COM/LYN/abw€¦ · Web view10460 HICKSON STREET EL MONTE CA 91731 (626) 575-7664 [email protected] For: Gregg Industries, Inc. Irene K. Moosen KELLY TILTON GRUENEICH RESOURCE

COM/LYN/abw DRAFT 1a

5/14/01

Decision ALTERNATE PROPOSED DECISION OF COMMISSIONER LYNCH (Mailed 5/9/2001)

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Application of Southern California Edison Company (E 3338-E) for Authority to Institute a Rate Stabilization Plan with a Rate Increase and End of Rate Freeze Tariffs.

Application 00-11-038(Filed November 16,

2000)

Emergency Application of Pacific Gas and Electric Company to Adopt a Rate Stabilization Plan. (U 39 E)

Application 00-11-056(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.)

97362

A.00-11-038 et al. COM/LYN/abwDRAFT

INTERIM OPINION REGARDING RATE DESIGNI. Summary

This decision adopts rates for various types of customers and applies this rate design to existing electric energy revenue needs for the provision of electricity by the California Department of Water Resources and the utilities to customers of Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) and Southern California Edison Company (Edison) namely, the three cent per kilowatt hour average rate increase adopted March 27, 2001. This decision responds to the energy crisis that has burdened California’s consumers and economy for the past 12 months and that shows no signs of improving in the near future. California consumers are facing an unbounded, unjust, unreasonable and wholly 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 severe pain that will be faced by the families, the farms and the businesses of California as a result of today’s order. 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.

Because of prices in the state’s wholesale markets, California

- 1 -


electricity rates will be higher than those in any industrialized economy. 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 adopts a revenue allocation between customers for the three -cent per kilowatt-hour (kWh) average rate increase authorized to be charged to the customers of Edison and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) in Decision (D.) 01-03-082. We recognize that these utilities are not now serving all their customers’ needs and that some electricity is being sold 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 allow the California Department of Water Resources (CDWR) to provide and pay for wholesale electricity sufficient to serve customers. The estimated revenue increment totals approximately $2.5 billion annually for the customers of each utility.1

As mandated by Assembly Bill (AB) 1X, this order exempts residential use below 130% of baseline and medical baseline customers from any increase. 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,

1 The rates we authorize will actually generate additional revenue through the end of 2001 in order to permit the utilities to recover the authorized rate increase between March and June 2001

2


2001 order.2 Finally, in response to the Governor’s wishes to spare agricultural customers the full measure of pain and recognizing the unique role agriculture plays in California and the nation’s economy, we cap agricultural rate increases at a range of 20-50 percent.

After accounting for these four adjustments – permitting recovery of the rate increases effective March 27, exempting residential usage below 130% of baseline as required by statute, exempting CARE-eligible customers from rate increases and capping rate increases for agricultural customers – the rate increases we implement in today’s order average 4.54 cents per kWh.

The average increases we approve today across all non-exempt customer classes range from 20 to 50 percent, except for customers eligible for the CARE program and for agricultural customers. Some customers may experience higher or lower bill increases depending on their usage. Through the device of a bill limiter, we will attempt to address customers who experience the most extreme bill increases. The new average rates – including distribution, transmission and energy - range from 11 cents per kWh for large businesses to 19 cents per kWh for small businesses served by Edison’s service territory. These average rates reflect the fact that the real cost of energy provided by DWR is being financed over time through the issuance of long term bonds, to be repaid by ratepayers. If the rates were set at the actual costs of energy customers consumed, substantially higher increases. Unless and until Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

2We 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.

3


(FERC) decides to enforce the law, even these astronomical average rates may prove inadequate.

Our 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 which it estimates to be $9.2 billion through June 2002. While retaining the 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 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.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., Public Utilities Code section 743, 743.1 and 744.4 The unconscionable and

3 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.” C.f., Stats. 1982, ch. 1541, section 1(d), continuing this program in effect.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….

4


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 record before us that will please no one, least of all ourselves.

In addition to the equity goal, we intend to promote conservation, in order to fundamentally reducing energy demand and energy usage. Wholesale price gouging occurs in all hours, and under all load conditions. Reducing total consumption in all hours is an appropriate response. Reducing energy consumption in peak hours additionally may achieve enhanced system reliability when California is projected to face the severest shortages. 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 migrate to energy meters to better control electrical use at times of greatest price or demand we also propose a separate rate for federal facilities that reflects federal policy statements in support of customer paying the cost of wholesale power as they are incurred. The rates adopted in this order become effective June 1, 2001. We intend to fine-tune them through additional proceedings in July. Specifically, we seek additional information and analysis of some rate design options. We also intend to monitor the effects of certain rate design and allocation methods adopted today.

5


II. BackgroundA. The March 27, 2001 OrderOur March 27, 2001 decision, D.01-03-082, adopted a rate

increase but did not adopt a rate design – specific rates to be applied to specific classes of customers. Conceptually, we decided to adopt inverted or “tiered” rates for those non-residential customer classes that do not have “time-of-use” rates. Pub. Util. Code § 739.75 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 that bears a higher cost. This approach, we believe, will encourage customers to pursue energy efficiency measures as directed by § 747.5.

B. 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….” PU Code 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 effort to implement tiered rates began with the assigned Commissioner proposing a specific tiered rate design, inviting comment, and setting forth a schedule. Hearings and workshops were conducted; the utilities filed reports recording billing systems and comments and briefs on the proposed were filed, all to obtain evidence regarding rate design and implementation.

The Commission held evidentiary hearings and Public Participation Hearings (PPHs) throughout Edison and PG&E’s service 5 All statutory references are to the Pub. Util. Code, unless otherwise noted.

6


territories to allow customers to provide 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.

After the conclusion of hearings on April 26, 2001, the parties filed briefs. The Administrative Law Judge 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.

C. Rate Design Principles and GoalsThe assigned commissioner’s March 27th ruling proposed certain

rate design principles:- Base-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’ views6 on the proposed rate design goals, President Lynch issued an ACR on April 11 that provided 6 At the April 2 PHC and in comments on April 6, 2001.

7


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 framework in response to the submissions of the parties.

We today adopt a rate design and intra-customer revenue allocation designed to achieve the following objectives: (1) reduce energy consumption and thereby reduce California’s liability for exorbitant wholesale power purchases; (2) allocate the unreasonable costs of this generation fairly, consistent with costs statuary mandates; (3) protect the most vulnerable customers; (4) ensure that no individual customers experience extreme hardship; and (5) provide customers, with ways to manage their energy usage and reduce their energy bills. 1. Equity

The outcome of traditional ratemaking is to reflect the reasonable cost of the service supplied. PU Code 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 collect the utility’s revenue requirement needed to supply electric service. California Manufacturers’ Association v. PUC, 24 C.3d 251, 257 (1979). However, cost recovery as a general goal of ratemaking 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

8


cannot precisely address the responsibility of various customers for costs associated with energy supply because we do not have sufficiently accurate information concerning the specific nature and extent of the costs relating to power purchases to date on behalf of the utilities and their customers by the CDWR. (Although CDWR informed us on May 2, 2001 that its revenue requirement is $9.2 billion through June 2002, we have not had an opportunity to incorporate this forecast into our analysis here.) Equity as we use it here transcends the application of simple mathematical formulas. In that context, we evaluate rate design proposals considering customers’ ability to pay and whether to limit the hardship rate increases impose on particularly vulnerable customers and specific classes of customers. We consider also the relative hardship imposed on various customer groups. This view of fairness is shared by Peter Bradford, one of three outside experts testifying in this proceeding. Bradford cites to Professor James Bonbright’s rate design principles, the sixth of which is: fairness of the specific rates and the apportionment of total costs of service a month the existing customers.7 2. Conservation

A fundamental goal of this proceeding is to promote energy conservation and to give customers the means to conserve when they are able. Wholesale power purchases in the past several months have been prohibitively expensive for all hours. This rate design will

7 Bradford, Energy Division, 23 RT 3001-2. Bradford states that the eight rate design principles laid down by James Bonbright, the preeminent utility economists of the mid-20th century, have held up well over time and should be considered by the Commission here. The eight principles are listed in Appendix A.

9


mitigate that expense by promoting conservation in all hours. We also hope to promote conservation during summer peak hours when prices are highest and the grid is most vulnerable to failure caused by shortages. By promoting energy conservation during summer peak hours, we attempt to limit blackouts and service interruptions in order to preserve public health and safety.8

During summer peak periods, PG&E, Edison and others project inadequate power supplies. They and others project a need for purchases by CDWR and the ISO to meet anticipated customer needs. Although this Commission does not posses sufficient information to determine the 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 in peak periods will be even more expensive.

The Governor’s 20/20 program will reward customers who reduce their overall electric consumption by 20% this summer. This incentive, combined with customer education, energy efficiency programs, and the price signal that higher rates will send customers, are ways to promote conservation. A reduction in total energy consumption will help protect Californians from blackouts and reduce the total financing or revenues needed for the state and the utilities to purchase electricity.

8 The exposure to blackouts and service interruptions cannot be prevented merely through increasing prices, reliability is dependent on many facts, including temperature, decreasing demand and the ability of sellers to withhold capacity from California’s market.

10


We are currently evaluating how conservation promotes 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 reduction programs. Moreover, the CEC pursuant to SB5X will spend $35 million this year to install interval meters on commercial customers’ facilities that use 200 kilowatts or more. These meters will encourage further conservation.III. Revenue Requirement Increase

Determining the revenue requirement increase is the first step in allocating costs and revenue and designing 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 made to consider in their testimony (see Exhibit B, attached). Given the summary nature and timing of the revenue requirements received from CDWR, we could not use CDWR’s numbers to establish a forecast. We adopt the sales forecasts presented by the utilities with the understanding that they have been subjected to limited scrutiny because of time constraints. We proceed to develop a rate design for all revenue requirements, including the 1¢/kWh increased authorized in D.01-01-018 and the 3¢/kWh increase authorized in D.01-03-082.

We also must determine whether to include the one-cent surcharge adopted January 4, 2001 and made permanent on March 27, 2001. On February 1, 2001, the California Legislature enacted and the Governor signed AB1X, which exempted residential usage below 130% of baseline from rate increases. Because the legislation

11


passed after we adopted the one-cent surcharge on January 4, usage below 130% is not exempt from the 1¢ surcharge, although it is exempt from the 3¢ surcharge. Thus, the two surcharges are subject to different exemptions.

While there may be some administrative ease in folding the two surcharges into one, the differing statutory exemptions preclude this seeming simplification. Moreover, in D.01-03-082, we clearly identified the 3¢/kWh 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 being considered in this proceeding. Therefore, the revenue allocation and rate design we discuss here applies only to the three-cent increase. Multiplying 3¢/kWh times SCE’s forecast system-wide sales for 2001 of 83.78 billion kWh results in an annual revenue increase of $2.513 billion. Multiplying the 3¢/kWh increase to PG&E’s forecast sales for 2001 results in an annual incremental revenue requirement of $ 2.46 billion. In adopting the three-cent surcharge in D.01-03-082, we did not specifically address the issue of allocating the collection 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 all power costs incurred after the effective date of this decision.”

Pursuant to AB1X, we have 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. PG&E and Edison are required to remit to CDWR the proceeds it owns for energy purchases on behalf of all retail customers, without

12


providing any exemptions for CARE-eligible usage or residential usage below 130% of baseline. Thus, is reasonable to base the revenue requirement on applying the surcharge to forecast system-wide sales. Therefore, while we reiterate out commitment to ensuring that the residential customers exempted from rate increases by AB1X do not pay the surcharge, for purposes of determining the overall revenue requirement, all sales should be included. IV. Revenue Allocation Between Customers

Having determined the revenue requirement amount each utility is authorized to collect, we next design rate structures that will permit the utilities to collect the authorized amounts for themselves and as agents for DWR. We must decide generally how to allocate the revenue increase among customer classes. We must also allocate the shortfall that results from exempting residential usage up to 130% of baseline consumption from any increase. The allocation and rate design adopted today concern only those revenues to be collected by way of the three cent 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 about half of residential customer sales will be exempt from rate increases.

A. Methodology for Revenue Allocation Among CustomersFor the last several years, the Commission is policy is that rates

to various types of customers reflect the costs customers impose on the utilities’ systems. We abandon this principle in part because we cannot match costs with rates. California’s wholesale energy market is dysfunctional and the prices set in that market are unconscionable

13


and unlawful. These prices bear little if any relationship to actual production costs. While circumstances in California markets have changed, the basic costs of production, other than fuel, have not. Simply put, the outrageously priced wholesale energy that causes us to take the extraordinary step of imposing this 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 refusing to impose any limitations. The price of wholesale energy is no longer a function of cost of production but rather a function of what price can be extracted from a market through manipulation.

Absent this data, we must find another methodology to allocate the revenue to be collected from customer. 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

14


the customer classes based on the total units of energy each class is forecast to consume during calendar year 2001.

Allocating the revenue requirement to customer classes based on the proportion of 2001 forecast total kWh sales to the class appears equitable. 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. 9 The dysfunctional wholesale market has created a unique crisis of unknown duration for California electric customers.

Applying the surcharge as broadly as possible is the fairest way to apportion the noncost-based price premium now extracted by sellers in the California wholesale electricity market should gain the widest public acceptance.

To apply the surcharge most broadly we begin by allocating the surcharge revenues to all usage across all customer groups. Some wage 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 in a later section..

B. Revenue Requirement Shortfalls1. Allocating Shortfall from 130% of Baseline Exemption

Having completed the allocation of revenue across the customer classes, we must allocate the revenue shortfalls resulting from exemptions to the surcharge. In AB1X, the Legislature added section

9 Marcus, TURN, 24 RT 3293; Brubaker, FEA, 19 RT 2504; McCann, CIPA/WMA, 22 RT 2873.

15


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 section exempts 130% of “baseline” usage. Baseline usage is defined in § 739(a). That section requires the Commission to establish a quantity of gas and electricity that is necessary to supply a “significant portion of the reasonable energy needs of the average residential customer.” This “baseline quantity” is defined to be between 50 and 60 percent of average residential consumption, with allowances for seasonal and climatic variations, in § 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 a increasing block rate structure. In addition, the Commission is directed to “establish an appropriate gradual difference between the rates for the respective blocks of usage.” § 739(c)(1). In 1976, the Commission determined the initial lifeline 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 approximately 50% of each utility’s residential sales from rate increases. The resulting shortfall is significant: 64% of SCE residential sales are exempt, and

16


62% of PG&E residential sales are exempt. We have before us three proposals for allocating this shortfall.

The first option is to recover the shortfall within residential rates. The second it to reallocate to all eligible sales, and the third is to allocate the increase to all non-residential sales.

TURN proposes that the revenue requirement be re-allocated to all non-exempt sales, observing that § 80110 is silent on the issue. All other parties10 addressing this issue propose to re-allocate the revenue requirement to all residential sales that are not included within the exemption. Under the re-allocation method supported by most of the parties, the residential customer group would be allocated significantly more of the revenue requirement, and see a significantly greater rate increase. The rate increase for SCE customers for the two methods is as follows:

Non-exempt All Non-Residential only Exempt

Residential 22% 9% Large Power 36% 43%

10 ORA took no position on this issue.

17


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 show the following increases under the two alternatives:

Allocated to Non- Allocated toExempt All Non-Residential only Exempt

Tier 1 (0 – 100%)11 11.412 12.513

Tier 2 (100 – 130%) 13.0 14.32 Tier 3 (130 – 200%) 19.5 16.66 Tier 4 (Over 200%) 28.9 20.30 Allocating the entire shortfall to residential customers only

creates dramatic price increases from Tier 2 to Tier 3 usage. The “only non-exempt residential” methodology creates more gradual (although still significant) rate increases as usage falls into the higher tiers.

Re-allocating the revenue requirement shortfall to remaining residential sales only creates rate spikes that are too severe. The cost of 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 customer classes equally. This method spreads the shortfall one-third to the residential class, one-third to commercial customers and one-

11 Percentage of baseline usage. 12 Exhibit 116 PG&E Rate Design Testimony. 13 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.

18


third to industrial customers, an outcome that takes a middle path between allocating the shortfall equally to all wage, 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-1. 2. CARE and Medical Baseline Exemption

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 medical baseline customers from the rate increases adopted in this order. The 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.3. Direct Access Customers

We next consider whether direct access customers should be required to pay any of the rate increase. We find that they should not because they 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 power CDWR purchases and delivery

19


to utility customers. It would be inequitable for direct access customers to pay for both their own cost of procurement and the procurement costs of bundled customers. 4. Amortization of Rate Increase as of March 27, 2001

In D.01-03-082 we adopted the 3 cent rate increase effective March 27, 2001. That decision also obligates SCE and PG&E to pay a generation-related rate including the 3¢/kWh surcharge to CDWR beginning on that date. Today’s decision determines the specific rate allocation and design of the surcharge and implements it as of the effective date of this order. During the intervening time, March 27th to the date that SCE and PG&E begin applying the surcharge or customer bills, SCE and PG&E have been obligated by Commission order to pay the funds to CDWR but have not been able to collect the amounts from their respective customers. PG&E and SCE therefore seek to recover the revenue shortfall from this time period over some period in the future. SCE 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 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

14 Balancing accounts have been established in D.01-03-082, but only for the purpose of recording revenues received from the authorized rate increases.

20


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 these decision that could possibly violate § 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, § 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 § 728. Accordingly, we see no possible violation of any prohibition against retroactive ratemaking here.

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 should be added to the overall revenue requirement allocated among customer classes through this decision. From an equity standpoint, a 3-month summer amortization would undoubtedly cause undue stress on summer rates, which will already be very high. The three-month surcharge may place a severe hardship upon industries that have heavy summer usage, such as the agricultural industry. We therefore authorize the utilities to amortize the unrecovered amount over twelve months, as PG&E proposes. The shortfall will be allocated consistent with the allocation of the shortfall for baseline and CARE exemptions.

21


V. Preliminary Matters in Rate DesignA. Moving to Time of Use Meters for Commercial CustomersOne proposal before us would require certain commercial

customers to shift from the tariff schedules to which they currently subscribe to time-of-use meters. This change to 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 to both help avoid blackouts and 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 existing law provides that customers should have available to them the rate schedules available on June 10, 1996 during the rate freeze period, 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. We will move forward within the next six weeks to monitor the status of the CEC’s metering efforts and to refine further the metering concepts discussed in briefs and at hearings into concrete implementation proposals.

We do find that customers who take advantage of the metering

22


program offered by the 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 Energy Commission’s plan for its time-of-use meter installation program and will work with the Energy Commission to assure that their programs and utility rate schedules are complementary.

B. Definitions for Agricultural TariffsSeveral parties, including the California League of Food

Processors, the Farm Bureau, and the Wine Institute, urge us to adopt the recommendation of § 740.11 (added by SB 5X on April 11, 2001), and to change 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. Charging these tariffs deserves further immediate exploration. Making such a change would require that we craft a new definition of “agricultural commodity food processors.” While the parties presented some suggestions on how to accomplish definitional changes, we do not have before us a record that analyzes the ramifications of each alternative.

Moreover, we decline to rework these definitions in this order

23


because those changes may require other customers to assume a revenue shortfall, that is, it may permit “cost shifting” in violation of Section 740.11.

Moreover, PG&E and Edison maintain that it is not feasible to adopt the proposed customer migration before summer’s end. Customers who qualify for the rate migration need to be identified and the difference in usage from other industrial customers understood. On an immediate basis over the next six weeks, we will hold workshops and obtain evidence to analyze this proposal further, explicitly specify the type of customer eligible to migrate, and examine the impact of cost shifting upon other customer groups.

C. Bill Limiters and Special Schedules Some parties propose “bill limiters” to protect 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. Some parties have suggested special schedules to protect their constituents. In the short term, we prefer bill limiters to address the concerns of a particular group while the effects of migration are considered. Customers who currently take service from industrial rate schedules should be protected by bill limiters, which can help limit the hardship created by equal cents per kWh surcharge. SCE 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, 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

24


bill limiters may have some troubling conservation impacts, at some point price signals are unbearable for customers. Bill limiters will protect customers from unanticipated extraordinary bill impacts.

We acknowledge that implementing bill limiters customers may result in a revenue shortfall. We expect this shortfall to be small as bill limiters affect bills of only those few customers with extremely high usage—the outlier customer. PG&E and SCE should allocate shortfalls from bill limiters consistent with the allocation adopted for CARE and baseline shortfalls. 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.

D. Residential Rate DesignWith these parameters we adopt tiered rates for residential

customers because of their conservation effects and because AB1X1 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 captures usage up to the baseline amount. Tier 2 represents usage from 100 per cent of baseline to

130 percent of baseline. Tier 3 reflects usage from 130 percent of baseline to 200 percent.

Tier 4 captures usage from 200 percent of baseline to 300 percent.

Tier 5 captures usage in excess of 300 percent of baseline.Tiers 1 and 2 rates will not increase. The increase between Tier

25


3 and Tier 4 is double the increase from Tier 2 to Tier 3. The Tier 5 rate is sufficient to allow recovery 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 the tiers 3 through 5 include the residential class allocation, and the residential class’ share of the shortfalls due to CARE, medical baseline allowances, and the 130% exemption.

Increasing block tiers 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 to encourage conservation through higher rates above threshold usage.

E. PG&E’s E-8 SchedulesThe 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. For that reason, we would eliminate residential Schedule E-8 at this time except that, as we discussed above, AB 15 Exhibit 127, p. 20.

26


1890 may operate to require that customers be offered the same services that were in effect on June 10, 1996 through the rate freeze period. In addition, we expect some conservation by customers on E-8 rates because so few consumers use less than 130% of baseline quantities. Therefore, these customers will realize substantial rate increases if they do not reduce energy consumption. We will revisit this issue during our mid-course correction proceedings in light of the conservation and equity effects of Schedule E-8.VI. Non-Residential Rate Design

A. Tiering Parties generally agreed that non-residential use should not be

tiered at this time, given these expected evidentiary proceedings. TURN and the Farm Bureau proposed tiered commercial and industrial rates. TURN proposes an extremely low first tier, where the majority of usage would 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 punish 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 impacts of tiered rate design changes. For now, we believe a rate increase of 3 cents provides the appropriate conservation incentive for commercial and industrial customers. These price signals will combine with the myriad conservation and incentives program offered through legislation, and Commission order

27


promote enhanced enervation measures for commercial and industrial customers.

One alternative to tiering discussed in our hearings involves specifying rates by SIC classification. While this proposal deserves further analysis and examination of implementation possibilities, at this stage we have neither sufficient time nor sufficient information to create specialized rates. Further, neither utility has all the SIC classifications of their consumers and both would require significant billing system changes before implementation. For these reasons, we cannot adopt tiering on the basis of industry codes at this time.

We intend to further investigate the idea of industry-specific rates. We are open to further investigate 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 TOU customers for the same reasons that we reject tiering for non-residential, non-time of use 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 implementation obstacles. Neither SCE nor PG&E can implement tiering for TOU customers on their billing systems by June 1.

B. Non-TOU SchedulesWe 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 revenue requirement is allocated to the

28


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 for increases during summer months only 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 . This methodology reconciles differing proposals.

For larger customers with declining block schedules, such as GS-2 and PA-2 for SCE, existing declining block rates shall be modified to become increasing block rates. Eliminating the declining block rate structure improves conservation incentives to this group of customers and adheres to our goal to discourage and reward customers for lower amounts of usage.

C. Time of Use Parties proposed three primary proposals to change rates for

existing time-of-use schedules. The first, promoted by SCE, 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 sufficiently promote conservation during the hours of peak demand when the electric system is under the most strain.

We reject proposals that increase rates most during summer

29


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 do not accept the methodology advanced in the rate design proposal published by the Assigned Commissioner Ruling on March 27, 2001.

We adopt the approach proposed by TURN and CLECA 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 shall be in effect to ensure that those customers do not suffer extraordinary price shocks.

D. “Super Peak” RateThe California League of Food Processors proposes a 3-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 reject 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 required 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

16 Yates, CLFP, Tr. 2435.

30


proceeding to obtain further evidence as to its operation and effects on certain industry segments and or overall revenue requirements.

E. 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. Local governments are not distinguished 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.

F. Federal Generation Based TariffsORA proposed a rate for federal agencies that would reflect

market prices for their electricity consumption. This proposal has considerable appeal because the federal government has publicly stated its support for customer rates to reflect the full market price of power. The Attachment presents FERC and federal, administration public statements supporting market rates. This record does not permit us to adopt any particular rate schedule at this time. We therefore order the utilities to create a new tariff that would apply to federal agencies and facilities taking electricity service from SCE or PG&E. The citizens of California should not have to subsidize the electrical consumption of federal agencies through CDWR’s procurement of exceedingly expensive wholesale electricity.

However, this Commission possesses broad ratemaking authority to institute pilot programs. We believe testing the federal government’s assumptions as to the benefits of passing through real

31


time wholesale prices in retail rates deserves further consideration. We are unwilling to expose California businesses, farms or families to such price levels or price volatility. However, we recognize the federal government’s stated preference for adoption of electric retail rates based on concurrent wholesale costs and we therefore propose to institute a pilot program to permit federal customers to implement the pricing theories that they espouse. We recognize that federal agencies take service under a variety of schedules. Setting rates that reflect market prices would be most meaningful if the facilities had 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 faculties 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.

G. AgriculturalAgriculture depends heavily on summer on-peak usage and some

agricultural customers have a limited ability to shift demand to other periods. 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 also cap agricultural rate increases at 30% for both time-of-use and non-time-of-use customers. The shortfall from the 30% cap is to be spread over all eligible customer classes, including streetlights and residential consumers above 130% of baseline.

We provide additional protection to agriculture customers by

32


adopting a bill limiter of 250% on energy charges. 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.

H. Master Meter CustomersMaster 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 AB1X1, which exempts customers using less than 130% of baseline from the surcharge, and Pub. Util. Code § 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 the 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.

33


I. Streetlight and Traffic Light SchedulesWe allocate a rate increase to the streetlight and outdoor

lighting schedules on 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 size of customer. The goal of TURN’s rate design is to encourage the replacement of the more inefficient lighting technologies. We encourage the replacement of inefficient lighting technologies, however, we believe the rate increase, in combination with energy efficiency programs, will prompt cities and counties to invest in the 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, even 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.

J. CIPA’s Credit for Interruptible CustomersThe 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 and we decline to provide any additional rate advantage.

34


VII. Other IssuesA. Tracking and posting dataInforming 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 SCE 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 at 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

35


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 the statistically representative customer served under sixteen separate rate schedules. PG&E cautions that while a comparison of this year’s load profile with last year’s may provide some feedback on the success of conservation efforts, it maintains that this data is not sufficient to determine individual price responses, and that the comparisons should be controlled for weather-related effects.

ORA generally support 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

36


than relying solely on the utilities. We agree and intend to use our website for these purposes, as time and resources become available.

B. Expedited installation of interval metersCurrent metering capabilities place significant limitations on

rate design. Customers that 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 to promptly 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 peak load. 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 time of use 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

37


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 utilities expenditures with a workable cost recovery mechanism.

We will closely monitor the CEC’s progress, and commit to providing any necessary assistance to ensure timely installation of the meters. The CEC maintains that it is working with the utilities and the ISO to meet the price information requirement. We direct our staff to cooperate and assist in these efforts.

C. 10% Rate Discount Associated with Rate Reduction BondsPursuant to § 368(a), PG&E’s and SCE’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 § 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, 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. § 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

38


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 in this decision. We 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, SCE 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 SCE shall apply the rate reduction to rates in effect prior to the surcharges.

D. Bill displayWe provide direction with respect to 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 to serve customers. The customer bill format must communicate the direct correlation

39


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 allowing consumers 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 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, 101% to 130%, 131% to 200%, 201% to 300% and over 300%. Time of use customer bills will categorize the new rates under off-peak, mid-peak and on-peak classifications, as applicable. Likewise, 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. VIII. Next Steps

As discussed above, we are interested in implementing a real time pricing (RTP) program as soon as the technical impediments can be resolved. The technical impediments are (1) any delays the CEC

40


experiences in implementing its $35 million SB1X 5 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 market.

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 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 facilitated by Energy Division on May 21, 2001 and 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

41


time and resources necessary to thoroughly review the issues. 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 quickly make a 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 surcharge, 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. IX. Issuance of the Proposed Decision

The proposed decision was issued on May 9, 2001. Parties filed and served comments on the proposed decision on May 10 and appeared for final oral argument (FOA) before a quorum of the Commission on May 11. Public Utilities Code Section 311(d) generally requires, in matters that have gone to hearing, a 30-day period between service of an assigned Commissioner’s or ALJ’s proposed decision and the Commission’s issuance of the decision. However, Section 311(d) provides that that period may be reduced or waived by the Commission “in an unforeseen emergency or upon the stipulation of all parties to the proceeding or as otherwise provided by law.”

42


Although not expressly stated in Section 311(d), the 30-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 days17 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 30-day advance publication period of Section 311(d) to six 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

1. 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.

2. Reducing energy consumption will help protect Californians from blackouts and reduce the state’s liability for electricity purchases.

17 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: http://www.caiso.com.

43


3. 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.

4. Energy prices for summer 2001 are forecasted to be high, especially during peak periods.

5. Increasing rates during peak periods for customers on TOU schedules will maximize the value of conserving energy at peak times.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. The sales forecasts presented by SCE and PG&E are adequate for the limited purpose of calculating utility revenue requirements.

9. 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.

10. The one-cent surcharge is reflected in the rates that are the foundation for the rate design adopted in this proceeding.

11. On the basis of the adopted sales forecast, a three-cent per kilowatt rate increase provides an annual revenue increase in Edison’s service territory of $2.513 billion.

- 44 -


12. On the basis of the adopted sales forecast, a three-cent per kilowatt hour rate increase provides an annual revenue increase in PG&E’s service territory of $ 2.46 billion.

13. Allocating the surcharge revenue requirement on an equal cents per kilowatt hour is equitable and simple.

14. CDWR presented a forecast revenue requirement to the Commission on May 2, 2001, which is $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.

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. Direct access customers do not impose liabilities on CDWR, PG&E or SCE for procuring power.

19. It would be inequitable for direct access customers to pay for their own cost of procurement and a share of the costs incurred on

45


behalf of customers who purchase power from PG&E, Edison and CDWR.

20. 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.

21. 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.

22. Bill limiters would mitigate the impact of rate increases on individual customers.

23. The revenue shortfall from implementing bill limiters is likely to be small and may be recovered by way of accounts that track the undercollection.

24. Rates that increase as usage increases equitably allocate cost liability among residential customers because customers who use more power pay increasingly higher rates.

25. 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 amountb. Tier 2 From 100 – 130 % of baselinec. Tier 3 From 130 – 200 % of baselined. Tier 4 From 200 – 300 % of baselinee. Tier 5 In excess of 300 % of baseline.

26. The components of the rate increase in tiers 3,4 and 5 include the residential class allocation, and the residential class’ share of the

46


shortfalls due to CARE, medical baseline allowances, and the 130% exemption.

27. Schedule E-8 energy rates do not recover the costs of serving schedule E-8 customers.

28. 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.

29. A uniformly applied rate increase of 3¢/kWh to the nonresidential class provides a reasonable incentive for those customers to conserve electricity.

30. 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.

31. Neither Edison nor PG&E can implement tiered TOU rates by June 1, 2001 because of billing system constraints.

32. 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.

33. Declining block rates should eliminated in favor of increasing rate blocks to improve conservation incentives.

34. A rate increase that is spread equally across all time periods does not sufficiently promote conservation during the hours of peak demand.

47


35. 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.

36. Many agricultural customers depend heavily on summer on-peak usage and have a limited ability to shift their demand to other periods.

37. Agricultural customers are disproportionately affected by the rate increases in this year due because the impacts of the energy crisis are compounded by drought.

38. Capping agricultural rate increases at 30% will mitigate the effects of the rate increase.

39. A bill limiter of 250% for agricultural customers will mitigate the liability of some customers for extraordinary cost increases.

40. Master meter customers will have to revise their billing systems to incorporate new surcharges, and to comply with Water Code § 80110 and Pub. Util. Code § 739.5, by June 1, 2001.

41. It would be inequitable for master metered customers to be exempt from paying the surcharge while charging their tenants for the surcharge.

42. 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.

43. Interruptible customers receive a substantial pricing incentive, which cannot be altered until March 31, 2002, pursuant to § 743.1(b).

44. 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.

48


45. 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.

46. The customer bill format must communicate the direct correlation between electricity supply, price, usage, and consumption patterns in order to promote price-responsive behavior.

47. Consumers are most likely to respond to price signals when their bills provide sufficient detail allowing consumers to identify and understand pricing structures.

48. The customer bill does not provide sufficient space to accommodate comprehensive information about the rate increase.

49. FERC representatives have publicly advocated in favor of customers facing the actual cost of wholesale power purchases as they are incurred.

50. 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.

51. The ISO has predicted more than 30 days of rolling blackouts of electricity supply over the upcoming summer.

52. Electricity supply blackouts can severely impair public health and safety.

53. On January 17, 2001, Governor Davis declared a State of Emergency due to the energy shortage in California.

49


Conclusions of Law1. Water Code § 80110 exempts all residential usage below 130% of

baseline from any increase in electricity charges after February 1, 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 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) allocate the costs of this generation in a fair and understandable manner to all customers; (3) protects the most vulnerable customers; (4) ensures no individual customers experience extreme hardship; 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

50


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(d) exists for purposes reducing the 30-day advance publication period of

51


Section 311(d) 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.

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 affect 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 cent/kWh surcharge adopted in D.01-03-082 shall be based

52


on applying the surcharge to forecast system-wide sales excluding direct access sales. The rates attached to this order reflect revenue allocation and rate design including direct access sales. PG&E and Edison’s work papers 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 cent/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 shortfall resulting from applying the 3¢/kWh surcharge approved in D.01-03-082 to forecast sales to bundled service residential customers below 130% of baseline, the agricultural rate cap, bill limiters, CARE customers, and medical baseline customers shall be re-allocated to each of the three customer classes equally one-third to each, and not to sales that are exempt from the 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) PG&E and Edison shall each establish a balancing account to track the actual bill limiter revenue shortfall amount compared to the allocation of the bill limiter shortfalls required pursuant to Ordering Paragraph 1f, above.

53


Balances in these accounts will be reviewed in PG&E’s and Edison’s next respective electric rate design proceedings.

h) 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 amountb. Tier 2 From 100 – 130 % of baselinec. Tier 3 From 130 – 200 % of baselined. Tier 4 From 200 – 300 % of baselinee. Tier 5 In excess of 300 % of baseline.

i) 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.

j) Non-TOU non-residential customer class shall have a bill limiter of 300% of class usage.

k) Rate schedules that incorporate declining blocks shall be modified to be an increasing block structure.

l) 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.

m)Agriculture rates shall be subject to a bill limiter of 250% on energy charges.

n) The surcharge revenue requirement shall be allocated to the streetlight, traffic signals and outdoor lighting schedules on equal cents per kilowatt-hour basis.

o) The 10% RRB-financed reduction to rates shall apply to rates in effect prior to implementation of the 1¢/kWh and 3¢/kWh surcharges.

p) 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.

2. PG&E and Edison shall amortize the revenue associated with

54


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.

3. 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.

4. 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 June 1, 2001.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.

55


This order is effective today.Dated ____________________, at San Francisco, California.

56

APPENDIX A

LIST OF APPEARANCES

************ APPEARANCES ************

Gerald Lahr ABAG POWER 101 8TH STREET OAKLAND CA 94607 (510) 464-7908 [email protected] For: ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS (ABAG)

Katherine S. Poole ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO 651 GATEWAY BLVD., SUITE 900 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CA 94080 (650) 589-1660 [email protected] For: The Coalition of California Utility Employees

Marc D. Joseph Attorney At Law ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO 651 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, SUITE 900 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CA 94080 (650) 589-1660 [email protected] For: The Coalition of California Utility Employees

William P. Adams ADAMS ELECTRICAL SAFETY CONSULTING 716 BRETT AVENUE ROHNERT PARK CA 94928-4012 (707) 795-7549 For: SELF

Aaron Thomas AES NEWENERGY, INC. 350 S. GRAND AVENUE, SUITE 2950 LOS ANGELES CA 90071 (213) 996-6136 [email protected] For: New Energy Ventures, Inc.

James Weil AGLET CONSUMER ALLIANCE PO BOX 1599 FORESTHILL CA 95631 (530) 367-3300 [email protected] For: AGLET CONSUMER ALLIANCE

Michael Aguirre Attorney At Law AGUIRRE & MEYER 1060 8TH AVENUE, SUITE 300 SAN DIEGO CA 92101 (619) 235-8636 [email protected] For: RATEPAYERS/UCAN

Carrie H. Allen AKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER & FELD, LLP 1333 NEW HAMPSHIRE AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON DC 20036 (202) 887-4444 [email protected] For: CE Generation

Michael Alcantar Attorney At Law ALCANTAR & KAHL LLP 1300 SW 5TH AVENUE., SUITE 1750 PORTLAND OR 97201 (503) 402-9900 [email protected] For: Cogeneration Association of California

Evelyn Kahl Attorney At Law ALCANTAR & KAHL, LLP 120 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 2200 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94104 (415) 421-4143 [email protected] For: Energy Producers & Users Coalition

Edward G. Poole Attorney At Law ANDERSON & POOLE 601 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 1300 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94108 (415) 956-6413 [email protected] For: California Independent Petroleum Association and Sun-Maid Growers of California

Daniel W. Douglass Attorney At Law ARTER & HADDEN LLP 5959 TOPANGA CANYON BLVD., STE 244 WOODLAND HILLS CA 91367 (818) 596-2201 [email protected] For: ALLIANCE OF RETAIL MARKETS and WESTERN POWER TRADING FORUM

mailto:[email protected]












Barbara R. Barkovich BARKOVICH AND YAP, INC. 32 EUCALYPTUS LANE SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 (415) 457-5537 [email protected] For: California Large Energy Consumers Association (CLECA)

Reed V. Schmidt BARTLE WELLS ASSOCIATES 1889 ALCATRAZ AVENUE BERKELEY CA 94703 (510) 653-3399 [email protected] For: California City County Streetlight Association (CAL-SLA)

Marco Gomez Attorney At Law BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT 800 MADISON STREET, 5TH FLOOR OAKLAND CA 94607 (510) 464-6058 [email protected] For: Bay Area Rapid Transit District

Roger Berliner BERLINER, CANDON & JIMISON 1225 19TH STREET, N.W., SUITE 800 WASHINGTON DC 20036 (202) 955-6067 [email protected] For: Internal Services Department of Los Angeles County (LACISD)

A Brubaker BRUBAKER & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1215 FERN RIDGE PARKWAY, SUITE 208 ST. LOUIS MO 63141 (314) 275-7007 [email protected] For: Brubaker & Associates, Inc.

Jonathan M. Weisgall V.P. Legislative & Regulatory Affairs CALENERGY COMPANY, INC. 1200 NEW HAMPSHIRE AVE., NW, SUITE 300 WASHINGTON DC 20036 (202) 828-1378 [email protected]

Fernando De Leon Attorney At Law CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION

Robert Pernell CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION 1516 9TH STREET SACRAMENTO CA 95829 (916) 654-5036 [email protected] For: CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION (CEC)

Karen Norene Mills Attorney At Law CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION 2300 RIVER PLAZA DRIVE SACRAMENTO CA 95833 (916) 561-5655 [email protected] For: California Farm Bureau Federation

Ronald Liebert Attorney At Law CALIFORNIA FARM BUREAU FEDERATION 2300 RIVER PLAZA DRIVE SACRAMENTO CA 95833 (916) 561-5657 [email protected] For: California Farm Bureau Federation

Ed Yates CALIFORNIA LEAGUE OF FOOD PROCESSORS 980 NINTH STREET, SUITE 230 SACRAMENTO CA 95814 (916) 444-9260 [email protected] For: California League of Food Processors

Lisa G. Urick Attorney At Law CALIFORNIA POWER EXCHANGE CORPORATION 200 S. LOS ROBLES AVENUE, SUITE 400 PASADENA CA 91101-2482 (626) 537-3328 [email protected] For: CALIFORNIA POWER EXCHANGE

Tom Smegal CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 1720 NORTH FIRST STREET SAN JOSE CA 95112 (408) 367-8235 [email protected] For: California Water Association

2














1516 9TH STREET, MS-14 SACRAMENTO CA 95814-5512 (916) 654-4873 [email protected] For: CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION

Jennifer Chamberlin CHEVRON ENERGY SOLUTIONS 345 CALIFORNIA ST., 32ND FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO CA 94104 (415) 733-4661 [email protected] For: Chevron Energy Solutions

Theresa Mueller Deputy City Attorney CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102 (415) 554-4640 [email protected] For: City & County of San Francisco

Bill Mc Callum CITY OF FRESNO 5607 W. JENSEN AVENUE FRESNO CA 93607 (559) 498-1728 [email protected] For: CITY OF FRESNO

Frederick Ortlieb Deputy City Attorney CITY OF SAN DIEGO 1200 THIRD AVENUE, 11TH FLOOR SAN DIEGO CA 92101 (619) 236-6220 [email protected] For: CITY OF SAN DIEGO

John Tooker City Manager CITY OF YUCAIPA 34272 YUCAIPA BLVD. YUCAIPA CA 92399 (909) 797-2489

Bill Powers CONGRESS OF CALIFORNIA SENIORS 1228 N STREET, SUITE 29 SACRAMENTO CA 95814 (916) 442-4474 [email protected]

Howard Choy Energy Management Division Manager COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES INTERNAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT 1100 NORTHEASTERN AVENUE LOS ANGELES CA 90063 (323) 881-3939 [email protected] For: COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Patrick Mcguire TOM BEACH CROSSBORDER ENERGY 2560 NINTH STREET, SUITE 316 BERKELEY CA 94710 (510) 649-9790 [email protected] For: Watson Cogeneration Company

Tom Beach CROSSBORDER ENERGY 2560 NINTH ST., SUITE 316 BERKELEY CA 94710 (510) 649-9790 [email protected] For: Watson Cogeneration Company

Treg Tremont Attorney At Law DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, SUITE 600 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111-3834 (415) 276-6500 [email protected] For: Costco Wholesale Corporation

Lindsey How-Downing Attorney At Law DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, STE 600 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111-3834 (415) 276-6500 [email protected] For: CALPINE CORPORATION

Edward W. O'Neill

3













For: CONGRESS OF CALIFORNIA SENIORS

Howard Owens HOYT MINKOFF CONSUMER FEDERATION OF CALIFORNIA 1228 N STREET, SUITE 29 SACRAMENTO CA 95814 (916) 554-7621 [email protected] For: CONSUMER FEDERATION OF CALIFORNIA

Attorney At Law DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, LLP ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, STE 600 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111-3834 (415) 276-6500 [email protected] For: El Paso Natural Gas Company

Norman J. Furuta Attorney At Law DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY 900 COMMODORE DRIVE, BLDG. 107 SAN BRUNO CA 94066-5006 (650) 244-2100 [email protected] For: Federal Executive Agencies

Dan L. Carroll Attorney At Law DOWNEY BRAND SEYMOUR & ROHWER, LLP 555 CAPITOL MALL, 10TH FLOOR SACRAMENTO CA 95814 (916) 441-0131 [email protected] For: CALIFORNIA INDUSTRIAL USERS

Colin L. Pearce DUANE MORRIS & HECKSCHER 100 SPEAR STREET, SUITE 1500 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105 (415) 371-2200 [email protected] For: Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD)

Thomas M. Berliner Attorneys At Law DUANE MORRIS & HECKSCHER 100 SPEAR STREET, SUITE 1500 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105 (415) 371-2200 [email protected] For: Sacramento Municipal Utility District

Douglas K. Kerner Attorney At Law ELLISON, SCHNEIDER & HARRIS 2015 H STREET SACRAMENTO CA 95814 (916) 447-2166 [email protected] For: Independent Energy Producers Association

Diane Fellman Attorney At Law ENERGY LAW GROUP LLP 1999 HARRISON STREET, SUITE 2700 OAKLAND CA 94612-3572 (510) 874-4301 [email protected] For: PacificCrockett Energy, Inc.

Andrew J. Skaff Attorney At Law ENERGY LAW GROUP, LLP 1999 HARRISON STREET, 27TH FLOOR OAKLAND CA 94612 (510) 874-4330 [email protected] For: New York Mercantile Exchange/Dynegy, Inc.

Carolyn Kehrein ENERGY MANAGEMENT SERVICES 1505 DUNLAP COURT DIXON CA 95620-4208 (707) 678-9586 [email protected] For: Energy Users Forum

4












Lynn M. Haug ANDY BROWN Attorney At Law ELLISON & SCHNEIDER 2015 H STREET SACRAMENTO CA 95814-3109 (916) 447-2166 [email protected] For: East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD)

Andrew B. Brown Attorney At Law ELLISON, SCHNEIDER & HARRIS 2015 H STREET SACRAMENTO CA 95814 (916) 447-2166 [email protected] For: CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES (DGS)

Patrick Mcdonnell ENSERCH ENERGY SERVICES SUITE 290 711 GRAND AVENUE SAN RAFAEL CA 94901 [email protected] For: Enserch Energy Services

Nancy Ryan ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE 5655 COLLEGE AVENUE OAKLAND CA 94618 (510) 658-8008 [email protected] For: Environmental Defense

James D. Squeri Attorney At Law GOODIN MACBRIDE SQUERI RITCHIE & DAY LLP505 SANSOME STREET, SUITE 900 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111 (415) 392-7900 [email protected] For: California Retailers Association

Jeanne M. Bennett Attorney At Law GOODIN MACBRIDE SQUERI RITCHIE & DAY LLP505 SANSOME STREET, SUITE 900 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111 (415) 392-7900 [email protected] For: Alliance for Retail Markets and Enron Corporation

Michael B. Day Attorney At Law GOODIN MACBRIDE SQUERI RITCHIE & DAY LLP505 SANSOME STREET, SUITE 900 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111-3133 (415) 392-7900 [email protected] For: ENRON ENERGY SERVICES, INC., ENRON NORTH AMERICA

Richard H. Counihan GREENMOUNTAIN.COM 50 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 1500 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111 (415) 439-5310

Kelly R. Tilton Attorney At Law GRUENEICH RESOURCE ADVOCATES 582 MARKET STREET, SUITE 1020 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94104 (415) 834-2300 [email protected] For: University of California/California State University

Morten Henrik Greidung HAFSLUND ENERGY TRADING, LLC 101 ELLIOT AVE., SUITE 510 SEATTLE WA 98119 (206) 436-0640 [email protected] For: HAFSLUND ENERGY TRADING, LLC

James Hodges 4720 BRAND WAY SACRAMENTO CA 95819 (916) 451-7011 [email protected] For: TELACU and Maravilla Foundation

Jan Smutny-Jones Association INDEPENDENT ENERGY PRODUCERS 1112 I STREET, STE. 380 SACRAMENTO CA 95814-2896 (916) 448-9499 [email protected]

5













[email protected] For: GREEN MOUNTAIN ENERGY RESOURCES

David L. Marshall GREGG INDUSTRIES, INC. 10460 HICKSON STREET EL MONTE CA 91731 (626) 575-7664 [email protected] For: Gregg Industries, Inc.

Irene K. Moosen KELLY TILTON GRUENEICH RESOURCE ADVOCATES 582 MARKET STREET, SUITE 1020 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94104-5305 (415) 834-2300 [email protected] For: Sonoma County Water Agency

William B. Marcus JBS ENERGY, INC. 311 D STREET, SUITE A WEST SACRAMENTO CA 95605 (916) 372-0534 [email protected] For: TURN (EXPERT WITNESS)

Norman A. Pedersen Esquire JONES DAY REAVES & POGUE 555 WEST FIFTH STREET, SUITE 4600 LOS ANGELES CA 90013-1025 (213) 243-2810 [email protected] For: Commonwealth Energy Corporation and Automated Power Exchange Inc. & Frito Lay, Inc.

Bill Bishop JR. WOOD, INC. PO BOX 545 ATWATER CA 95301 (209) 358-5643 [email protected] For: Jr. Wood, Inc. and Manufacturers Council of the Central Valley (MCCV)

Kathleen Kiernan-Harrington JAMES WEIL SUITE 200 720 MARKET STREET SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102 (415) 781-5348 [email protected] For: GOLDEN GATE RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION

Daniel L. Rial KINDER MORGAN ENERGY PARTNERS 1100 TOWN & COUNTRY ROAD ORANGE CA 92868 (714) 560-4854 [email protected] For: Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, SFPP, L.P., CALNEV

Ron Knecht 1465 MARLBAROUGH AVENUE LOS ALTOS CA 94024-5742 (650) 968-0115 [email protected] For: SELF

Thomas S. Knox

William H. Booth Attorney At Law LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM H. BOOTH 1500 NEWELL AVENUE, 5TH FLOOR WALNUT CREEK CA 94596 (925) 296-2460 [email protected] For: California Large Energy Consumers Assn.

Christopher A. Hilen Attorney At Law LEBOEUF LAMB GREENE & MACRAE LLP ONE EMBARCADERO CENTER, SUITE 400 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111 (415) 951-1141 [email protected] For: RELIANT ENERGY POWER GENERATION, INC.

John W. Leslie Attorney At Law LUCE FORWARD HAMILTON & SCRIPPS, LLP 600 WEST BROADWAY, SUITE 2600 SAN DIEGO CA 92101-3391 (619) 699-2536 [email protected]

6














Attorney At Law KNOX, LEMMON & ANAPOCSKY, LLP ONE CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 700 SACRAMENTO CA 95814 (916) 498-9911 [email protected] For: Leprino Foods

Susan E. Brown Attorney At Law LATINO ISSUES FORUM 785 MARKET STREET, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103-2003 (415) 284-7224 [email protected] For: LATINO ISSUES FORUM

C. Susie Berlin Attorney At Law LAW OFFICES OF BARRY F. MC CARTHY 2105 HAMILTON AVENUE, SUITE 140 SAN JOSE CA 95125 (408) 558-0950 [email protected] For: NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POWER AGENCY

For: SHELL ENERGY SERVICES, LLC

Steven Moss M.CUBED 673 KANSAS STREET SAN FRANCISCO CA 94107 (415) 643-9578 [email protected] For: WESTERN MOBILHOME PARK ASSOCIATION

David Huard RANDALL KEEN MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS 11355 W. OLYMPIC BLVD LOS ANGELES CA 90064 (310) 312-4247 [email protected] For: CALIFORNIA HEALTHCARE ASSOCIATION

Matthew V. Brady Attorney At Law MATTHEW V. BRADY & ASSOCIATES 300 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 1100 SACRAMENTO CA 95814 (916) 442-5600 [email protected] For: Shasta Hydroelectric, Inc.

David J. Byers Attorney At Law MCCRACKEN, BYERS & HAESLOOP 840 MALCOLM ROAD, SUITE 100 BURLINGAME CA 94010 (650) 259-5979 [email protected] For: California City County Streetlight Association (CAL-SLA)

Terry J. Houlihan Attorney At Law MCCUTCHEN DOYLE BROWN & ENERSEN LLP 3 EMBARCADERO CENTER, 18TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111 (415) 393-2022 [email protected] For: RELIANT ENERGY POWER GENERATION, INC.

Patricia R. Williams MERVYN'S CALIFORNIA 22301 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD HAYWARD CA 94541 (510) 727-5905

Scott T. Steffen Attorney At Law MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT 1231 ELEVENTH STREET MODESTO CA 95354 (209) 526-7387 [email protected] For: MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT (MID)

Diane E. Pritchard Attorney At Law MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP 425 MARKET STREET SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105-2482 (415) 268-7000 [email protected] For: E&J Gallo Winery, The Wine Institute and the Agricultural Energy Consumers Association.

Peter Hanschen Attorney At Law MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP 425 MARKET STREET SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105

7












[email protected] For: Mervyn's/Target Stores Division of Dayton Hudson Corporation

Jeffrey H. Goldfien Assistant City Attorney MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER & WILSON 777 DAVIS STREET, SUITE 300 SAN LEANDRO CA 94577 (510) 351-4300 [email protected] For: City of San Leandro

Christopher W. Reardon MFRS COUNCIL OF THE CENTRAL VALLEY PO BOX 1564 MODESTO CA 95353 (209) 523-0886 [email protected] For: Manufacturers Council of the Central Valley (MCCV)

Kevin R. Mcspadden Attorney At Law MILBANK TWEED HADLEY & MCCLOY 601 SOUTH FIGUEROA, 30TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES CA 90017 (213) 892-4563 [email protected] For: MILBANK, TWEED, HADLEY & MC CLOY

(415) 268-7214 [email protected] For: Agricultural Energy Consumers Assn.

Sara Steck Myers Attorney At Law 122 28TH AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94121 (415) 387-1904 [email protected] For: CENTER FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE TECHOLOGIES (CEERT)

Richard Roos-Collins Attorney At Law NATURAL HERITAGE INSTITUTE 2140 SHATTUCK AVENUE, SUITE 500 BERKELEY CA 94704-1222 (510) 644-2900 [email protected] For: California Hydropower Reform Coalition

Janie Mollon Manager Regulatory Affairs NEW WEST ENERGY PO BOX 61868 PHOENIX AZ 85082-1868 (602) 629-7758 [email protected] For: NEW WEST ENERGY

Jose E. Guzman, Jr. Attorney At Law NOSSAMAN GUTHNER KNOX & ELLIOTT LLP 50 CALIFORNIA STREET, 34TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111-4799 (415) 398-3600 [email protected] For: Cargill Corporation

Christine Ferrari Depurty City Attorney OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY CITY HALL ROOM 234 1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102-4682 (415) 554-4634 [email protected]

Joseph M. Malkin Attorney At Law ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 400 SANSOME STREET SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111-3143

Don Schoenbeck RCS CONSULTING, INC. 900 WASHINGTON STREET, SUITE 1000 VANCOUVER WA 98660 (360) 737-3877 [email protected] For: Coalinga Cogenerator

James Ross RCS CONSULTING, INC. 500 CHESTERFIELD CENTER, SUITE 320 CHESTERFIELD MO 63017 (636) 530-9544 [email protected] For: Midway Sunset Cogeneration

Steven Greenberg REALENERGY 300 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 300 SACRAMENTO CA 95814 (916) 325-2500

8














(415) 773-5505 [email protected] For: THE AES CORPORATION

William H. Edwards KELLY M. MORTON, JAMES L. LOPES PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO. 77 BEALE STREET PO BOX 7442, RM 3115-B30A SAN FRANCISCO CA 94120-7442 (415) 973-2768 [email protected] For: PG&E

Peter Ouborg Attorney At Law PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY PO BOX 770000 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94177 (415) 973-2286 [email protected] For: Pacific Gas and Electric Company

Patrick J. Power Attorney At Law 1300 CLAY STREET, SUITE 600 OAKLAND CA 94612 (510) 446-7742 [email protected] For: City of Long Beach; Universal Studios Inc.

[email protected] For: RealEnergy

Keith Sappenfield RELIANT ENERGY RETAIL, INC. PO BOX 1409 HOUSTON TX 77251-1409 (713) 207-5570 [email protected] For: Reliant Energy Retail, Inc.

Randy Britt ROBINSONS-MAY 6160 LAUREL CANYON BLVD. NORTH HOLLYWOOD CA 91606 (818) 509-4777 [email protected] For: Robinsons-May

Arlin Orchard Attorney At Law SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT PO BOX 15830, MAIL STOP-B406 SACRAMENTO CA 95852-1830 (916) 732-5830 [email protected] For: Sacramento Municipal Utility District

Dana S. Appling General Counsel SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT LEGAL DEPARTMENT MSB406 PO BOX 15830 SACRAMENTO CA 95852-1830 (916) 732-6126

Phillip J. Muller SCD ENERGY SOLUTIONS 436 NOVA ALBION WAY SAN RAFAEL CA 94903 (415) 479-1710 [email protected] For: Southern Company Energy Marketing

Jeffrey M. Parrott LYNN G. VAN WAGENEN Attorney At Law SEMPRA ENERGY 101 ASH STREET SAN DIEGO CA 92101-3017 (619) 699-5063 [email protected]

Beth A. Fox Attorney At Law SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 2244 WALNUT GROVE AVENUE ROSEMEAD CA 91770 (626) 302-6897 [email protected] For: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (SCE)

James P. Shotwell Attorney At Law SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 2244 WALNUT GROVE AVE., ROOM 337 ROSEMEAD CA 91770-0001 (626) 302-4531 [email protected]

9














For: San Diego Gas & Electric Company

Judy Young Attorney At Law SEMPRA ENERGY 555 W. 5TH STREET, M.L.G.T. 14E7 LOS ANGELES CA 90013 (213) 244-2955 [email protected] For: Southern California Gas Company

Keith W. Melville DAVID R. CLARK Attorney At Law SEMPRA ENERGY 101 ASH STREET SAN DIEGO CA 92101-3017 (619) 699-5039 [email protected] For: San Diego Gas & Electric Company

Andrew Chau Attorney At Law SHELL ENERGY SERVICES COMPANY, L.L.C. 1221 LAMAR STREET, SUITE 1000 HOUSTON TX 77010 (713) 241-8939 [email protected]

Justin D. Bradley SILICON VALLEY MANUFACTURING GROUP 226 AIRPORT PARKWAY, SUITE 190 SAN JOSE CA 95110 (408) 501-7852 [email protected] For: Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group

For: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (SCE)

James C. Paine Attorney At Law STOEL RIVES LLP 900 S.W. FIFTH AVENUE, STE 2600 PORTLAND OR 97204-1268 (503) 294-9246 [email protected] For: PacifiCorp

James Bushee SUTHERLAND, ASBILL & BRENNAN 1275 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE WASHINGTON DC 20004 (202) 383-0100 [email protected] For: CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION (CMA)

Keith Mc Crea Attorney At Law SUTHERLAND, ASBILL & BRENNAN LLC 1275 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON DC 20004-2415 (202) 383-0705 [email protected] For: CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURERS & TECHNOLOGY ASSN.

Gene L. Waas THE CALIFORNIA POWER EXCHANGE 1000 SOUTH FREMONT BUILDING A9 WEST ALHAMBRA CA 91803 (626) 537-3326 [email protected] For: The California Power Exchange

Chris Witteman THE GREENLINING INSTITUTE 785 MARKET STREET, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103-2003 (415) 284-7202 [email protected] For: THE GREENLINING INSTITUTE

Denis George Energy Manager THE KROGER COMPANY 1014 VINE STREET CINCINNATI OH 45202

Bernardo R. Garcia UTILITY WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA,AFL-CIOPO BOX 5198 OCEANSIDE CA 92052-5198 (949) 369-9936 [email protected] For: Utility Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO

Jerry Bloom MARGARET ROSTKER (EMAIL: ROSTKMA@LAWHITEAttorney At Law WHITE & CASE

10

mailto:ROSTKMA@LAWHITE












(513) 762-4538 [email protected] For: The Kroger Company

Peter Bray THE NEW POWER COMPANY 101 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 1950 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111 (415) 782-7810 [email protected] For: The New Power Company

Matthew Freedman Attorney At Law THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK 711 VAN NESS AVENUE, SUITE 350 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102 (415) 929-8876 [email protected] For: The Utility Reform Network (TURN)

Robert Finkelstein Attorney At Law THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK 711 VAN NESS AVENUE, SUITE 350 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102 (415) 929-8876 X-301 [email protected] For: The Utility Reform Network (TURN)

Michael Shames Attorney At Law UTILITY CONSUMERS' ACTION NETWORK 1717 KETTNER BLVD., SUITE 105 SAN DIEGO CA 92101-2532 (619) 696-6966 [email protected] For: Utility Consumers' Action Network (UCAN)

TWO EMBARCADERO CENTER, SUITE 650 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111 (415) 544-1104 [email protected] For: California Cogeneration Council

Jason J. Zeller Legal Division RM. 5002 505 VAN NESS AVE San Francisco CA 94102 (415) 703-4673 [email protected] For: Office of Ratepayer Advocates

********** STATE EMPLOYEE ***********

Truman L. Burns Office of Ratepayer Advocates RM. 4209 505 VAN NESS AVE San Francisco CA 94102 (415) 703-2932 [email protected] For: OFFICE OF RATEPAYER ADVOCATES

Michael W. Neville Attorney At Law CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE 455 GOLDEN GATE AVENUE, SUITE 11000 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102-7004 (415) 703-5523 [email protected] For: CALIFORNIA RESOURCES AGENCY

Jennifer Tachera Attorney At Law CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION 1516 NINTH STREET, MS-14 SACRAMENTO CA 95814-5504 (916) 654-3870 [email protected]

Lorenzo Kristov CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION 1516 9TH ST., MS-22 SACRAMENTO CA 95814 (916) 654-4773 [email protected] For: California Energy Commission

Monica Schwebs

Robert Miyashiro DEPT. OF FINANCE STATE CAPITOL, RM 1145 SACRAMENTO CA 95814 (916) 445-8610 [email protected] For: DEPT. OF FINANCE (DOF)

Christopher Danforth

11














Attorney At Law CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION 1516 NINTH STREET, MS-14 SACRAMENTO CA 95814-5512 (916) 654-5207 [email protected]

Ruben Tavares Electricity Analysis Office CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION 1516 9TH STREET, MS 20 SACRAMENTO CA 95814 (916) 654-5171 [email protected] For: California Energy Commission

Roderick A. Campbell Office Of Governmental Affairs CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 770 L STREET, STE 1050 SACRAMENTO CA 95814 (916) 327-1418 [email protected]

Sean F. Casey Office of Ratepayer Advocates RM. 4205 505 VAN NESS AVE San Francisco CA 94102 (415) 703-1667 [email protected] For: Office of Ratepayer Advocates

Jim O'Brien DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 1416 9TH STREET, ROOM 1118 SACRAMENTO CA 94236 (916) 653-8816 [email protected] For: Department of Water Resources

Office of Ratepayer Advocates RM. 4101 505 VAN NESS AVE San Francisco CA 94102 (415) 703-1481 [email protected] For: Office of Ratepayer Advocates

Joseph R. DeUlloa Administrative Law Judge Division RM. 5105 505 VAN NESS AVE San Francisco CA 94102 (415) 703-3124 [email protected]

Pamela Durgin Energy Division RM. 4-A 505 VAN NESS AVE San Francisco CA 94102 (415) 703-1124 [email protected]

Robert T. Feraru Public Advisor Office RM. 5303 505 VAN NESS AVE San Francisco CA 94102 (415) 703-2074 [email protected] For: Public Advisor's Office

Faline Fua Energy Division AREA 4-A 505 VAN NESS AVE San Francisco CA 94102 (415) 703-2481 [email protected]

Julie Halligan Executive Division RM. 5215 505 VAN NESS AVE San Francisco CA 94102 (415) 703-3491 [email protected]

Audra Hartmann Legal Division 770 L STREET, SUITE 1050 Sacramento CA 95814 (916) 327-1417

Donald J. Lafrenz Energy Division AREA 4-A 505 VAN NESS AVE San Francisco CA 94102 (415) 703-1063 [email protected] For: Energy Division

Steve Linsey Office of Ratepayer Advocates RM. 4101 505 VAN NESS AVE

12














[email protected]

Kayode Kajopaiye Energy Division AREA 4-A 505 VAN NESS AVE San Francisco CA 94102 (415) 703-2557 [email protected] For: Energy Division

Dexter E. Khoury Office of Ratepayer Advocates RM. 4205 505 VAN NESS AVE San Francisco CA 94102 (415) 703-1200 [email protected] For: Office of Ratepayer Advocates

Robert Kinosian Office of Ratepayer Advocates RM. 4209 505 VAN NESS AVE San Francisco CA 94102 (415) 703-1500 [email protected] For: Office of Ratepayer Advocates

Laura L. Krannawitter Executive Division RM. 5210 505 VAN NESS AVE San Francisco CA 94102 (415) 703-2538 [email protected]

San Francisco CA 94102 (415) 703-1341 [email protected] For: Office of Ratepayer Advocates

Jeanette Lo Energy Division AREA 4-A 505 VAN NESS AVE San Francisco CA 94102 (415) 703-1825 [email protected] For: Energy Division

Kim Malcolm Executive Division RM. 5115 505 VAN NESS AVE San Francisco CA 94102 (415) 703-1926 [email protected]

Anne W. Premo Energy Division AREA 4-A 505 VAN NESS AVE San Francisco CA 94102 (415) 703-1247 [email protected] For: CPUC ENERGY DIVISION

Steve Roscow Energy Division AREA 4-A 505 VAN NESS AVE San Francisco CA 94102 (415) 703-1189 [email protected]

Steven C Ross Office of Ratepayer Advocates RM. 4102 505 VAN NESS AVE San Francisco CA 94102 (415) 703-2140 [email protected]

Randy Chinn SENATE ENERGY COMMITTEE ROMM 408 STATE CAPITOL SACRAMENTO CA 95814

Rosalina White Public Advisor Office RM. 5303 505 VAN NESS AVE San Francisco CA 94102 (415) 703-2074 [email protected]

John S. Wong Administrative Law Judge Division RM. 5019 505 VAN NESS AVE San Francisco CA 94102

13














[email protected]

Linda Serizawa Executive Division RM. 5119 505 VAN NESS AVE San Francisco CA 94102 (415) 703-1383 [email protected]

Maria E. Stevens Executive Division RM. 500 320 WEST 4TH STREET SUITE 500 Los Angeles CA 90013 (213) 576-7012 [email protected]

Zenaida G. Tapawan-Conway Energy Division AREA 4-A 505 VAN NESS AVE San Francisco CA 94102 (415) 703-2624 [email protected]

Maria Vanko Energy Division AREA 4-A 505 VAN NESS AVE San Francisco CA 94102 (415) 703-2818 [email protected] For: Energy Division

Christine M. Walwyn Administrative Law Judge Division RM. 5101 505 VAN NESS AVE San Francisco CA 94102 (415) 703-2301 [email protected]

(415) 703-3130 [email protected]

********* INFORMATION ONLY **********

Tom O'Neill Vice President ABN AMRO INCORPORATED EQUITY RESEARCH ONE CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 200 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111 (415) 983-2901 [email protected]

David Marcus ADAMS BROADWELL & JOSEPH PO BOX 1287 BERKELEY CA 94701-1287 (510) 528-0728 [email protected] For: Coalition of California Utility Employees

Ira Schoenholtz President AMERICAN ASSN OF BUSINESS PERSONS W/DIS 2 WOODHOLLOW IRVINE CA 92604-3229 (949) 559-1516 For: American Association of Business Persons with Disabilities

Edward G. Poole Attorney At Law ANDERSON & POOLE 601 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 1300 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94108 (415) 956-6413 [email protected] For: INDEPENDENT OIL PRODUCERS AGENCY (IOPA)

Robert E. Anderson APS ENERGY SERVICES 1500 FIRST AVENUE ROCHESTER MN 55906 (507) 289-0800 [email protected] For: APS ENERGY SERVICES

Ed Cazalet AUTOMATED POWER EXCHANGE, INC.

J. A. Savage CALIFORNIA ENERGY MARKETS 3006 SHEFFIELD AVENUE OAKLAND CA 94602-1545 (510) 534-9109 [email protected] For: California Energy Markets

Lulu Weinzimer CALIFORNIA ENERGY MARKETS

14














5201 GREAT AMERICA PARKWAY SANTA CLARA CA 95054 (408) 517-2900 [email protected] For: Automated Power Exchange, Inc.

Scott Blaising Attorney At Law 8980 MOONEY ROAD ELK GROVE CA 95624 (916) 682-9702 [email protected]

Paul A. Harris BRIDGE NEWS 44 MONTGOMERY, SUITE 2410 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94104 (415) 835-7641 [email protected] For: BRIDGE NEWS

Mona Patel BROWN & WOOD LLP 555 CALIFORNIA STREET, 50TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO CA 94104 (415) 772-1265 [email protected]

Stephen Layman CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION, EIAD 1516 9TH STREET, MS-20 SACRAMENTO CA 95814 (916) 654-4845 [email protected]

Derk Pippin CALIFORNIA ENERGY MARKETS 9 ROSCOE STREET SAN FRANCISCO CA 94110-5921 (415) 824-3222 [email protected] For: CALIFORNIA ENERGY MARKETS (CEM)

9 ROSCOE STREET SAN FRANCISCO CA 94110-5921 (415) 824-3222 [email protected]

William Dombrowski CALIFORNIA RETAILERS ASSOCIATION 980 9TH STREET, SUITE 2100 SACRAMENTO CA 95814-2741 (916) 443-1975

Alexandre B. Makler CALPINE CORPORATION 6700 KOLL CENTER PARKWAY, SUITE 200 PLEASANTON CA 94566 (925) 600-2081 [email protected] For: CALPINE CORPORATION

Susannah Churchill Energy Advocate CALPIRG 926 J ST. 523 SACRAMENTO CA 95814 (916) 448-4516 [email protected] For: CALPIRG

Douglas L. Anderson Vice President And General Counsel CE GENERATION, L.L.C. 302 SOUTH 36TH STREET, SUITE 400 OMAHA NE 68131

J. Patrick Tang JOHN A. RUSSO/BARBARA J. PARKER Deputy City Attorney CITY OF OAKLAND ONE FRANK OGAWA PLAZA 6TH FLOOR OAKLAND CA 94612 (510) 238-6523 [email protected]

John A. Barthrop General Counsel COMMONWEALTH ENERGY CORP. 15991 RED HILL AVENUE, NO. 201 TUSTIN CA 92780 (714) 258-0470 [email protected] For: Commonwealth Energy Corp.

Gregory T. Blue Manager, State Regulatory Affairs DYNEGY, INC. 5976 W. LAS POSITAS BLVD., STE. 200 PLEASANTON CA 94588 (925) 469-2355 [email protected] For: Dynegy, Inc.

15














Angela Oh Advisor COMMUNITY TECHNOLOGY POLICY COUNCIL PMB 7000-639 REDONDO BEACH CA 90277

June M. Skillman COMPLETE ENERGY SERVICES, INC. 650 E. PARKRIDGE AVENUE, UNIT 110 CORONA CA 92879 (909) 280-9411 [email protected]

Maria Crispi 22 SOUTH PARK, ROOM 320 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94107 (415) 882-1663

Carl K. Oshiro Attorney At Law CSBRT/CSBA 100 FIRST STREET, SUITE 2540 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105 (415) 927-0158 [email protected] For: CALIFORNIA SMALL BUSINESS ASSOCIATION AND CALIFORNIA SMALL BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE

Nicole A. Tutt DUANE MORRIS & HECKSCHER 100 SPEAR STREET, SUITE 1500 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105 (415) 371-2200 [email protected]

Joseph M. Paul DYNEGY MARKETING & TRADE 5976 WEST LAS POSITAS BLVD., STE. 200 PLEASANTON CA 94588 (925) 469-2314 [email protected]

Joseph A. Young EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT 375 ELEVENTH STREET, ROOM MS 205 OAKLAND CA 94607 (510) 287-0147 [email protected]

Wendy Illingworth ECONOMIC INSIGHTS 320 FEATHER LANE SANTA CRUZ CA 95060 (831) 427-2163 [email protected]

Jon S. Silva Government Affairs Associate EDISON SOURCE 955 OVERLAND COURT SAN DIMAS CA 91773 (909) 450-6035 [email protected]

Susan A. Huse Research Analyst EES CONSULTING, INC. 12011 BEL-RED ROAD, SUITE 200 BELLEVUE WA 98005-2471 (425) 452-9200 [email protected]

Jeffrey D. Harris Attorney At Law ELLISON & SCHNEIDER 2015 H STREET SACRAMENTO CA 95814-3105 (916) 447-2166 [email protected] For: Sacramento Municipal Utility District

Gary B. Ackerman FOOTHILL SERVICES, INC. 340 AUGUST CIRCLE MENLO PARK CA 94025 [email protected] For: Western Power Trading Forum

Robert D. Schasel FRITO-LAY, INC. 7701 LEGACY DRIVE (4C-101) PLANO TX 75024-4099 (972) 334-7000 [email protected]

Karen Lindh LINDH & ASSOCIATES 7909 WALERGA ROAD, ROOM 112, PMB 119 ANTELOPE CA 95843 (916) 729-1562 [email protected]

16














H. Bradley Donovan Senior Vice President GEORGE WEISS ASSOCIATES, INC. 660 MADISON AVENUE, 16TH FLOOR NEW YORK NY 10021-8405 (212) 415-4567 [email protected]

Douglas E. Davie HENWOOD ENERGY SERVICES, INC. 2710 GATEWAY OAKS DRIVE, STE. 300 NORTH SACRAMENTO CA 95833 (916) 569-0985 [email protected]

Jeffrey D. Schlichting HMH RESOURCES, INC. 100 LARKSPUR LANDING, SUITE 213 LARKSPUR CA 94939 (415) 289-4080 [email protected]

Joelle Ogg JOHN & HENGERER 1200 17TH STREET, NW, STE 600 WASHINGTON DC 20036 (202) 429-8812 [email protected]

Joaquin Herrera L. A. COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS TRAFFIC AND LIGHTING DIVISION PO BOX 1460 ALHAMBRA CA 91802-1460 [email protected]

Ralph Smith LARKIN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 15728 FARMINGTON ROAD LIVONIA MI 48154 (734) 522-3420 [email protected] For: Larkin & Associates, Inc.

For: California Manufacturers Assn.

Richard J. Mccann M.CUBED 2655 PORTAGE BAY, SUITE 3 DAVIS CA 95616 (530) 757-6363 [email protected]

Candace A. Younger MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP 11355 WEST OLYMPIC BOULEVARD LOS ANGELES CA 90064 (310) 312-4000 [email protected]

Randall W. Keen MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP 11355 WEST OLYMPIC BLVD. LOS ANGELES CA 90064 (310) 312-4000 [email protected]

Linda R. Beck MCDONOUGH, HOLLAND & ALLEN 1999 HARRISON STREET, STE 1300 OAKLAND CA 94612 (510) 839-9104 For: City of Paso Robles

Christopher J. Mayer MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT PO BOX 4060 MODESTO CA 95352-4060 (209) 526-7430 [email protected] For: MODESTO IRRIGATION DISTRICT (MID)

Robert B. Weisenmiller MRW & ASSOCIATES 1999 HARRISON STREET, SUITE 1440 OAKLAND CA 94612-3517 (510) 834-1999 [email protected] For: MRW & Associaes

Gary Herbert MSDW ONE TOWER BRIDGE, 11TH FLOOR WEST CONSHOHOCKEN PA 19428 (610) 940-4524 [email protected]

Bruce Bowen Mailcode B10a PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY PO BOX 770000 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94177 [email protected]

17















Melanie Gillette NAVIGANT CONSULTING INC 3100 ZINFANDEL DRIVE, SUITE 600 RANCHO CARDOVA CA 95670 (916) 852-1300 [email protected]

Kay Davoodi NAVY RATE INTERVENTION OFFICE WASHINGTON NAVY YARD 1314 HARWOOD STREET SE WASHINGTON NAVY YARD DC 20374-5018 (202) 685-0130 [email protected] For: Navy Rate Intervention

Martin Mattes Attorney At Law NOSSAMAN GUTHNER KNOX & ELLIOTT, LLP 50 CALIFORNIA STREET, 34TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111-4799 (415) 438-7273 [email protected]

Eve Mitchell OAKLAND TRIBUNE 401 13TH ST. OAKLAND CA 94612 (510) 208-6474 [email protected]

Jonathan Jacobs PA CONSULTING GROUP 75 NOVA DRIVE PIEDMONT CA 94610-1037 (510) 654-9495 [email protected] For: PA CONSULTING GROUP

Gail L. Slocum Attorney At Law PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO. 77 BEALE ST. RM 3143 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105 (415) 973-6583 [email protected]

Dan Pease PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY MAILCODE B10B PO BOX 70000 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94177 [email protected]

Ed Lucha PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY MAIL CODE: B9A PO BOX 770000 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94177 (415) 973-3872 [email protected]

Janice Frazier-Hampton PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY MAIL CODE B9A PO BOX 770000 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94177 (415) 973-2254 [email protected]

Joe Migocki PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 77 BEALE STREET, MAIL CODE B9A SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105-1890 (415) 973-1332 [email protected]

Niels Kjellund PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY MAIL CODE 859A PO BOX 770000 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94177 [email protected]

Roger J. Peters PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY MAIL CODE B30A PO BOX 7442 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94120 [email protected]

Ron Helgens PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY MAIL CODE B9A PO BOX 770000 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94177 (415) 973-7524 [email protected]

Michael Bazeley SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS 111 ELLIS STREET, 3RD FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102 (415) 434-1018 [email protected]

James E. Hay

18
















Roxanne Piccillo PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY MAILCODE B10B PO BOX 70000 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94177 [email protected]

George A. Perrault 1813 FAYMONT AVENUE MANHATTAN BEACH CA 90266 (310) 379-0901 [email protected]

Henry Moore PETERSON RISK CONSULTING, LLC 1 MARKET STREET, SUITE 1300 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105 (415) 393-0588 [email protected]

Jean Pierre Batmale REALENERGY 1900 AVENUE OF THE STARS, 755 LOS ANGELES CA 90067 (310) 203-2976 [email protected]

Carrie Peyton SACRAMENTO BEE PO BOX 15779 SACRAMENTO CA 95852 (916) 321-1086 [email protected]

Tim Haines SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT PO BOX 15830 SACRAMENTO CA 95852-1830 (916) 732-6342 [email protected] For: Sacramento Municipal Utility District

SEMPRA ENERGY 101 ASH STREET - H.Q. 14B SAN DIEGO CA 92101-3017 (619) 696-2141 [email protected] For: Sempra

Kimberly Freeman SEMPRA ENERGY 601 VAN NESS AVENUE, SUITE 2060 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102 (415) 202-9983 [email protected]

Leslie Katz 4/1 Regional Vp-Regulatory Affairs SEMPRA ENERGY 601 VAN NESS AVENUE, SUITE 2060 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102 (415) 202-9986 [email protected] For: sempra

Lynn G. Van Wagenen Regulatory Affairs Project Manager SEMPRA ENERGY 101 ASH STREET, ROOM 10A SAN DIEGO CA 92101 (619) 696-4055 [email protected] For: Sempra Energy

G. Darryl Reed SIDLEY & AUSTIN 10 S. DEARBORN CHICAGO IL 60603 (312) 853-7766 [email protected] For: SIDLEY & AUSTIN

Bruce Foster Regulatory Affairs SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 601 VAN NESS AVENUE, SUITE 2040 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102 (415) 775-1856 [email protected]

Frank J. Cooley SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY 2244 WALNUT GROVE AVENUE ROSEMEAD CA 91770 (626) 302-3115

Bill C. Wells Lt. Col. TYNDALL AFB 139 BARNES DRIVE, SUITE 1 TYNDALL AFB FL 32403-5319 (850) 283-6347

19














[email protected] For: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (SCE)

Peter S. Goeddel SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY PO BOX 800 2244 WALNUT GROVE AVENUE, SUITE 321 ROSEMEAD CA 91770 (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 [email protected]

Charles C. Read Attorney At Law STEPTOE & JOHNSON, LLP 1330 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON DC 20036 (202) 429-6244 [email protected]

Peter Fox-Penner, Ph.D. THE BRATTLE GROUP 1133 20TH STREET NW, SUITE 800 WASHINGTON DC 20036 (202) 955-5050 [email protected]

Tony Wetzel THERMO ECOTEK CORPORATION 1100 MELODY LANE, SUITE 206 ROSEVILLE CA 95678 (916) 773-2940 [email protected] For: THERMO ECOTEK CORPORATION

Fred Wesley Monier TURLOCK IRRIGATION DISTRICT PO BOX 949 333 EAST CANAL DRIVE TURLOCK CA 95381-0949 (209) 883-8321 [email protected]

[email protected] For: AIR FORCE LEGAL SERVICES AGENCY

Sam Wise 4045 PALOS VERDES DR. NORTH ROLLING HILLS ESTATES CA 90274 (310) 377-1577

(END OF APPENDIX A)

20









Documents

COM/LYN/abw€¦ · Web view10460 HICKSON STREET EL MONTE CA 91731 (626) 575-7664 [email protected] For: Gregg Industries, Inc. Irene K. Moosen KELLY TILTON GRUENEICH RESOURCE