from paying the surcharge while charging their tenants for the surcharge.
Mater meter customers will have until July 17, 2001 to revise their billing systems and to comply with this decision.
The rate increase adopted today, in combination with energy efficiency programs, will prompt cities and counties to invest in the more efficient street lighting equipment.
Interruptible customers receive a substantial pricing incentive, which cannot be altered until March 31, 2002, pursuant to § 743.1(b).
To the extent customers receive information about their usage patterns and prices they are better able to change their usage patterns and conserve, and do so in cost-effective ways.
Real time pricing may reduce energy costs to customers and system wide because such pricing will enable to customers to control the timing of their energy use and reduce peak load.
The customer bill format must communicate the direct correlation between electricity supply, price, usage, and consumption patterns in order to promote price-responsive behavior.
Consumers are most likely to respond to price signals when their bills provide sufficient detail allowing consumers to identify and understand pricing structures.
The customer bill does not provide sufficient space to accommodate comprehensive information about the rate increase.
FERC representatives have publicly advocated in favor of customers facing the actual cost of wholesale power purchases as they are incurred.
A review of PG&E’s and Edison’s rate schedules and rate design in early 2002 will permit the Commission to determine the impact of today’s order on customers and the costs and reliability of the electric system.
The ISO has predicted more than 30 days of rolling blackouts of electricity supply over the upcoming summer.
Electricity supply blackouts can severely impair public health and safety.
On January 17, 2001, Governor Davis declared a State of Emergency due to the energy shortage in California.
Conclusions of Law
1. Water Code § 80110 exempts all residential usage below 130% of baseline from any increase in electricity charges after January 5, 2001.
2. It is reasonable to allocate the three-cent per kilowatt hour surcharge on an equal cents per kWh basis to protect vulnerable customers and to mitigate the potential for extreme hardship on individual customers.
3. It is reasonable to adopt revenue allocation and rate design that: (1) reduces energy use and California’s liability for electric power costs; (2) allocates the costs of this generation in a fair and understandable manner to all customers; (3) protects the most vulnerable customers; (4) mitigates the hardship that individual customers experience, and (5) provides customers ways to manage energy usage and reduce their energy bills.
4. The revenue requirement shortfall created by exempting residential sales below 130% of baseline amounts and CARE rates from increases, and by adopting agricultural rate caps should be allocated to all other sales, one-third to each of the three customer classes, commercial/agricultural, residential and industrial.
5. Customers with medical conditions should be exempt from rate increases. The revenue shortfall from this exemption should be allocated consistent with the allocation of the CARE exemption shortfall.
6. The revenue associated with applying the three-cent/kWh surcharge to all non-exempt energy sales from March 27, 2001 to the day utilities begin collecting the surcharge should be added to each utility’s revenue requirement and amortized over a twelve month period.
7. The surcharge adopted in D.01-03-082 should not apply to direct access customers because they are not relying on CDWR or the utilities to obtain their power.
8. It is reasonable to adopt the use of bill limiters of 300% for all rate classes other than agriculture and 250% for the agricultural class, relative to the class average rate. A lower limiter for the agricultural class is reasonable due to the higher than normal water pumping requirements forecast for this summer. The shortfall should be allocated consistent with the allocation of the shortfall occurring as a result of the CARE rate increase exemption.
9. PG&E and Edison should be ordered to file proposals for pilot rates for federal agencies that reflect concurrent wholesale market prices.
10. Pursuant to § 368(a), PG&E’s and Edison’s residential and certain small commercial customers currently receive a 10% reduction to their electricity rates, financed by rate reduction bonds issued pursuant to § 840-847, and orders of this Commission. The 10% rate reduction applies through the end of the transition period established in § 368(a), i.e., through March 31, 2002.
11. The Commission should not resolve in this proceeding issues relating to the 10% RRB-financed rate reduction.
12. Because the ISO has predicted rolling blackouts on 30 days in Summer 2001 and the Governor called a State of Emergency on January 17, 2001, an unforeseen emergency as provided in § 311(e) exists for purposes reducing the 10-day advance publication period of Section 311(e) to five days, and to allow parties to file and serve written comments on May 10th, followed by final oral argument on May 11th and Commission consideration of the decision on May 14th.
13. This order should be effective today in order to allow the adopted rate design to be implemented expeditiously.
14. By implementing the more precise methodology for remitting funds to CDWR concurrent with collection of the 3 cent surcharge, we provide for the utilities to remit to CDWR the surcharge (including amortization amounts) on the electricity supplied by DWR after they have collected the money from customers.
INTERIM ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Within seven days of the effective date of this decision, Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) and Southern California Edison Company (Edison) shall file compliance advice letters with complete tariffs to implement the rate design changes adopted herein. PG&E’s advice letter shall become effective on June 1, 2001 subject to Energy Division determining that it is compliant with this Order. Edison’s advice letter shall become effective on June 3, 2001 subject to Energy Division determining that it is compliant with this Order. PG&E and Edison shall include with their advice letters detailed and complete work papers showing the revenue allocation and rate design calculations underlying the new rates for each rate schedule. On the same day that they file their advice letters, PG&E and Edison shall serve electronic copies of the work papers on Energy Division and all active parties in this phase of the proceeding. Specifically, PG&E and Edison shall file tariffs that effect the following principles:
a) The revenue allocation and rate design applies to the 3 cents/kilowatt-hour (kWh) surcharge adopted in Decision (D.) 01-03-082.
b) The incremental revenue requirement associated with the 3¢/kWh surcharge adopted in D.01-03-082 shall be based on applying the surcharge to forecast system-wide deliveries including delivery to direct access customers. The annual system-wide sales forecasts are 81,991 Gigawatt-hours (GWh) for PG&E, and 83,780 GWh for Edison. The annual incremental revenue requirements are $2.46 billion for PG&E, and $2.513 billion for Edison. The incremental revenue requirement shall be allocated only to bundled service customers. The rates attached to this Order reflect revenue allocation and rate design including direct access customers. Thus, in work papers supporting their advice letters, PG&E and Edison shall show the level of direct access sales removed from the sales forecast in developing the revenue allocation, rate design, and resulting rates.
c) The incremental revenue requirement associated with the 3¢/kWh surcharge adopted in D.01-03-082 shall be allocated among the customer classes based on the proportional number of bundled service kilowatt-hours (kWhs) each class is forecast to consume during calendar year 2001 (i.e., equal cents per kWh allocation).
d) CARE customers, residential usage below 130% of baseline, and medical baseline customers are exempt from any revenue allocation associated with the 3¢/kWh surcharge authorized by D.01-03-082. PG&E and Edison’s work papers shall show the sales associated with medical baseline customers, and how the rates were adjusted to reflect exemption of these customers from the surcharge.
e) The revenue resulting from applying the 3¢/kWh surcharge approved in D.01-03-082 to forecast sales to residential customers below 130% of baseline, CARE customers, non-CARE medical baseline customers, bill limiters, agricultural and industrial rate caps shall be reallocated to each of the three customer classes equally one-third to each, and not to sales that are exempt from rate increases.
f) Rates shall include an allocation of shortfalls resulting from the application of the bill limiters adopted herein. PG&E and Edison’s work papers shall show how they developed the amount of the bill limiter shortfalls and how these shortfalls are reflected in the revenue allocation, rate design, and rates within each rate schedule.
g) Edison and PG&E shall reflect a 5 tier-rate residential rate design with incremental block tiers with the following tiers:
a. Tier 1 Up to the baseline amount
b. Tier 2 From 100% – up to 130 % of baseline
c. Tier 3 From 130% – up to 200 % of baseline
d. Tier 4 From 200% – up to 300 % of baseline
e. Tier 5 In excess of 300% of baseline.
The surcharge rates for usage in Tiers 3, 4, and 5 should be set for the residential class as a whole, based on the combined tiered billing determinants for the entire residential rate class.
h) For small and large commercial customers with seasonal designation, 70% of revenue requirement shall be allocated to the summer period and 30% to the winter period.
i) All rate classes other than agriculture shall have a bill limiter of 300% of class usage.
j) Rate schedules that incorporate declining blocks shall be modified to be an increasing block structure.
k) Agricultural rate increases shall be limited as set forth herein for both time-of-use and non-time-of-use customers, with the resulting revenue shortfall to be spread over the eligible sales of all three customer classes, one third of the shortfall to each.
l) Agriculture rates shall be subject to a bill limiter of 250% on energy charges.
m) The surcharge revenue requirement shall be allocated to the streetlight, traffic signals and outdoor lighting schedules on equal cents per kilowatt-hour basis.
n) The 10% RRB-financed reduction to rates shall apply to rates in effect prior to implementation of the 1¢/kWh and 3¢/kWh surcharges.
o) The bill format shall incorporate the rate increase through the applicable baseline tiers, mid-, off-, or on-peak classifications, or other appropriate usage-based component.
p) The bill format shall provide the customer a line item or items for energy charges, separate from all non-energy charges.
q) The average industrial rates for PG&E shall be capped at 12.3¢/kWh and for Edison at 12.9¢/kWh.
1. PG&E and Edison shall amortize the revenue associated with applying the 3¢/kWh surcharge to all non-exempt energy sales from March 27, 2001, to the day utilities begin collecting the surcharge over a 12-month period beginning with the date the utilities begin collecting the surcharge.
2. PG&E and Edison shall collect SIC classification data from their customers in an effort to understand whether a more detailed system of rate design by SIC classification should be available in future rate design proceedings.
3. Master meter customers shall revise their billing systems to incorporate this surcharge, and to comply with Water Code § 80110 and Pub. Util. Code § 739.5, by July 17, 2001.
4. PG&E and Edison shall file proposals consistent with this order for a pilot rate design for federal agencies that incorporates federal policy to the effect that customers pay wholesale prices as they are incurred.
5. PG&E and Edison shall post on their respective web sites: (1) dynamic load profile information for all rate groups for which such information is available, (2) pricing information, as it becomes available, (3) day-ahead ISO price for electricity daily, and (4) such other information as may be useful to customers in controlling their energy usage and bills.
6. PG&E and Edison shall prepare bill inserts notifying customers of the need for the rate increase, tiered rate structure, usage levels not impacted, customer exemptions, the need for conservation and information about the CARE, medical baseline and California 20/20 Rebate programs. The bill insert will be submitted to the Public Advisor for review and approval by May 18.
7. Concurrent with their implementation of today’s rate design and recovery of those sums from customers, PG&E and Edison shall switch to the more precise methodology of segregating, holding in trust, and remitting funds to CDWR described in D.01-03-081. The method for calculating the number of CDWR-supplied kilowatt hours under this more precise methodology is spelled out in the text of D.01-03-081.
8. Within 15 days of the effective date of this Order, PG&E and Edison shall file an advice letter to implement bill limiters by July 1, 2001. PG&E’s and Edison’s advice letters shall be effective on July 1, 2001 subject to Energy Division determining that the bill limiter mechanisms addressed in these advice letters are consistent with the objectives set forth in this decision. In their advice letters, PG&E shall establish a balancing account to track the actual bill limiter shortfalls required pursuant to Ordering Paragraph 1. Balances in these accounts will be reviewed in PG&E’s and Edison’s next respective electric rate design proceedings. PG&E and Edison shall consult with ORA and Energy Division in preparing their advice letters.
9. No later than June 1, 2001, Edison shall notify its non-CARE medical baseline customers that they are exempt from the surcharge approved in D.01-03-082. Edison’s notice shall also indicate that its non-CARE medical baseline customers shall receive a credit on their September 2001 bills for any payments they made related to the surcharge while Edison was making the necessary billing modifications to reflect their exemption from the surcharge.
10. The credit that direct access customers receive shall not reflect the surcharges imposed on others by today’s decision, which direct access customers do not pay.
This order is effective today.
Dated May 15, 2001, at San Francisco, California.
LORETTA M. LYNCH
President
CARL W. WOOD
GEOFFREY F. BROWN
Commissioners
I will file a dissent.
/s/ RICHARD A. BILAS
Commissioner
I will file a dissent.
/s/ HENRY M. DUQUE
Commissioner
A.00-11-038 et al.
D.01-05-064
Commissioner Henry M. Duque, dissenting:
There are several reasons why I cannot support the order of today’s majority. First, the rate design emanates from assumptions with which I cannot agree. Second, the rate design does not treat this energy crisis seriously. Third, a rate design can only work as part of a coherent energy policy, and California still lacks one.
In my view, the rate design in the majority’s order assumes that the consumption of electricity is a moral activity that divides the good from the bad. The policy seeks to punish those it deems bad and protects those it deems good. We see it throughout the order. Residents who consume more than twice their baseline usage face staggering rates. The federal government is uniquely targeted for high rates. Although real time pricing should be pursued, singling out the federal government, as a target of special rates is discriminatory and diminishes the importance of this program. In addition, this order requires that businesses pay not only for their electricity use, but must also subsidize the usage of those residential customers deemed especially deserving. This order has a clear morality –the bad include businesses of any type and those residential customers who consume more electricity than we deem acceptable.
These assumptions are false. Consider the working poor who make too much money to qualify for subsidies but rent apartments with appliances that use a lot of electricity. Are these families less deserving than a neighbor who lives in an apartment with a new refrigerator? Are they less deserving than families who receives welfare payments? I don’t think so, but the rate design punishes the first families, who pay not only their own costs, but also the electricity of others. It’s only electricity, and using it doesn’t make one bad, and not using it does not make one good.
Second, the rate design and the policies in today’s order do not treat our electricity crisis as seriously as we should. Consider what Californians do when we have water shortages. Policymakers go out of the way to treat everyone equally – allotments are commonly based on how many live in a household. Those who consume too much pay penalties, or we restrict their water supply with flow controls. We do not divide households between the good and the bad, and set rates accordingly. We recognize that all have legitimate claims to water, and that all must help out.
If this is a real electric crisis, and it most certainly is, why don’t we have rate policies based on treating all Californians equally, rather than protecting some and punishing others? Last summer, when all San Diegan’s faced the real cost of electricity, with bills doubling, they cut electricity use by 10 percent. This experience with higher rates only strengthens my belief in the value of real time pricing for all users. In the San Diego crisis, all customers experienced the burden of real prices and they all the shared in the burden of reducing consumption. Would they have cut their consumption so dramatically if we exempted over 60 percent of residential customers from rates? In response to these high prices, California imposed a price cap to lower rates, and consumption shot right back up. In my view, San Diego’s initial high rates treated a much smaller crisis more fairly and effectively than the rates proposed for today. As we have so many times in this process, we threw away the solution.
Third, a rate design makes sense only in the context of a coherent policy. Unfortunately, California’s electricity policy is to subsidize consumption, and this policy is incoherent in the face of supply shortfalls. When this crisis began last summer, some in this Commission denied that there was a supply shortage – there would be no blackouts, no rate increases, and no bankruptcies. Instead of addressing this problem, California’s first policies sought to subsidize rates from company earnings – legislation capped PG&E’s and SCE’s rates and new legislation was passed to cap SDG&E’s rates. That policy eventually failed, leading to two insolvent and one bankrupt utility.
With amazing consistency, California energy policy turned to the taxpayers as a new source of subsidies to avoid unpopular rate increases. This policy has now consumed the entire state budget surplus.
As tax funds dry up, today’s order turns to the subsidy strategy once again. This time it asks small business and some residential consumers to subsidize others. Will these be the next to suffer a financial crisis? They could well be.
Moreover, should we be surprised that the result of our policy to subsidize consumption leads to more consumption, not conservation? Today’s majority order is just another step in encouraging energy consumption and discouraging the conservation that prices based on current costs would produce.
From the beginning of this crisis, it has been clear what California needed to do – build new supply and conserve. This is electricity, not water – we can build plants, we do not need to wait for it to rain. Nonetheless, we have done very little to encourage production. Instead, we have offered a $50 million bounty to anyone who helps California get the goods on a generator. We also plan to hire 50 deputies to inspect power plants. We have also blamed the problems on FERC for not limiting prices, for our logic dictates that price controls will lead to fewer blackouts. It is most certainly not my position to defend either generators or FERC, but should we be surprised that generators are slow to enter California markets, or that FERC fails to take California’s actions seriously?
In conclusion, can this really be a crisis if we exempt 60% of all residential customers from any rate change and another 15% receive an increase of less than 12%? Second, can this really be a sustainable policy if commercial and industrial customers must now bear these costs that have led three utilities to insolvency and consumed the
entire state budget surplus? This is sure to darken California’s commerce twice, first as businesses turn off their lights, and then, as they close their doors.
For these reasons I must respectfully dissent.
_/s/ HENRY M. DUQUE______
Henry M. Duque
Commissioner
May 15, 2001
San Francisco
A.00-11-038 et al.
D.01-05-064
Commissioner Richard A. Bilas, dissenting:
Once again I must decry the lack of meaningful comment and input by the parties on today’s Proposed and Alternate Decisions (decisions). Over 20 parties addressed the Commission in final oral argument Friday morning, May 11. That was less than 24 hours after the alternate decision was finally completed and posted on the web. The comments filed late Thursday were less than 24 hours after both extremely complex decisions were released on the web, the alternate in incomplete form and both decisions with missing tables. These releases were 5 days after the scheduled May 4 release date. They were released 10 hours after a press briefing on their anticipated content that was not noticed to the parties. The press briefing packet used was not served on the parties. The record of this proceeding contained many rate design scenarios presented by the parties. I asked for rate tables for several of them to be run. I was furnished only the EPUC proposal, Sunday May 13 just before I left Mendocino to drive to San Francisco for the May 14 meeting. I prefer it to any other proposals I have seen, but I was given no opportunity to offer it as an alternate decision. The Commission needed more time to run and analyze the rate impacts of a variety of alternative scenarios. We were not given it. Substantive changes in both the PD and alternate and their rate impacts arrived the late Monday before the May 15 continuation meeting. We have had less than 24 hours to review the substantive revisions and the impacts in the rate tables.
Once again we were told that we must vote. This Commission should not be pressured into doing something so potentially detrimental to the State and its economy just so we can make the increases effective on June bills. Frankly, I do not think it matters that these new rates will be on the June bills, because the increases on the average residential bill will not accomplish the level of conservation the State needs. We need negawatts this summer. This decision will not get us enough. So the Commission voted hurriedly on a decision that will not make things better this summer and will send the California economy into a recessionary death spiral.
The Commission’s decision is a prescription for a deeper recession than Californians already face. Although the alternate has been revised to treat industrial customers somewhat better than before, when you look at the rate tables, you will see that these changes are largely symbolic. They do not translate into meaningful changes on bills. In fact, the tables show that the approximately twelve dollar rate cap for the industrial class gives them far less benefit than the generous 15 to 20 percent rate caps for the agricultural class. The devil is in the details of the rate tables, rather than the alternate’s narrative percentage increases. While something has been done to tone down the massive increase on industrial customers, these changes come at the expense of the small and medium commercial class that is the bulk of businesses in the State. They will pay more so big industrial customers can pay less. This is not fair nor is it equitable.
With these rate design allocations that place a disproportionate burden on business, we risk plunging the state back into the same recessionary conditions with high commercial rates that set the stage for electric restructuring in the first place. History will repeat itself. Businesses will flee the state or shut down entirely. This means jobs and taxes are lost. Unemployment compensation won't pay the power bills. These crippling rate increases on business and industry will have ripple effects throughout our economy as costs get passed on. Consumers will ultimately bear the burden of cost increases, including CARE and medical baseline customers exempt from today’s increases. We should have stepped back and reflected on our actions before implementing such a disastrous rate design. As an economist I cannot and will not be roped into voting for a decision that I strongly believe will push the State into a deep recession.
Today’s Commission decision does more than merely allocate the 3 cents surcharge from Decision 01-03-082. It establishes an entirely new rate design that substantially changes the existing rate relationships absent any cost data to support them. It creates unprecedented cross subsidies among ratepayer classes. This is not surcharge allocation, it is a rate increase rate design. This is political and social policy masquerading as economics. It will not work.
There is no reason to alter the existing rate allocation structure, especially because we have no reliable cost data. The existing allocation scheme is based on some form of cost analyses. That is a far better basis for allocation than unreasonable and arbitrary assignment of cost and responsibility as if the costs were the same for every class of user at every time of day. They are not. The decision is internally inconsistent on this point. It first allocates the increase on an equal cents per kilowatt hour basis because it refuses to recognize these differentials. But, it goes on to set rates that are skewed toward peak usage because the peak costs more price and reliability wise. While the Commission’s decision looks for business and industry to pay more and more, we are not giving them any trade off by way of enhanced reliability for the high rates. The least we can do is black them out last on a predictable schedule to mitigate their losses. I urge my colleagues to carefully consider this idea.
Today's misguided policy decisions can and should be avoided. I would look to the Top 100 hours methodology that this Commission employed in its PTR 2
Decision 00-06-034 last June. I cannot resist noting that it was this same 3 to 2 decision that broke the PX monopoly buy requirement because of the rising trend of PX prices. It was this same PTR 2 decision that caused legislators to pass a law to prevent the PX monopoly from being broken, a law they quietly repealed in January of this year, after it was too late to help. So we have precedent for the Top 100 hours. It is egregious that we do not have in the record the DWR cost data to implement it properly. We should also have looked at the equal percentage of generation revenues methodology which many parties espoused. Because of time constraints, we have done neither by way of rate table analyses. This is a grave mistake.
I am pleased with the Commission decision’s treatment of direct access (DA) customers. It is correct to exempt DA customers from the surcharge because the utilities do not buy power for them. DA customers do not add to the net short position that DWR is covering and this rate increase is meant to repay. However, the Commission should have gone further on the record of this proceeding to adopt a bottoms up approach and simply charge direct access customers for everything except generation. I intend to sponsor such a decision on a future agenda.
I strongly dissent against any consideration of a mandatory federal real time price generation rate for federal agencies and facilities. Singling out the federal agencies for a mandatory pilot program on market rates is both discriminatory and punitive. It is regulatory blackmail. And, it could cost California our 55 megawatt contract with Bonneville Power and result in military base closures. First, such a rate pilot does not pass Constitutional muster. Second, it does not comport with our own statutes. Public Utilities Code section 453(a) states that utilities cannot, as to rates, subject any corporation or person to any prejudice or disadvantage. Section 453(c) declares that no utility shall establish or maintain any unreasonable difference as to rates, as between localities or classes of service. A mandatory program is a violation of these provisions. Additionally, section 451 states that any unjust and unreasonable charge demanded or received by a utility is unlawful. FERC has ruled that wholesale generation prices are unjust and unreasonable. This Commission has argued that it is not required to pass on such costs and refused to declare the rate freeze over. Therefore how can we pass on these unjust and unreasonable rates to one subset of customers while exempting the rest? There is no excuse except partisan mudslinging. Finally, section 454(a) states that a utility cannot change any rate except upon a Commission finding that the new rate is justified. I do not see how we can justify such a mandatory, discriminatory pilot program. We should not even consider it. I also disassociate myself from the inflammatory comments made in the decision regarding the FERC. Regulatory brawls only descend statesmanship into the gutter.
I am in favor of the decision’s conclusion that we tie receipt of CEC interval meters to mandatory time of use pricing, rather than market rates. We should do nothing to discourage customers from getting these meters. By buffering the rate shock of moving directly to market rates, I hope we have accomplished this goal. I applaud the pilot program to have real time pricing tariffs which will be voluntary. We have heard from consumers that believe real time pricing should be used. However, let’s have a pilot program to allow anyone to sign on, including the federal authorities. If the federal authorities do not, I agree they are hoist by their own market philosophy petard. I urge this Commission to adopt tariffs based on real market rates. I regret that the Commission has waited so long to recognize the value of real time meters. Dr. Borenstein and others at my 1999 demand responsiveness roundtable advocated interval meters as the solution to wholesale market imbalances. I am convinced we would not have today’s dysfunctional market had interval meters been implemented sooner.
I also must object to the special caps and lower bill limiter for agriculture customers. Unlike the dollar caps for industrial customers, these 15 and 20 percent caps make a substantial difference in bills. We should be giving preferential treatment to no one. In this same proceeding others such as hospitals, essential local government services, and water districts made pleas for special treatment based on public health and safety. They were not given special treatment. There is no justifiable reason to single out agriculture and industrial for caps, especially when other businesses such as retail stores, groceries and restaurants contend they too must operate during the peak. All of California is in this together. We must all shoulder the burden.
While I disagree with the concept of bill limiters, absent a better rate allocation than is before us today, one bill limiter for all is the only fair way to treat everyone equally, not rate or percentage caps. My fear about bill limiters is that they are counterintuitive to our goal of incenting conservation. Hardship situations should be assessed on a case by case basis by some sort of review procedure tied to remedial measures rather than by setting blanket bill limiters. Payment plans can be worked out and remedial energy efficiency corrective actions taken. If the situation causing the bill limiter to be triggered is not mitigated, the limiter should no longer apply. Also, I think customers are going to find bill limiters very confusing since they are based on class average rates. I agree with Mr. Adams who has been urging us to make it simple for the customers to understand their bills and conserve. Bill limiters do not meet this test. By setting unlimited blanket bill limiters we are setting the system up for gaming. It seems to me electric restructuring was set up to allow gaming which is what got us into this mess today.
Today’s decision is momentous for California and Californians. The public participation hearings have made it clear that the concept of baseline in dealing with the crisis is woefully inadequate. The AB 1X legislation, which exempted up to 130% of baseline, has grossly unfair and disproportionate impacts on our coastal versus inland residents. This exemption also prevents us from properly incenting conservation in the residential class, which has the highest demand elasticity by exempting over 60 percent of residential sales from increases. It creates a subsidy that the Commission’s decision unfairly spreads among all customer classes, contrary to what I believe was the Legislature’s intent. It is, in essence, a hidden tax on all non-residential users. Residential tiers 3, 4 and 5 are not high enough to produce the level of conservation the State needs to get through this summer. Consumer advocates and economists agree on this point. Indeed, Dr. Bornstein has stated that residential rate increases of 75% are the required level in order to obtain necessary conservation. Today's decision to spare residential ratepayers at the expense of business will simply make a bad situation worse. It is a rush to poor judgment.
The State's coffers are rapidly being emptied. The DWR bond measure is now up to $13.4 billion dollars, an historic figure. The bonds have been delayed from a May issuance to an August issuance, a traditionally bad time to float a bond issue. Long term DWR negotiated power contracts may be vitiated by failure to issue the bonds by July 1. DWR and ISO power costs will keep rising. Absent drastic conservation efforts, more rate hikes are on the horizon. State budget deficits have been forecasted into the 2002 fiscal year. And today we drive business, industry and military bases and their much needed tax dollars from the State. What we have here is an economic recipe for disaster. I respectfully dissent.
/s/ RICHARD A. BILAS
RICHARD A. BILAS
Commissioner
San Francisco, California
May 15, 2001
ATTACHMENT A
FERC Comments on Real-time Prices and Market Signals
• Market prices send the right signals to both sellers and buyers (at least those not subject to a rate freeze). Market prices will increase supply and reduce demand, thus correcting the current imbalance. Capping prices below market levels through regulation or legislation will have exactly the opposite effect. (FERC testimony before the Committee on Government Reform April 10-12, 2001)
• Price mitigation should be as market oriented as possible and adopt market solutions and mechanisms to the maximum extent possible; the pricing provisions must encourage, and not discourage, the critically needed investment in infrastructure (e.g., increasing generation supply, adding required transmission, and implementing demand response). FERC April 26, 2001 Order
• Allowing large retail consumers to face the price in the wholesale market would provide more demand responsiveness to the wholesale market. If state policy is to allow load serving entities to pass through the costs of energy and ancillary services directly to retail customers, then those customers should be given some way to respond to those prices. (FERC 11/1/200 Staff Report)
• “I view today's (Dec. 15, 2000) order as a missed opportunity. Current emergency circumstances should embolden federal and state regulators – not intimidate them – to take decisive action. Timidity is no longer excusable. California ratepayers will benefit from the restructuring of the California energy market only when the market is allowed to operate without artificial restraints designed by regulators and politicians who believe that they know best how to serve energy customers… To summarize briefly, I would have adopted the following remedial measures [including] eliminat[ing] all price controls.” (Concurrence of Commissioner Hebert to FERC December 15, 2000 Order)
• “Consistent with our discussion in this order, we will reject the various proposals and complaints regarding the imposition of price caps or cost-based rates (FERC December 15, 2000 Order)
• These requirements will develop demand-side price responsiveness that will help mitigate market power and lessen the severity of price spikes. When demand responds to price, suppliers have additional incentives to keep bids close to their marginal production costs, because high bids are more likely to reduce the bidder's energy sales. (FERC April 26, 2001 Order)
ATTACHMENT B
May 2, 2001
Letter from Thomas M. Hannigan
Department of Water Resources
Subject: Revenue Requirements
APPENDIX A
LIST OF APPEARANCES
|************ APPEARANCES ************ |Michael Aguirre |
| |Attorney At Law |
|Gerald Lahr |AGUIRRE & MEYER |
|ABAG POWER |1060 8TH AVENUE, SUITE 300 |
|101 8TH STREET |SAN DIEGO CA 92101 |
|OAKLAND CA 94607 |(619) 235-8636 |
|(510) 464-7908 |julesan@ |
|jerryl@abag. |For: RATEPAYERS/UCAN |
|For: ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS (ABAG) | |
| | |
| |Carrie H. Allen |
|Katherine S. Poole |AKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER & FELD, LLP |
|ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO |1333 NEW HAMPSHIRE AVENUE, N.W. |
|651 GATEWAY BLVD., SUITE 900 |WASHINGTON DC 20036 |
|SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CA 94080 |(202) 887-4444 |
|(650) 589-1660 |callen@ |
|kpoole@ |For: CE Generation |
|For: The Coalition of California Utility Employees | |
| | |
| |Michael Alcantar |
|Marc D. Joseph |Attorney At Law |
|Attorney At Law |ALCANTAR & KAHL LLP |
|ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO |1300 SW 5TH AVENUE., SUITE 1750 |
|651 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, SUITE 900 |PORTLAND OR 97201 |
|SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CA 94080 |(503) 402-9900 |
|(650) 589-1660 |mpa@a- |
|mdjoseph@ |For: Cogeneration Association of California |
|For: The Coalition of California Utility Employees | |
| | |
| |Evelyn Kahl |
|William P. Adams |Attorney At Law |
|ADAMS ELECTRICAL SAFETY CONSULTING |ALCANTAR & KAHL, LLP |
|716 BRETT AVENUE |120 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 2200 |
|ROHNERT PARK CA 94928-4012 |SAN FRANCISCO CA 94104 |
|(707) 795-7549 |(415) 421-4143 |
|For: SELF |ek@a- |
| |For: Energy Producers & Users Coalition |
| | |
|Aaron Thomas | |
|AES NEWENERGY, INC. |Edward G. Poole |
|350 S. GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 2950 |Attorney At Law |
|LOS ANGELES CA 90071 |ANDERSON & POOLE |
|(213) 996-6136 |601 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 1300 |
|athomas@ |SAN FRANCISCO CA 94108 |
|For: New Energy Ventures, Inc. |(415) 956-6413 |
| |epoole@ |
| |For: California Independent Petroleum Association and Sun-Maid Growers of |
|James Weil |California |
|AGLET CONSUMER ALLIANCE | |
|PO BOX 1599 |Daniel W. Douglass |
|FORESTHILL CA 95631 |Attorney At Law |
|(530) 367-3300 |ARTER & HADDEN LLP |
|jweil@ |5959 TOPANGA CANYON BLVD., STE 244 |
|For: AGLET CONSUMER ALLIANCE |WOODLAND HILLS CA 91367 |
| |(818) 596-2201 |
| |douglass@ |
| |For: ALLIANCE OF RETAIL MARKETS and WESTERN POWER TRADING FORUM |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
|Barbara R. Barkovich |Robert Pernell |
|BARKOVICH AND YAP, INC. |CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION |
|32 EUCALYPTUS LANE |1516 9TH STREET |
|SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 |SACRAMENTO CA 95829 |
|(415) 457-5537 |(916) 654-5036 |
|brbarkovich@ |rpernell@energy.state.ca.us |
|For: California Large Energy Consumers Association (CLECA) |For: CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION (CEC) |
| | |
| | |
|Reed V. Schmidt |Karen Norene Mills |
|BARTLE WELLS ASSOCIATES |Attorney At Law |
|1889 ALCATRAZ AVENUE |CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION |
|BERKELEY CA 94703 |2300 RIVER PLAZA DRIVE |
|(510) 653-3399 |SACRAMENTO CA 95833 |
|rschmidt@ |(916) 561-5655 |
|For: California City County Streetlight Association (CAL-SLA) |kmills@ |
| |For: California Farm Bureau Federation |
| | |
|Marco Gomez | |
|Attorney At Law |Ronald Liebert |
|BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT |Attorney At Law |
|800 MADISON STREET, 5TH FLOOR |CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION |
|OAKLAND CA 94607 |2300 RIVER PLAZA DRIVE |
|(510) 464-6058 |SACRAMENTO CA 95833 |
|mgomez1@ |(916) 561-5657 |
|For: Bay Area Rapid Transit District |rliebert@ |
| |For: California Farm Bureau Federation |
| | |
|Roger Berliner | |
|BERLINER, CANDON & JIMISON |Ed Yates |
|1225 19TH STREET, N.W., SUITE 800 |CALIFORNIA LEAGUE OF FOOD PROCESSORS |
|WASHINGTON DC 20036 |980 NINTH STREET, SUITE 230 |
|(202) 955-6067 |SACRAMENTO CA 95814 |
|rogerberliner@ |(916) 444-9260 |
|For: Internal Services Department of Los Angeles County (LACISD) |ed@ |
| |For: California League of Food Processors |
| | |
|A Brubaker | |
|BRUBAKER & ASSOCIATES, INC. |Lisa G. Urick |
|1215 FERN RIDGE PARKWAY, SUITE 208 |Attorney At Law |
|ST. LOUIS MO 63141 |CALIFORNIA POWER EXCHANGE CORPORATION |
|(314) 275-7007 |200 S. LOS ROBLES AVENUE, SUITE 400 |
|mbrubaker@ |PASADENA CA 91101-2482 |
|For: Brubaker & Associates, Inc. |(626) 537-3328 |
| |lgurick@ |
| |For: CALIFORNIA POWER EXCHANGE |
|Jonathan M. Weisgall | |
|V.P. Legislative & Regulatory Affairs | |
|CALENERGY COMPANY, INC. |Tom Smegal |
|1200 NEW HAMPSHIRE AVE., NW, SUITE 300 |CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE |
|WASHINGTON DC 20036 |1720 NORTH FIRST STREET |
|(202) 828-1378 |SAN JOSE CA 95112 |
|jweisgall@ |(408) 367-8235 |
| |tsmegal@ |
|Fernando De Leon |For: California Water Association |
|Attorney At Law | |
|CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION | |
|1516 9TH STREET, MS-14 | |
|SACRAMENTO CA 95814-5512 | |
|(916) 654-4873 | |
|fdeleon@energy.state.ca.us | |
|For: CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION | |
| | |
|Jennifer Chamberlin |Howard Choy |
|CHEVRON ENERGY SOLUTIONS |Energy Management Division Manager |
|345 CALIFORNIA ST., 32ND FLOOR |COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES |
|SAN FRANCISCO CA 94104 |INTERNAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT |
|(415) 733-4661 |1100 NORTHEASTERN AVENUE |
|jnnc@ |LOS ANGELES CA 90063 |
|For: Chevron Energy Solutions |(323) 881-3939 |
| |hchoy@isd.co.la.ca.us |
| |For: COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES |
|Theresa Mueller | |
|Deputy City Attorney | |
|CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO |Patrick Mcguire |
|1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE |TOM BEACH |
|SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102 |CROSSBORDER ENERGY |
|(415) 554-4640 |2560 NINTH STREET, SUITE 316 |
|theresa_mueller@ci.sf.ca.us |BERKELEY CA 94710 |
|For: City & County of San Francisco |(510) 649-9790 |
| |patrickm@ |
| |For: Watson Cogeneration Company |
|Bill Mc Callum | |
|CITY OF FRESNO | |
|5607 W. JENSEN AVENUE |Tom Beach |
|FRESNO CA 93607 |CROSSBORDER ENERGY |
|(559) 498-1728 |2560 NINTH ST., SUITE 316 |
|bill.mccallum@ci.fresno.ca.us |BERKELEY CA 94710 |
|For: CITY OF FRESNO |(510) 649-9790 |
| |tomb@ |
| |For: Watson Cogeneration Company |
|Frederick Ortlieb | |
|Deputy City Attorney | |
|CITY OF SAN DIEGO |Treg Tremont |
|1200 THIRD AVENUE, 11TH FLOOR |Attorney At Law |
|SAN DIEGO CA 92101 |DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE |
|(619) 236-6220 |ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, SUITE 600 |
|fmo@sdcity. |SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111-3834 |
|For: CITY OF SAN DIEGO |(415) 276-6500 |
| |tregtremont@ |
| |For: Costco Wholesale Corporation |
|John Tooker | |
|City Manager | |
|CITY OF YUCAIPA |Lindsey How-Downing |
|34272 YUCAIPA BLVD. |Attorney At Law |
|YUCAIPA CA 92399 |DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP |
|(909) 797-2489 |ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, STE 600 |
| |SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111-3834 |
|Bill Powers |(415) 276-6500 |
|CONGRESS OF CALIFORNIA SENIORS |lindseyhowdowning@ |
|1228 N STREET, SUITE 29 |For: CALPINE CORPORATION |
|SACRAMENTO CA 95814 | |
|(916) 442-4474 | |
|bpowers@ |Edward W. O'Neill |
|For: CONGRESS OF CALIFORNIA SENIORS |Attorney At Law |
| |DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, LLP |
| |ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, STE 600 |
| |SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111-3834 |
| |(415) 276-6500 |
| |edwardoneill@ |
| |For: El Paso Natural Gas Company |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
|Howard Owens | |
|HOYT MINKOFF | |
|CONSUMER FEDERATION OF CALIFORNIA | |
|1228 N STREET, SUITE 29 | |
|SACRAMENTO CA 95814 | |
|(916) 554-7621 | |
|howens@ | |
|For: CONSUMER FEDERATION OF CALIFORNIA | |
| | |
|Norman J. Furuta |Douglas K. Kerner |
|Attorney At Law |Attorney At Law |
|DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY |ELLISON, SCHNEIDER & HARRIS |
|900 COMMODORE DRIVE, BLDG. 107 |2015 H STREET |
|SAN BRUNO CA 94066-5006 |SACRAMENTO CA 95814 |
|(650) 244-2100 |(916) 447-2166 |
|furutanj@efawest.navfac.navy.mil |dkk@ |
|For: Federal Executive Agencies |For: Independent Energy Producers Association |
| | |
| | |
|Dan L. Carroll |Diane Fellman |
|Attorney At Law |Attorney At Law |
|DOWNEY BRAND SEYMOUR & ROHWER, LLP |ENERGY LAW GROUP LLP |
|555 CAPITOL MALL, 10TH FLOOR |1999 HARRISON STREET, SUITE 2700 |
|SACRAMENTO CA 95814 |OAKLAND CA 94612-3572 |
|(916) 441-0131 |(510) 874-4301 |
|dcarroll@ |difellman@energy-law- |
|For: CALIFORNIA INDUSTRIAL USERS |For: PacificCrockett Energy, Inc. |
| | |
| | |
|Colin L. Pearce |Andrew J. Skaff |
|DUANE MORRIS & HECKSCHER |Attorney At Law |
|100 SPEAR STREET, SUITE 1500 |ENERGY LAW GROUP, LLP |
|SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105 |1999 HARRISON STREET, 27TH FLOOR |
|(415) 371-2200 |OAKLAND CA 94612 |
|clpearce@ |(510) 874-4330 |
|For: Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) |askaff@energy-law- |
| |For: New York Mercantile Exchange/Dynegy, Inc. |
| | |
|Thomas M. Berliner | |
|Attorneys At Law |Carolyn Kehrein |
|DUANE MORRIS & HECKSCHER |ENERGY MANAGEMENT SERVICES |
|100 SPEAR STREET, SUITE 1500 |1505 DUNLAP COURT |
|SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105 |DIXON CA 95620-4208 |
|(415) 371-2200 |(707) 678-9586 |
|tmberliner@ |cmkehrein@ems- |
|For: Sacramento Municipal Utility District |For: Energy Users Forum |
| | |
| | |
|Lynn M. Haug |Patrick Mcdonnell |
|ANDY BROWN |ENSERCH ENERGY SERVICES |
|Attorney At Law |SUITE 290 |
|ELLISON & SCHNEIDER |711 GRAND AVENUE |
|2015 H STREET |SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 |
|SACRAMENTO CA 95814-3109 |pmcdonne@ |
|(916) 447-2166 |For: Enserch Energy Services |
|lmh@ | |
|For: East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) | |
| | |
| | |
|Andrew B. Brown |Nancy Ryan |
|Attorney At Law |ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE |
|ELLISON, SCHNEIDER & HARRIS |5655 COLLEGE AVENUE |
|2015 H STREET |OAKLAND CA 94618 |
|SACRAMENTO CA 95814 |(510) 658-8008 |
|(916) 447-2166 |nryan@ |
|abb@ |For: Environmental Defense |
|For: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES (DGS) | |
| | |
|James D. Squeri |Kelly R. Tilton |
|Attorney At Law |Attorney At Law |
|GOODIN MACBRIDE SQUERI RITCHIE & DAY LLP |GRUENEICH RESOURCE ADVOCATES |
|505 SANSOME STREET, SUITE 900 |582 MARKET STREET, SUITE 1020 |
|SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111 |SAN FRANCISCO CA 94104 |
|(415) 392-7900 |(415) 834-2300 |
|jsqueri@ |ktilton@ |
|For: California Retailers Association |For: University of California/California State University |
| | |
| | |
|Jeanne M. Bennett |Morten Henrik Greidung |
|Attorney At Law |HAFSLUND ENERGY TRADING, LLC |
|GOODIN MACBRIDE SQUERI RITCHIE & DAY LLP |101 ELLIOT AVE., SUITE 510 |
|505 SANSOME STREET, SUITE 900 |SEATTLE WA 98119 |
|SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111 |(206) 436-0640 |
|(415) 392-7900 |mhg@ |
|jbennett@ |For: HAFSLUND ENERGY TRADING, LLC |
|For: Alliance for Retail Markets and Enron Corporation | |
| | |
| |James Hodges |
|Michael B. Day |4720 BRAND WAY |
|Attorney At Law |SACRAMENTO CA 95819 |
|GOODIN MACBRIDE SQUERI RITCHIE & DAY LLP |(916) 451-7011 |
|505 SANSOME STREET, SUITE 900 |hodgesjl@ |
|SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111-3133 |For: TELACU and Maravilla Foundation |
|(415) 392-7900 | |
|mday@ | |
|For: ENRON ENERGY SERVICES, INC., ENRON NORTH AMERICA |Jan Smutny-Jones |
| |Association |
| |INDEPENDENT ENERGY PRODUCERS |
|Richard H. Counihan |1112 I STREET, STE. 380 |
| |SACRAMENTO CA 95814-2896 |
|50 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 1500 |(916) 448-9499 |
|SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111 |smutny@ |
|(415) 439-5310 | |
|rick.counihan@ |William B. Marcus |
|For: GREEN MOUNTAIN ENERGY RESOURCES |JBS ENERGY, INC. |
| |311 D STREET, SUITE A |
| |WEST SACRAMENTO CA 95605 |
|David L. Marshall |(916) 372-0534 |
|GREGG INDUSTRIES, INC. |bill@ |
|10460 HICKSON STREET |For: TURN (EXPERT WITNESS) |
|EL MONTE CA 91731 | |
|(626) 575-7664 | |
|dmarshall@ |Norman A. Pedersen |
|For: Gregg Industries, Inc. |Esquire |
| |JONES DAY REAVES & POGUE |
| |555 WEST FIFTH STREET, SUITE 4600 |
|Irene K. Moosen |LOS ANGELES CA 90013-1025 |
|KELLY TILTON |(213) 243-2810 |
|GRUENEICH RESOURCE ADVOCATES |napedersen@ |
|582 MARKET STREET, SUITE 1020 |For: Commonwealth Energy Corporation and Automated Power Exchange Inc. & Frito |
|SAN FRANCISCO CA 94104-5305 |Lay, Inc. |
|(415) 834-2300 | |
|imoosen@ | |
|For: Sonoma County Water Agency |Bill Bishop |
| |JR. WOOD, INC. |
| |PO BOX 545 |
| |ATWATER CA 95301 |
| |(209) 358-5643 |
| |bishop@ |
| |For: Jr. Wood, Inc. and Manufacturers Council of the Central Valley (MCCV) |
| | |
| | |
|Kathleen Kiernan-Harrington |William H. Booth |
|JAMES WEIL |Attorney At Law |
|SUITE 200 |LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM H. BOOTH |
|720 MARKET STREET |1500 NEWELL AVENUE, 5TH FLOOR |
|SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102 |WALNUT CREEK CA 94596 |
|(415) 781-5348 |(925) 296-2460 |
|harrington@ |wbooth@booth- |
|For: GOLDEN GATE RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION |For: California Large Energy Consumers Assn. |
| | |
| | |
|Daniel L. Rial |Christopher A. Hilen |
|KINDER MORGAN ENERGY PARTNERS |Attorney At Law |
|1100 TOWN & COUNTRY ROAD |LEBOEUF LAMB GREENE & MACRAE LLP |
|ORANGE CA 92868 |ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, SUITE 400 |
|(714) 560-4854 |SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111 |
|riald@ |(415) 951-1141 |
|For: Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, SFPP, L.P., CALNEV |chilen@ |
| |For: RELIANT ENERGY POWER GENERATION, INC. |
| | |
|Ron Knecht | |
|1465 MARLBAROUGH AVENUE |John W. Leslie |
|LOS ALTOS CA 94024-5742 |Attorney At Law |
|(650) 968-0115 |LUCE FORWARD HAMILTON & SCRIPPS, LLP |
|ronknecht@ |600 WEST BROADWAY, SUITE 2600 |
|For: SELF |SAN DIEGO CA 92101-3391 |
| |(619) 699-2536 |
| |jleslie@ |
|Thomas S. Knox |For: SHELL ENERGY SERVICES, LLC |
|Attorney At Law | |
|KNOX, LEMMON & ANAPOCSKY, LLP | |
|ONE CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 700 |Steven Moss |
|SACRAMENTO CA 95814 |M.CUBED |
|(916) 498-9911 |673 KANSAS STREET |
|tknox@ |SAN FRANCISCO CA 94107 |
|For: Leprino Foods |(415) 643-9578 |
| |smoss@ |
| |For: WESTERN MOBILHOME PARK ASSOCIATION |
|Susan E. Brown | |
|Attorney At Law | |
|LATINO ISSUES FORUM |David Huard |
|785 MARKET STREET, 3RD FLOOR |RANDALL KEEN |
|SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103-2003 |MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS |
|(415) 284-7224 |11355 W. OLYMPIC BLVD |
|joseh@ |LOS ANGELES CA 90064 |
|For: LATINO ISSUES FORUM |(310) 312-4247 |
| |dhuard@ |
| |For: CALIFORNIA HEALTHCARE ASSOCIATION |
|C. Susie Berlin | |
|Attorney At Law | |
|LAW OFFICES OF BARRY F. MC CARTHY |Matthew V. Brady |
|2105 HAMILTON AVENUE, SUITE 140 |Attorney At Law |
|SAN JOSE CA 95125 |MATTHEW V. BRADY & ASSOCIATES |
|(408) 558-0950 |300 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 1100 |
|sberlin@ |SACRAMENTO CA 95814 |
|For: NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POWER AGENCY |(916) 442-5600 |
| |bradylaw@ |
| |For: Shasta Hydroelectric, Inc. |
| | |
| | |
|David J. Byers |Scott T. Steffen |
|Attorney At Law |Attorney At Law |
|MCCRACKEN, BYERS & HAESLOOP |MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT |
|840 MALCOLM ROAD, SUITE 100 |1231 ELEVENTH STREET |
|BURLINGAME CA 94010 |MODESTO CA 95354 |
|(650) 259-5979 |(209) 526-7387 |
|btenney@ |scottst@ |
|For: California City County Streetlight Association (CAL-SLA) |For: MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT (MID) |
| | |
| | |
|Terry J. Houlihan |Diane E. Pritchard |
|Attorney At Law |Attorney At Law |
|MCCUTCHEN DOYLE BROWN & ENERSEN LLP |MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP |
|3 EMBARCADERO CENTER, 18TH FLOOR |425 MARKET STREET |
|SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111 |SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105-2482 |
|(415) 393-2022 |(415) 268-7000 |
|thoulihan@ |dpritchard@ |
|For: RELIANT ENERGY POWER GENERATION, INC. |For: E&J Gallo Winery, The Wine Institute and the Agricultural Energy Consumers|
| |Association. |
| | |
|Patricia R. Williams |Peter Hanschen |
|MERVYN'S CALIFORNIA |Attorney At Law |
|22301 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD |MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP |
|HAYWARD CA 94541 |425 MARKET STREET |
|(510) 727-5905 |SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105 |
|pat.williams@ |(415) 268-7214 |
|For: Mervyn's/Target Stores Division of Dayton Hudson Corporation |phanschen@ |
| |For: Agricultural Energy Consumers Assn. |
| | |
|Jeffrey H. Goldfien | |
|Assistant City Attorney |Sara Steck Myers |
|MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER & WILSON |Attorney At Law |
|777 DAVIS STREET, SUITE 300 |122 28TH AVENUE |
|SAN LEANDRO CA 94577 |SAN FRANCISCO CA 94121 |
|(510) 351-4300 |(415) 387-1904 |
|jhg@ |ssmyers@worldnet. |
|For: City of San Leandro |For: CENTER FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE TECHOLOGIES (CEERT) |
| | |
| | |
|Christopher W. Reardon |Richard Roos-Collins |
|MFRS COUNCIL OF THE CENTRAL VALLEY |Attorney At Law |
|PO BOX 1564 |NATURAL HERITAGE INSTITUTE |
|MODESTO CA 95353 |2140 SHATTUCK AVENUE, SUITE 500 |
|(209) 523-0886 |BERKELEY CA 94704-1222 |
|cwrmccv@worldnet. |(510) 644-2900 |
|For: Manufacturers Council of the Central Valley (MCCV) |rrcollins@n-h- |
| |For: California Hydropower Reform Coalition |
| | |
|Kevin R. Mcspadden | |
|Attorney At Law |Janie Mollon |
|MILBANK TWEED HADLEY & MCCLOY |Manager Regulatory Affairs |
|601 SOUTH FIGUEROA, 30TH FLOOR |NEW WEST ENERGY |
|LOS ANGELES CA 90017 |PO BOX 61868 |
|(213) 892-4563 |PHOENIX AZ 85082-1868 |
|kmcspadd@ |(602) 629-7758 |
|For: MILBANK, TWEED, HADLEY & MC CLOY |jsmollon@ |
| |For: NEW WEST ENERGY |
| | |
|Jose E. Guzman, Jr. |Don Schoenbeck |
|Attorney At Law |RCS CONSULTING, INC. |
|NOSSAMAN GUTHNER KNOX & ELLIOTT LLP |900 WASHINGTON STREET, SUITE 1000 |
|50 CALIFORNIA STREET, 34TH FLOOR |VANCOUVER WA 98660 |
|SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111-4799 |(360) 737-3877 |
|(415) 398-3600 |dws@ |
|jguzman@ |For: Coalinga Cogenerator |
|For: Cargill Corporation | |
| | |
| |James Ross |
|Christine Ferrari |RCS CONSULTING, INC. |
|Depurty City Attorney |500 CHESTERFIELD CENTER, SUITE 320 |
|OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY |CHESTERFIELD MO 63017 |
|CITY HALL ROOM 234 |(636) 530-9544 |
|1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE |rcsstl@ |
|SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102-4682 |For: Midway Sunset Cogeneration |
|(415) 554-4634 | |
|christine_ferrari@ci.sf.ca.us | |
| |Steven Greenberg |
|Joseph M. Malkin |REALENERGY |
|Attorney At Law |300 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 300 |
|ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP |SACRAMENTO CA 95814 |
|400 SANSOME STREET |(916) 325-2500 |
|SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111-3143 |sgreenberg@ |
|(415) 773-5505 |For: RealEnergy |
|jmalkin@ | |
|For: THE AES CORPORATION | |
| |Keith Sappenfield |
| |RELIANT ENERGY RETAIL, INC. |
|William H. Edwards |PO BOX 1409 |
|KELLY M. MORTON, JAMES L. LOPES |HOUSTON TX 77251-1409 |
|PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO. |(713) 207-5570 |
|77 BEALE STREET |keith-sappenfield@ |
|PO BOX 7442, RM 3115-B30A |For: Reliant Energy Retail, Inc. |
|SAN FRANCISCO CA 94120-7442 | |
|(415) 973-2768 | |
|whe1@ |Randy Britt |
|For: PG&E |ROBINSONS-MAY |
| |6160 LAUREL CANYON BLVD. |
| |NORTH HOLLYWOOD CA 91606 |
|Peter Ouborg |(818) 509-4777 |
|Attorney At Law |randy_britt@ |
|PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY |For: Robinsons-May |
|PO BOX 770000 | |
|SAN FRANCISCO CA 94177 | |
|(415) 973-2286 |Arlin Orchard |
|pxo2@ |Attorney At Law |
|For: Pacific Gas and Electric Company |SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT |
| |PO BOX 15830, MAIL STOP-B406 |
| |SACRAMENTO CA 95852-1830 |
|Patrick J. Power |(916) 732-5830 |
|Attorney At Law |aorchar@ |
|1300 CLAY STREET, SUITE 600 |For: Sacramento Municipal Utility District |
|OAKLAND CA 94612 | |
|(510) 446-7742 | |
|pjpowerlaw@ |Dana S. Appling |
|For: City of Long Beach; Universal Studios Inc. |General Counsel |
| |SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT |
| |LEGAL DEPARTMENT MSB406 |
| |PO BOX 15830 |
| |SACRAMENTO CA 95852-1830 |
| |(916) 732-6126 |
| | |
|Phillip J. Muller |Beth A. Fox |
|SCD ENERGY SOLUTIONS |Attorney At Law |
|436 NOVA ALBION WAY |SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY |
|SAN RAFAEL CA 94903 |2244 WALNUT GROVE AVENUE |
|(415) 479-1710 |ROSEMEAD CA 91770 |
|pjmuller@ |(626) 302-6897 |
|For: Southern Company Energy Marketing |beth.fox@ |
| |For: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (SCE) |
| | |
|Jeffrey M. Parrott | |
|LYNN G. VAN WAGENEN |James P. Shotwell |
|Attorney At Law |Attorney At Law |
|SEMPRA ENERGY |SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY |
|101 ASH STREET |2244 WALNUT GROVE AVE., ROOM 337 |
|SAN DIEGO CA 92101-3017 |ROSEMEAD CA 91770-0001 |
|(619) 699-5063 |(626) 302-4531 |
|jparrott@ |j.p.shotwell@ |
|For: San Diego Gas & Electric Company |For: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (SCE) |
| | |
| | |
|Judy Young |James C. Paine |
|Attorney At Law |Attorney At Law |
|SEMPRA ENERGY |STOEL RIVES LLP |
|555 W. 5TH STREET, M.L.G.T. 14E7 |900 S.W. FIFTH AVENUE, STE 2600 |
|LOS ANGELES CA 90013 |PORTLAND OR 97204-1268 |
|(213) 244-2955 |(503) 294-9246 |
|jlyoung@ |jcpaine@ |
|For: Southern California Gas Company |For: PacifiCorp |
| | |
| | |
|Keith W. Melville |James Bushee |
|DAVID R. CLARK |SUTHERLAND, ASBILL & BRENNAN |
|Attorney At Law |1275 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE |
|SEMPRA ENERGY |WASHINGTON DC 20004 |
|101 ASH STREET |(202) 383-0100 |
|SAN DIEGO CA 92101-3017 |jbushee@ |
|(619) 699-5039 |For: CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION (CMA) |
|kmelville@ | |
|For: San Diego Gas & Electric Company | |
| |Keith Mc Crea |
| |Attorney At Law |
|Andrew Chau |SUTHERLAND, ASBILL & BRENNAN LLC |
|Attorney At Law |1275 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W. |
|SHELL ENERGY SERVICES COMPANY, L.L.C. |WASHINGTON DC 20004-2415 |
|1221 LAMAR STREET, SUITE 1000 |(202) 383-0705 |
|HOUSTON TX 77010 |kmccrea@ |
|(713) 241-8939 |For: CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURERS & TECHNOLOGY ASSN. |
|anchau@ | |
| | |
|Justin D. Bradley | |
|SILICON VALLEY MANUFACTURING GROUP | |
|226 AIRPORT PARKWAY, SUITE 190 |Gene L. Waas |
|SAN JOSE CA 95110 |THE CALIFORNIA POWER EXCHANGE |
|(408) 501-7852 |1000 SOUTH FREMONT BUILDING A9 WEST |
|jbradley@ |ALHAMBRA CA 91803 |
|For: Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group |(626) 537-3326 |
| |glwaas@ |
| |For: The California Power Exchange |
| | |
| | |
|Chris Witteman |Bernardo R. Garcia |
|THE GREENLINING INSTITUTE |UTILITY WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA,AFL-CIO |
|785 MARKET STREET, 3RD FLOOR |PO BOX 5198 |
|SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103-2003 |OCEANSIDE CA 92052-5198 |
|(415) 284-7202 |(949) 369-9936 |
|chrisw@ |uwuaregion5@ |
|For: THE GREENLINING INSTITUTE |For: Utility Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO |
| | |
| | |
|Denis George |Jerry Bloom |
|Energy Manager |MARGARET ROSTKER (EMAIL: ROSTKMA@LAWHITE |
|THE KROGER COMPANY |Attorney At Law |
|1014 VINE STREET |WHITE & CASE |
|CINCINNATI OH 45202 |TWO EMBARCADERO CENTER, SUITE 650 |
|(513) 762-4538 |SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111 |
|dgeorge@ |(415) 544-1104 |
|For: The Kroger Company |bloomje@la. |
| |For: California Cogeneration Council |
| | |
|Peter Bray | |
|THE NEW POWER COMPANY |Jason J. Zeller |
|101 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 1950 |Legal Division |
|SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111 |RM. 5002 |
|(415) 782-7810 |505 VAN NESS AVE |
|pbray@ |San Francisco CA 94102 |
|For: The New Power Company |(415) 703-4673 |
| |jjz@cpuc. |
| |For: Office of Ratepayer Advocates |
|Matthew Freedman | |
|Attorney At Law | |
|THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK |********** STATE EMPLOYEE *********** |
|711 VAN NESS AVENUE, SUITE 350 | |
|SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102 |Truman L. Burns |
|(415) 929-8876 |Office of Ratepayer Advocates |
|freedman@ |RM. 4209 |
|For: The Utility Reform Network (TURN) |505 VAN NESS AVE |
| |San Francisco CA 94102 |
| |(415) 703-2932 |
|Robert Finkelstein |txb@cpuc. |
|Attorney At Law |For: OFFICE OF RATEPAYER ADVOCATES |
|THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK | |
|711 VAN NESS AVENUE, SUITE 350 | |
|SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102 |Michael W. Neville |
|(415) 929-8876 X-301 |Attorney At Law |
|bfinkelstein@ |CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE |
|For: The Utility Reform Network (TURN) |455 GOLDEN GATE AVENUE, SUITE 11000 |
| |SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102-7004 |
| |(415) 703-5523 |
|Michael Shames |nevillm@hdcdojnet.state.ca.us |
|Attorney At Law |For: CALIFORNIA RESOURCES AGENCY |
|UTILITY CONSUMERS' ACTION NETWORK | |
|1717 KETTNER BLVD., SUITE 105 | |
|SAN DIEGO CA 92101-2532 |Jennifer Tachera |
|(619) 696-6966 |Attorney At Law |
|mshames@ |CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION |
|For: Utility Consumers' Action Network (UCAN) |1516 NINTH STREET, MS-14 |
| |SACRAMENTO CA 95814-5504 |
| |(916) 654-3870 |
| |jtachera@energy.state.ca.us |
| | |
|Lorenzo Kristov |Robert Miyashiro |
|CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION |DEPT. OF FINANCE |
|1516 9TH ST., MS-22 |STATE CAPITOL, RM 1145 |
|SACRAMENTO CA 95814 |SACRAMENTO CA 95814 |
|(916) 654-4773 |(916) 445-8610 |
|LKristov@energy.state.ca.us |firmiyas@dof. |
|For: California Energy Commission |For: DEPT. OF FINANCE (DOF) |
| | |
| | |
|Monica Schwebs |Christopher Danforth |
|Attorney At Law |Office of Ratepayer Advocates |
|CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION |RM. 4101 |
|1516 NINTH STREET, MS-14 |505 VAN NESS AVE |
|SACRAMENTO CA 95814-5512 |San Francisco CA 94102 |
|(916) 654-5207 |(415) 703-1481 |
|mschwebs@energy.state.ca.us |ctd@cpuc. |
| |For: Office of Ratepayer Advocates |
|Ruben Tavares | |
|Electricity Analysis Office | |
|CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION |Joseph R. DeUlloa |
|1516 9TH STREET, MS 20 |Administrative Law Judge Division |
|SACRAMENTO CA 95814 |RM. 5105 |
|(916) 654-5171 |505 VAN NESS AVE |
|rtavares@energy.state.ca.us |San Francisco CA 94102 |
|For: California Energy Commission |(415) 703-3124 |
| |jrd@cpuc. |
| | |
|Roderick A. Campbell |Pamela Durgin |
|Office Of Governmental Affairs |Energy Division |
|CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION |RM. 4-A |
|770 L STREET, STE 1050 |505 VAN NESS AVE |
|SACRAMENTO CA 95814 |San Francisco CA 94102 |
|(916) 327-1418 |(415) 703-1124 |
|rax@cpuc. |pmd@cpuc. |
| | |
|Sean F. Casey |Robert T. Feraru |
|Office of Ratepayer Advocates |Public Advisor Office |
|RM. 4205 |RM. 5303 |
|505 VAN NESS AVE |505 VAN NESS AVE |
|San Francisco CA 94102 |San Francisco CA 94102 |
|(415) 703-1667 |(415) 703-2074 |
|sfc@cpuc. |rtf@cpuc. |
|For: Office of Ratepayer Advocates |For: Public Advisor's Office |
| | |
| | |
|Jim O'Brien |Faline Fua |
|DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES |Energy Division |
|1416 9TH STREET, ROOM 1118 |AREA 4-A |
|SACRAMENTO CA 94236 |505 VAN NESS AVE |
|(916) 653-8816 |San Francisco CA 94102 |
|dwrlegal1@water. |(415) 703-2481 |
|For: Department of Water Resources |fua@cpuc. |
| | |
|Julie Halligan |Donald J. Lafrenz |
|Executive Division |Energy Division |
|RM. 5215 |AREA 4-A |
|505 VAN NESS AVE |505 VAN NESS AVE |
|San Francisco CA 94102 |San Francisco CA 94102 |
|(415) 703-3491 |(415) 703-1063 |
|jmh@cpuc. |dlf@cpuc. |
| |For: Energy Division |
|Audra Hartmann | |
|Legal Division | |
|770 L STREET, SUITE 1050 |Steve Linsey |
|Sacramento CA 95814 |Office of Ratepayer Advocates |
|(916) 327-1417 |RM. 4101 |
|ath@cpuc. |505 VAN NESS AVE |
| |San Francisco CA 94102 |
|Kayode Kajopaiye |(415) 703-1341 |
|Energy Division |car@cpuc. |
|AREA 4-A |For: Office of Ratepayer Advocates |
|505 VAN NESS AVE | |
|San Francisco CA 94102 | |
|(415) 703-2557 |Jeanette Lo |
|kok@cpuc. |Energy Division |
|For: Energy Division |AREA 4-A |
| |505 VAN NESS AVE |
| |San Francisco CA 94102 |
|Dexter E. Khoury |(415) 703-1825 |
|Office of Ratepayer Advocates |jlo@cpuc. |
|RM. 4205 |For: Energy Division |
|505 VAN NESS AVE | |
|San Francisco CA 94102 | |
|(415) 703-1200 |Kim Malcolm |
|bsl@cpuc. |Executive Division |
|For: Office of Ratepayer Advocates |RM. 5115 |
| |505 VAN NESS AVE |
| |San Francisco CA 94102 |
|Robert Kinosian |(415) 703-1926 |
|Office of Ratepayer Advocates |kim@cpuc. |
|RM. 4209 | |
|505 VAN NESS AVE |Anne W. Premo |
|San Francisco CA 94102 |Energy Division |
|(415) 703-1500 |AREA 4-A |
|gig@cpuc. |505 VAN NESS AVE |
|For: Office of Ratepayer Advocates |San Francisco CA 94102 |
| |(415) 703-1247 |
| |awp@cpuc. |
|Laura L. Krannawitter |For: CPUC ENERGY DIVISION |
|Executive Division | |
|RM. 5210 | |
|505 VAN NESS AVE |Steve Roscow |
|San Francisco CA 94102 |Energy Division |
|(415) 703-2538 |AREA 4-A |
|llk@cpuc. |505 VAN NESS AVE |
| |San Francisco CA 94102 |
| |(415) 703-1189 |
| |scr@cpuc. |
| | |
| | |
| | |
|Steven C Ross |Rosalina White |
|Office of Ratepayer Advocates |Public Advisor Office |
|RM. 4102 |RM. 5303 |
|505 VAN NESS AVE |505 VAN NESS AVE |
|San Francisco CA 94102 |San Francisco CA 94102 |
|(415) 703-2140 |(415) 703-2074 |
|sro@cpuc. |raw@cpuc. |
| | |
|Randy Chinn |John S. Wong |
|SENATE ENERGY COMMITTEE |Administrative Law Judge Division |
|ROMM 408 |RM. 5019 |
|STATE CAPITOL |505 VAN NESS AVE |
|SACRAMENTO CA 95814 |San Francisco CA 94102 |
|randy.chinn@senate. |(415) 703-3130 |
| |jsw@cpuc. |
|Linda Serizawa | |
|Executive Division |********* INFORMATION ONLY ********** |
|RM. 5119 | |
|505 VAN NESS AVE |Tom O'Neill |
|San Francisco CA 94102 |Vice President |
|(415) 703-1383 |ABN AMRO INCORPORATED |
|lss@cpuc. |EQUITY RESEARCH |
| |ONE CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 200 |
|Maria E. Stevens |SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111 |
|Executive Division |(415) 983-2901 |
|RM. 500 |tom.oneill@ |
|320 WEST 4TH STREET SUITE 500 | |
|Los Angeles CA 90013 |David Marcus |
|(213) 576-7012 |ADAMS BROADWELL & JOSEPH |
|mer@cpuc. |PO BOX 1287 |
| |BERKELEY CA 94701-1287 |
|Zenaida G. Tapawan-Conway |(510) 528-0728 |
|Energy Division |dmarcus@ |
|AREA 4-A |For: Coalition of California Utility Employees |
|505 VAN NESS AVE | |
|San Francisco CA 94102 | |
|(415) 703-2624 |Ira Schoenholtz |
|ztc@cpuc. |President |
| |AMERICAN ASSN OF BUSINESS PERSONS W/DIS |
|Maria Vanko |2 WOODHOLLOW |
|Energy Division |IRVINE CA 92604-3229 |
|AREA 4-A |(949) 559-1516 |
|505 VAN NESS AVE |For: American Association of Business Persons with Disabilities |
|San Francisco CA 94102 | |
|(415) 703-2818 | |
|mv1@cpuc. |Edward G. Poole |
|For: Energy Division |Attorney At Law |
| |ANDERSON & POOLE |
| |601 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 1300 |
|Christine M. Walwyn |SAN FRANCISCO CA 94108 |
|Administrative Law Judge Division |(415) 956-6413 |
|RM. 5101 |epoole@ |
|505 VAN NESS AVE |For: INDEPENDENT OIL PRODUCERS AGENCY (IOPA) |
|San Francisco CA 94102 | |
|(415) 703-2301 | |
|cmw@cpuc. | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
|Robert E. Anderson |J. A. Savage |
|APS ENERGY SERVICES |CALIFORNIA ENERGY MARKETS |
|1500 FIRST AVENUE |3006 SHEFFIELD AVENUE |
|ROCHESTER MN 55906 |OAKLAND CA 94602-1545 |
|(507) 289-0800 |(510) 534-9109 |
|bob_anderson@ |honest@ |
|For: APS ENERGY SERVICES |For: California Energy Markets |
| | |
| | |
|Ed Cazalet |Lulu Weinzimer |
|AUTOMATED POWER EXCHANGE, INC. |CALIFORNIA ENERGY MARKETS |
|5201 GREAT AMERICA PARKWAY |9 ROSCOE STREET |
|SANTA CLARA CA 95054 |SAN FRANCISCO CA 94110-5921 |
|(408) 517-2900 |(415) 824-3222 |
|ed@ |luluw@ |
|For: Automated Power Exchange, Inc. | |
| |William Dombrowski |
| |CALIFORNIA RETAILERS ASSOCIATION |
|Scott Blaising |980 9TH STREET, SUITE 2100 |
|Attorney At Law |SACRAMENTO CA 95814-2741 |
|8980 MOONEY ROAD |(916) 443-1975 |
|ELK GROVE CA 95624 | |
|(916) 682-9702 |Alexandre B. Makler |
|blaising@ |CALPINE CORPORATION |
| |6700 KOLL CENTER PARKWAY, SUITE 200 |
|Paul A. Harris |PLEASANTON CA 94566 |
|BRIDGE NEWS |(925) 600-2081 |
|44 MONTGOMERY, SUITE 2410 |alexm@ |
|SAN FRANCISCO CA 94104 |For: CALPINE CORPORATION |
|(415) 835-7641 | |
|paul.harris@ | |
|For: BRIDGE NEWS |Susannah Churchill |
| |Energy Advocate |
| |CALPIRG |
|Mona Patel |926 J ST. 523 |
|BROWN & WOOD LLP |SACRAMENTO CA 95814 |
|555 CALIFORNIA STREET, 50TH FLOOR |(916) 448-4516 |
|SAN FRANCISCO CA 94104 |swchurchill@ |
|(415) 772-1265 |For: CALPIRG |
|mpatel@ | |
| | |
|Stephen Layman |Douglas L. Anderson |
|CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION, EIAD |Vice President And General Counsel |
|1516 9TH STREET, MS-20 |CE GENERATION, L.L.C. |
|SACRAMENTO CA 95814 |302 SOUTH 36TH STREET, SUITE 400 |
|(916) 654-4845 |OMAHA NE 68131 |
|Slayman@energy.state.ca.us | |
| |J. Patrick Tang |
|Derk Pippin |JOHN A. RUSSO/BARBARA J. PARKER |
|CALIFORNIA ENERGY MARKETS |Deputy City Attorney |
|9 ROSCOE STREET |CITY OF OAKLAND |
|SAN FRANCISCO CA 94110-5921 |ONE FRANK OGAWA PLAZA 6TH FLOOR |
|(415) 824-3222 |OAKLAND CA 94612 |
|derkp@ |(510) 238-6523 |
|For: CALIFORNIA ENERGY MARKETS (CEM) |jptang@ |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
|John A. Barthrop |Gregory T. Blue |
|General Counsel |Manager, State Regulatory Affairs |
|COMMONWEALTH ENERGY CORP. |DYNEGY, INC. |
|15991 RED HILL AVENUE, NO. 201 |5976 W. LAS POSITAS BLVD., STE. 200 |
|TUSTIN CA 92780 |PLEASANTON CA 94588 |
|(714) 258-0470 |(925) 469-2355 |
|jbarthrop@ |gtbl@ |
|For: Commonwealth Energy Corp. |For: Dynegy, Inc. |
| | |
| | |
|Angela Oh |Joseph A. Young |
|Advisor |EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT |
|COMMUNITY TECHNOLOGY POLICY COUNCIL |375 ELEVENTH STREET, ROOM MS 205 |
|PMB 7000-639 |OAKLAND CA 94607 |
|REDONDO BEACH CA 90277 |(510) 287-0147 |
| |jyoung@ |
|June M. Skillman | |
|COMPLETE ENERGY SERVICES, INC. |Wendy Illingworth |
|650 E. PARKRIDGE AVENUE, UNIT 110 |ECONOMIC INSIGHTS |
|CORONA CA 92879 |320 FEATHER LANE |
|(909) 280-9411 |SANTA CRUZ CA 95060 |
|jskillman@ |(831) 427-2163 |
| |wendy@ |
|Maria Crispi | |
|22 SOUTH PARK, ROOM 320 |Jon S. Silva |
|SAN FRANCISCO CA 94107 |Government Affairs Associate |
|(415) 882-1663 |EDISON SOURCE |
| |955 OVERLAND COURT |
|Carl K. Oshiro |SAN DIMAS CA 91773 |
|Attorney At Law |(909) 450-6035 |
|CSBRT/CSBA |jsilva@ |
|100 FIRST STREET, SUITE 2540 | |
|SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105 |Susan A. Huse |
|(415) 927-0158 |Research Analyst |
|oshirock@ |EES CONSULTING, INC. |
|For: CALIFORNIA SMALL BUSINESS ASSOCIATION AND CALIFORNIA SMALL BUSINESS |12011 BEL-RED ROAD, SUITE 200 |
|ROUNDTABLE |BELLEVUE WA 98005-2471 |
| |(425) 452-9200 |
|Nicole A. Tutt |huse@ |
|DUANE MORRIS & HECKSCHER | |
|100 SPEAR STREET, SUITE 1500 |Jeffrey D. Harris |
|SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105 |Attorney At Law |
|(415) 371-2200 |ELLISON & SCHNEIDER |
|natutt@ |2015 H STREET |
| |SACRAMENTO CA 95814-3105 |
|Joseph M. Paul |(916) 447-2166 |
|DYNEGY MARKETING & TRADE |jdh@ |
|5976 WEST LAS POSITAS BLVD., STE. 200 |For: Sacramento Municipal Utility District |
|PLEASANTON CA 94588 | |
|(925) 469-2314 | |
|joe.paul@ |Gary B. Ackerman |
| |FOOTHILL SERVICES, INC. |
| |340 AUGUST CIRCLE |
| |MENLO PARK CA 94025 |
| |foothill@ |
| |For: Western Power Trading Forum |
| | |
| | |
| | |
|Robert D. Schasel |Karen Lindh |
|FRITO-LAY, INC. |LINDH & ASSOCIATES |
|7701 LEGACY DRIVE (4C-101) |7909 WALERGA ROAD, ROOM 112, PMB 119 |
|PLANO TX 75024-4099 |ANTELOPE CA 95843 |
|(972) 334-7000 |(916) 729-1562 |
|robert.d.schasel@ |karen@ |
| |For: California Manufacturers Assn. |
|H. Bradley Donovan | |
|Senior Vice President | |
|GEORGE WEISS ASSOCIATES, INC. |Richard J. Mccann |
|660 MADISON AVENUE, 16TH FLOOR |M.CUBED |
|NEW YORK NY 10021-8405 |2655 PORTAGE BAY, SUITE 3 |
|(212) 415-4567 |DAVIS CA 95616 |
|hbd@ |(530) 757-6363 |
| |rmccann@ |
|Douglas E. Davie | |
|HENWOOD ENERGY SERVICES, INC. |Candace A. Younger |
|2710 GATEWAY OAKS DRIVE, STE. 300 NORTH |MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP |
|SACRAMENTO CA 95833 |11355 WEST OLYMPIC BOULEVARD |
|(916) 569-0985 |LOS ANGELES CA 90064 |
|ddavie@ |(310) 312-4000 |
| |cyounger@ |
|Jeffrey D. Schlichting | |
|HMH RESOURCES, INC. |Randall W. Keen |
|100 LARKSPUR LANDING, SUITE 213 |MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP |
|LARKSPUR CA 94939 |11355 WEST OLYMPIC BLVD. |
|(415) 289-4080 |LOS ANGELES CA 90064 |
|jeff@ |(310) 312-4000 |
| |rkeen@ |
|Joelle Ogg | |
|JOHN & HENGERER |Linda R. Beck |
|1200 17TH STREET, NW, STE 600 |MCDONOUGH, HOLLAND & ALLEN |
|WASHINGTON DC 20036 |1999 HARRISON STREET, STE 1300 |
|(202) 429-8812 |OAKLAND CA 94612 |
|jogg@ |(510) 839-9104 |
| |For: City of Paso Robles |
|Joaquin Herrera | |
|L. A. COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS | |
|TRAFFIC AND LIGHTING DIVISION |Christopher J. Mayer |
|PO BOX 1460 |MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT |
|ALHAMBRA CA 91802-1460 |PO BOX 4060 |
|jherrera@dpw.co.la.ca.us |MODESTO CA 95352-4060 |
| |(209) 526-7430 |
|Ralph Smith |chrism@ |
|LARKIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. |For: MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT (MID) |
|15728 FARMINGTON ROAD | |
|LIVONIA MI 48154 | |
|(734) 522-3420 |Robert B. Weisenmiller |
|ad046@detroit. |MRW & ASSOCIATES |
|For: Larkin & Associates, Inc. |1999 HARRISON STREET, SUITE 1440 |
| |OAKLAND CA 94612-3517 |
| |(510) 834-1999 |
| |rbw@ |
| |For: MRW & Associaes |
| | |
| | |
|Gary Herbert |Bruce Bowen |
|MSDW |Mailcode B10a |
|ONE TOWER BRIDGE, 11TH FLOOR |PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY |
|WEST CONSHOHOCKEN PA 19428 |PO BOX 770000 |
|(610) 940-4524 |SAN FRANCISCO CA 94177 |
|gerhordt.herbert@ |brb3@ |
| | |
|Melanie Gillette |Dan Pease |
|NAVIGANT CONSULTING INC |PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY |
|3100 ZINFANDEL DRIVE, SUITE 600 |MAILCODE B10B |
|RANCHO CARDOVA CA 95670 |PO BOX 70000 |
|(916) 852-1300 |SAN FRANCISCO CA 94177 |
|melanie_gillette@ |drp6@ |
| | |
|Kay Davoodi |Ed Lucha |
|NAVY RATE INTERVENTION OFFICE |PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY |
|WASHINGTON NAVY YARD |MAIL CODE: B9A |
|1314 HARWOOD STREET SE |PO BOX 770000 |
|WASHINGTON NAVY YARD DC 20374-5018 |SAN FRANCISCO CA 94177 |
|(202) 685-0130 |(415) 973-3872 |
|DavoodiKR@efaches.navfac.navy.mil |ell5@ |
|For: Navy Rate Intervention | |
| |Janice Frazier-Hampton |
| |PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY |
|Martin Mattes |MAIL CODE B9A |
|Attorney At Law |PO BOX 770000 |
|NOSSAMAN GUTHNER KNOX & ELLIOTT, LLP |SAN FRANCISCO CA 94177 |
|50 CALIFORNIA STREET, 34TH FLOOR |(415) 973-2254 |
|SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111-4799 |jyf1@ |
|(415) 438-7273 | |
|mmattes@ |Joe Migocki |
| |PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY |
|Eve Mitchell |77 BEALE STREET, MAIL CODE B9A |
|OAKLAND TRIBUNE |SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105-1890 |
|401 13TH ST. |(415) 973-1332 |
|OAKLAND CA 94612 |j3m9@ |
|(510) 208-6474 | |
|emitchel@ |Niels Kjellund |
| |PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY |
|Jonathan Jacobs |MAIL CODE 859A |
|PA CONSULTING GROUP |PO BOX 770000 |
|75 NOVA DRIVE |SAN FRANCISCO CA 94177 |
|PIEDMONT CA 94610-1037 |NXK2@ |
|(510) 654-9495 | |
|jon.jacobs@ |Roger J. Peters |
|For: PA CONSULTING GROUP |PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY |
| |MAIL CODE B30A |
| |PO BOX 7442 |
|Gail L. Slocum |SAN FRANCISCO CA 94120 |
|Attorney At Law |RJP2@ |
|PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO. | |
|77 BEALE ST. RM 3143 | |
|SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105 | |
|(415) 973-6583 | |
|glsg@ | |
|Ron Helgens |Michael Bazeley |
|PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY |SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS |
|MAIL CODE B9A |111 ELLIS STREET, 3RD FLOOR |
|PO BOX 770000 |SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102 |
|SAN FRANCISCO CA 94177 |(415) 434-1018 |
|(415) 973-7524 |mbazeley@ |
|rrh3@ | |
| |James E. Hay |
|Roxanne Piccillo |SEMPRA ENERGY |
|PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY |101 ASH STREET - H.Q. 14B |
|MAILCODE B10B |SAN DIEGO CA 92101-3017 |
|PO BOX 70000 |(619) 696-2141 |
|SAN FRANCISCO CA 94177 |jhay@ |
|rtp1@ |For: Sempra |
| | |
|George A. Perrault | |
|1813 FAYMONT AVENUE |Kimberly Freeman |
|MANHATTAN BEACH CA 90266 |SEMPRA ENERGY |
|(310) 379-0901 |601 VAN NESS AVENUE, SUITE 2060 |
|georgeperrault@ |SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102 |
| |(415) 202-9983 |
|Henry Moore |Kfreeman@ |
|PETERSON RISK CONSULTING, LLC | |
|1 MARKET STREET, SUITE 1300 |Leslie Katz 4/1 |
|SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105 |Regional Vp-Regulatory Affairs |
|(415) 393-0588 |SEMPRA ENERGY |
|hwmoore@ |601 VAN NESS AVENUE, SUITE 2060 |
| |SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102 |
|Jean Pierre Batmale |(415) 202-9986 |
|REALENERGY |lkatz@ |
|1900 AVENUE OF THE STARS, 755 |For: sempra |
|LOS ANGELES CA 90067 | |
|(310) 203-2976 | |
|jpbatmale@ |Lynn G. Van Wagenen |
| |Regulatory Affairs Project Manager |
|Carrie Peyton |SEMPRA ENERGY |
|SACRAMENTO BEE |101 ASH STREET, ROOM 10A |
|PO BOX 15779 |SAN DIEGO CA 92101 |
|SACRAMENTO CA 95852 |(619) 696-4055 |
|(916) 321-1086 |LvanWagenen@ |
|cpeyton@ |For: Sempra Energy |
| | |
|Tim Haines | |
|SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT |G. Darryl Reed |
|PO BOX 15830 |SIDLEY & AUSTIN |
|SACRAMENTO CA 95852-1830 |10 S. DEARBORN |
|(916) 732-6342 |CHICAGO IL 60603 |
|thaines@ |(312) 853-7766 |
|For: Sacramento Municipal Utility District |gdreed@ |
| |For: SIDLEY & AUSTIN |
| | |
| | |
| |Bruce Foster |
| |Regulatory Affairs |
| |SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY |
| |601 VAN NESS AVENUE, SUITE 2040 |
| |SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102 |
| |(415) 775-1856 |
| |fosterbc@ |
| | |
|Frank J. Cooley |Bill C. Wells |
|SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY |Lt. Col. |
|2244 WALNUT GROVE AVENUE |TYNDALL AFB |
|ROSEMEAD CA 91770 |139 BARNES DRIVE, SUITE 1 |
|(626) 302-3115 |TYNDALL AFB FL 32403-5319 |
|frank.cooley@ |(850) 283-6347 |
|For: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (SCE) |bill.wells@afcesa.af.mil |
| |For: AIR FORCE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY |
| | |
|Peter S. Goeddel | |
|SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY |Sam Wise |
|PO BOX 800 |4045 PALOS VERDES DR. NORTH |
|2244 WALNUT GROVE AVENUE, SUITE 321 |ROLLING HILLS ESTATES CA 90274 |
|ROSEMEAD CA 91770 |(310) 377-1577 |
|(626) 302-3104 | |
|For: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON | |
| | |
| | |
|Stephen E. Pickett | |
|RONALD L. OLSON | |
|Attorney At Law | |
|SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY | |
|2244 WALNUT GROVE AVENUE | |
|ROSEMEAD CA 91770 | |
|(626) 302-1903 | |
|picketse@ | |
| | |
|Charles C. Read | |
|Attorney At Law | |
|STEPTOE & JOHNSON, LLP | |
|1330 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, N.W. | |
|WASHINGTON DC 20036 | |
|(202) 429-6244 | |
|cread@ | |
| | |
|Peter Fox-Penner, Ph.D. | |
|THE BRATTLE GROUP | |
|1133 20TH STREET NW, SUITE 800 | |
|WASHINGTON DC 20036 | |
|(202) 955-5050 | |
|peter_fox-penner@ | |
| | |
|Tony Wetzel | |
|THERMO ECOTEK CORPORATION | |
|1100 MELODY LANE, SUITE 206 | |
|ROSEVILLE CA 95678 | |
|(916) 773-2940 | |
|twetzel@ | |
|For: THERMO ECOTEK CORPORATION | |
| | |
| | |
|Fred Wesley Monier | |
|TURLOCK IRRIGATION DISTRICT | |
|PO BOX 949 | |
|333 EAST CANAL DRIVE | |
|TURLOCK CA 95381-0949 | |
|(209) 883-8321 | |
|fwmonier@ | |
(END OF APPENDIX A)
Appendix B (PDF):
Appendix C (PDF):
Appendix D (PDF):
Attachment B
Letter:
Charts:
-----------------------
[1]We also increased the eligibility criteria for the electric customers participating in the CARE program from 150% to 175% of the federal poverty guideline. Additional CARE eligibility and outreach issues are being addressed in proceedings now underway at the Commission, A.00-11-009 et al.
[2] Chapter 1010, Stats. 1975, Miller-Warren Energy Lifeline Act, Sec. 1(a) provides: “Light and heat are basic human rights and must be made available to all the people at low cost for basic minimum quantities.” Cf., Stats. 1982, ch. 1541, section 1(d), continuing this program in effect.
[3] All statutory references are to the Pub. Util. Code, unless otherwise noted.
[4] Stats. 1985, ch. 1392, Section 1 is a representative legislative declaration: “It is the intent of the legislature that the Public Utilities Commission take cognizance of the competitive disadvantages endured by many industrial users of large quantities of electricity in this state,…that the commission …adopt…rate structures for these users…so as to improve this competitive situation and enhance the business environment of California….”
[5] Representative public policy positions of the federal government are summarized in Attachment A. We take official notice of these public statements and policy positions of federal officials pursuant to Rule 73 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.
[6] The parties commented on rate design goals at the April 2, 2001 PHC and in comments filed on April 6, 2001.
[7] Although CDWR informed us by letter dated May 2, 2001 that its overall revenue requirement totals $9.2 billion through June 2002, we have not had an opportunity to incorporate this forecast into our allocation analysis here.
[8] See Bradford, Energy Division, 23 RT 3001-2. Bradford, one of three outside experts testifying in this proceeding, states that the eight rate design principles laid down by James Bonbright, the preeminent utility economist of the mid-20th century, have held up well over time and should be considered by the Commission here. The sixth such principle is: fairness of the specific rates and the apportionment of total costs of service among the existing customers.
[9] The exposure to blackouts and service interruptions cannot be prevented merely through increasing prices as reliability is dependent on many facts, including temperature, conservation effects and the ability of sellers to withhold capacity from California’s market.
[10] Percentage of baseline usage.
[11] Exhibit 116 PG&E Rate Design Testimony.
[12] Exhibit 111 ORA Testimony. ORA’s rates are slightly different from PG&E’s apparently because PG&E accounted for rate reduction bonds and the 1¢ surcharge and ORA did not.
[13] See Exhibit 98 TURN Testimony.
[14] Balancing accounts have been established in D.01-03-082, but for the purpose of recording revenues received from the authorized rate increases.
[15] Exhibit 127, p. 20.
[16] Yates, CLFP, Tr. 2435.
[17] We note that the sample bills provided by both PG&E and Edison in this proceeding meet this requirement
[18] We take this opportunity to re-affirm that, pursuant to AB 1X, CDWR does not sell electricity to utilities at wholesale, but rather sells it to retail end use customers. Under today’s decision, monies that the utilities collect from customers as agent for CDWR are based on the amount of CDWR-power supplied to those customers and the rates we authorize today.
[19] See, e.g., CAISO Summer Assessment prepared on March 22, 2001 that identifies resource deficiencies for June through September ranging from 600 MW to nearly 3,700 MW. This report can be accessed on the ISO’s website: .
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- getroman com reviews
- acurafinancialservices.com account management
- acurafinancialservices.com account ma
- getroman.com tv
- http cashier.95516.com bing
- http cashier.95516.com bingprivacy notice.pdf
- connected mcgraw hill com lausd
- education.com games play
- rushmorelm.com one time payment
- autotrader.com used cars
- b com 2nd year syllabus
- gmail.com sign in