Word Document PDF Document

Table of Contents

I. Rate Cases and Cost of Service Proceedings .................................................. 3

II. Other Ratemaking Proceedings .................................................................. 11

O. Annual Earnings Assessment Proceeding

III. Major Rulemaking Proceedings ............................................................... 33

J. Low Income Programs

IV. Transmission Proceedings ....................................................................... 65

V. Other Issues .......................................................................................... 77

VI. Petroleum Pipeline Proceedings ................................................................ 83

F. SFPP (Kinder Morgan) Application to Increase Rates

H. Chevron Products Company Complaint

I. RATE CASES AND COST OF SERVICE PROCEEDINGS

A. SCE General Rate Case - Phase II

Proceeding No.

Commissioner

Admin. Law Judges (ALJ)

Counsel

Energy Division Staff

A.05-05-023

Bohn

DeBerry

  

Robles, Ghadessi

What it Does

    1. Establishes marginal costs, revenue allocation, and rate design to determine the distribution and generation components of SCE's rates.

    2. Phase II issues include:

    a) Establishing method by which marginal generation, distribution, and customer costs for each rate group are determined.

    b) Identifying delivery-related marginal costs at different voltage levels for allocation of design demand costs, by rate group.

    c) Determining how Equal Percent of Marginal Cost (EPMC) factors are developed for revenue allocation.

    d) Determining whether to use EPMC or another methodology in allocating distribution and generation costs.

    e) Determining the total revenue allocated to any one rate group, considering a "cap" or maximum increase

    f) Determining the appropriate rate design for California Alternative Rates for Energy (CARE) rates.

    g) Likewise, determining rate design for non-CARE and medical baseline rate tiers.

    h) For non-residential rate design, establishing lighting, traffic control, large power, agricultural and pumping, and Stand-by rates.

    i) Establishing rate design for interruptible customers.

    j) Tariff change proposals.

Next Steps

· ORA testimony due December 16, 2005

· Intervenor Testimony due January 20, 2006

· Rebuttal Testimony due March 10, 2006

· Evidentiary Hearings March 20 - March 30, 2006

· Decision issued at the June 29 meeting for rates effective no later than October 1, 2006.

Proceeding Overview

Date

Actions Taken

Comments

June 29, 2006

Decision Issued

D.06-06-067 approved rates effective no later than October 1, 2006, to include updated or existing cost responsibility surcharges in Rulemaking (R.)02-01-011 depending on whether a decision in the rulemaking is issued by September 21, 2006.

June 16, 2006

Proposed Decision issued

The PD incorporates revenue allocation and rate design resulting from increases approved in this GRC, and the ERRA and DWR rate cases. The PD also includes ordering paragraphs to coordinate the results of a decision anticipated in the cost responsibility surcharge Rulemaking 02-01-011, to effect one combined rate change effective October 1, 2006.

Apr 20, 2006

Settlement hearing held.

Reasonableness of settlement established in hearing; expedited schedule of events adopted, with no parties submitting comments or reply comments. Pending decision, rates may be effective July 15, 2006.

Apr 7, 2006

Parties reach written settlement agreement.

All parties active in this proceeding signed written agreement to resolve remaining issues regarding marginal costs, revenue allocation, and rate design.

Feb 23

Parties reach settlement in principle on revenue allocation

Parties will continue discussions in an effort to reach settlement on rate design.

Feb 3, 2006

SCE issues Comparison of Parties' Positions

After extensive settlement discussions, SCE circulates update of parties' positions delineating 1) specific proposals, 2) list of parties in agreement, and 3) list of alternate proposals for Marginal Cost, Revenue Allocation, and Rate Design issues.

Jan 17, 2006

A coordinated "Comparison of Parties' Positions" due February 3, is allowed to replace Statements of Contested Facts, due January 27.

Due to parties' continuing efforts to reach settlement, ALJ DeBerry rules that a comparison exhibit, showing all parties' positions, is allowed to replace Statements of Contested Facts.

Nov 14, 2005

Settlement Discussions begin

Discussions begin amongst all parties including DRA.

Sep 6, 2005

Updated Exhibits filed

An update of exhibits filed with May 20 Phase II application.

Aug 15, 2005

Scoping Memo and Ruling of Assigned Commissioner issued

Specifies Phase II issues and schedule of proceeding dates.

July 20, 2005

Prehearing Conference

ALJ DeBerry heard parties' statements in preparation for issuing scoping memo for proposed proceeding schedule.

May 20, 2005

Phase II GRC application

Exhibits include: Application, Policy Proposals, Marginal Cost and Sales Forecast Proposals, Revenue Allocation Proposals, Rate Design Proposals, Proposed Rate Schedule Changes, and Witness Qualifications.

Back to Table of Contents

B. Sierra Pacific Power Company General Rate Case

Proceeding No.

Commissioner

Admin. Law Judges (ALJ)

Counsel

Energy Division Staff

A05-06-018

Bohn

McKenzie/DeBerry

None

Strain, Lafrenz

What it Does

    1. Sierra Pacific 2006 GRC requests an overall revenue requirement increase of $8.1 million, which represents an overall rate increase of 12.7%.

    2. Residential rates would increase by 16.6%, small commercial rates by 14%, large commercial rates by 8%, and medium commercial rates decrease by 2%.

Next Steps

· Settlement to be reviewed by the ALJ and considered by the Commission.

Proceeding Overview

Date

Actions Taken

Comments

Feb. 6, 2006

Joint Motion to accept Settlement filed

The Parties approved and adopted a settlement agreement. Parties agreed to a revenue requirement increase by $4.098 million which is about half of the revenue requirement requested in Sierra Pacific's application,

Jan 18, 2006

Joint Statement of Material Facts to be Adjudicated at Hearing filed

The Sierra Pacific, DRA, TURN, The A-3 Customer Coalition and Western Manufactured Housing Community Association (hereafter, collectively, the Parties) indicated to the ALJ that settlement discussions were actively ongoing

Oct. 7, 2005

Scoping Ruling issued

Confirm that this is a ratesetting proceedings and establishes the procedural schedule: Parties file a joint statement by 1/18/06; Hearings on 1/23-27/06; Opening briefs due 2/24/06; Reply briefs due 3/10/06; and decision issued 6/06

Oct. 3, 2005

Sierra Pacific files supplement to application

Supplement consists of Sierra Pacific's Depreciation Study.

Sept. 7, 2005

Prehearing conference held

Parties adopted a new procedural schedule.

June 3, 2005

Sierra Pacific filed A.05-06-018

Application requests authority to increase its electric rates and charges for electric service.

Back to Table of Contents

C. PG&E 2007 General Rate Case - Phase I

Proceeding No.

Commissioner

Admin. Law Judges (ALJ)

Counsel

Energy Division Staff

A0512002

Bohn

Kenney/Econome

None

Lafrenz/Strain

What it Does

    1. Phase I sets the revenue requirement (RR) for distribution and generation capital and operating costs for test year 2007, and attrition years 2008, and 2009.

    2. Phase II sets rate design and cost allocation. This is done by a separate application.

    3. On January 31, 2006, PG&E filed an updated 2007 test year General Rate Case results of operations calculations for changes in rates effective on January 2006. PG&E is seeking a rate increase of $532 million (11.3%) over its adopted 2006 RR of $4.714 billion.

    4. PG&E requests the following total base RR of $5.246 billion, to be effective January 1, 2007:

      · Gas Distribution $1.099 billion ($72 million (7.0%) increase over adopted 2006 RR of $1.027 billion)

      · Electric Distribution $3.055 billion ($407 million (15.4%) increase over adopted 2006 RR of $2.648 billion)

      · Electric Generation $1.092 billion ($53 million (5.1%) increase over adopted 2006 RR of $1.039 billion)

    1. The following are some of the requests PG&E included in its 2007 GRC:

    · Seeks approval to close the front counters at all 84 of PG&E's local offices.

    · Requests approval to increase its late-payment fee to 1% per month of unpaid energy-related charges, to increase its "restoration for non-payment" fee to $55, and to increase its "non-sufficient funds" fee to $11.50.

    · Seeks authorization to convert the one-way balancing account currently in place for costs associated with vegetation management into a two-way balancing account.

    · Request authorization to transfer the balances in the Electric and Gas Credit Facilities Fees Tracking Accounts and the Community Choice Aggregation Implementation Cost Balancing Account to the appropriate electric and/or gas revenue balancing accounts for recovery from customers.

    · Proposes a new performance incentive mechanism (PIM) and a request for pension funding that was not included in its NOI.

Next Steps

· August 3, 2006 - Opening Briefs filed and served. Requests for oral arguments before the Commission filed and served

· August 17, 2006 - Reply Briefs filed and served

· November 21, 2006 - Draft Decision to be mailed

Proceeding Overview

Date

Actions Taken

Comments

July 24, 2006

Ruling issued.

Defers by one week the schedule for opening briefs, reply briefs, and the draft decision.

July 14, 2006

Comparison exhibit filed.

  

July 7, 2006

Evidentiary hearings end.

  

June 15, 2006

Commission issues D.06-06-014

Decision adopts an uncontested settlement agreement that authorizes PG&E to recover contributions of its employee pension plan during 2006-2009.

May 31 - July 7, 2006

Evidentiary Hearings begin

  

May 31, 2006

Ruling issued

Removes from this proceeding all issues regarding PG&E's late payment fee

May 30, 2006

Ruling issued

Grants motion of PG&E and Parties to defer local office issues to January 2007

May 16, 2006

Proposed Decision

Opinion authorizing PG&E to recover contributions to its employee pension plan pursuant to an uncontested settlement agreement by PG&E, DRA, and CCUE. Comments are due June 5, 2006; reply comments - 5 days after comments are filed.

May 16, 2006

Motion filed

Motion of PG&E, CCUE, CFBF, DIRA, DRA, and TURN to defer local office issues to January 2007

Apr. 28, 2006

Intervenor testimony served

  

Apr. 14, 2006

DRA testimony served

DRA recommends that the Commission authorize $4.695 billion in 2007 GRC base rates for PG&E, compared to PG&E's request for $5.246 billion. DRA recommends increasing PG&E's Electric Distribution RR by $136 million; increasing PG&E's Electric Generation by $118 million; and decreasing PG&E's Gas Distribution by $37 million from its authorized 2006 rates.

Mar. 9, 2006

Ruling issued

Consolidates A.05-12-021, A.05-12-002, and I.06-03-003, for the limited purpose of considering the settlement agreement concerning pension funding issues for 2006-2009

Mar. 8, 2006

Motion filed

Motion of PG&E, DRA, and CCUE to adopt Settlement of Pension Contribution issue

Mar. 7, 2006

PG&E filed Exhibit (PG&E - 16)

PG&E filed errata to its 2007 GRC application. PG&E states that to the extent that these corrections require changes to the input data or formulas in the revenue requirement (RO) model, it will incorporate the necessary changes when it submits the Comparison Exhibit on July 14, 2006

Feb. 21, 2006

Ruling issued

Sets public participation hearings

Feb. 3, 2006

Scoping Ruling issued

Confirms that this is a ratesetting proceeding and establishes the procedural schedule

Jan. 17-19, 23, 2006

Prehearing Conference Statements Filed

Statements filed by PG&E, DRA, and intervenors

Jan,12, 2006

Reply to Protests filed by PG&E

  

Jan. 5, 2006

Protests filed

DRA, Merced Irrigation District, Modesto Irrigation District, and South San Joaquin Irrigation District filed protests to the application.

Dec. 21, 2005

Ruling issued

Sets a Prehearing conference on January 23, 2006

Dec. 2, 2005

2007 GRC Application filed

  

Oct 3, 2005

Notice of Intent is filed

  

Aug. 1, 2005

PG&E files Notice of Intention to file its 2007 General Rate Case application.

PG&E will file its 2007 GRC application for authority, among other things to increase rates and charges for electric and gas service effective on January 1, 2007.

Back to Table of Contents

D. PG&E 2007 General Rate Case - Phase II

Proceeding No.

Commissioner

Admin. Law Judges (ALJ)

Counsel

Energy Division Staff

A.06-03-005

Chong

Fukutome

  

Ghadessi, Robles

What it Does

    1. Establishes marginal costs, revenue allocation, and rate design to determine the distribution, public purpose program, and generation components of PG&E's rates. This proceeding will also consider proposed changes to the agricultural class definition.

    2. Phase II issues include:

    a) Establishing method by which marginal generation, distribution, and customer costs for each rate group are determined.

    b) Identifying delivery-related marginal costs at different voltage levels for allocation of design demand costs, by rate group.

    c) Determining how Equal Percent of Marginal Cost (EPMC) factors are developed for revenue allocation.

    d) Determining whether to use EPMC or another methodology in allocating distribution and generation costs.

    e) Determining the total revenue allocated to any one rate group, considering a "cap" or maximum increase

    f) Determining the appropriate rate design for California Alternative Rates for Energy (CARE) rates.

    g) Likewise, determining rate design for non-CARE and medical baseline rate tiers.

    h) For non-residential rate design, establishing lighting, traffic control, large power, agricultural and pumping, and Stand-by rates.

    i) Establishing rate design for interruptible customers.

    j) Tariff change proposals

Next Steps

· PG&E update exhibits due June 26, 2006.

· Intervenors serve testimony on agricultural definition issue August 25, 2006

· Rebuttal testimony on agricultural definition issue due September 8, 2006

· Evidentiary hearings on agricultural definitions issue September 20-22, 2006

· Opening briefs on agricultural definition issue due October 6, 2006

· Reply briefs on agricultural definition issue due October 13, 2006

· Proposed decision issued December 12, 2006

· Final decision expected January, 2007

Proceeding Overview

Date

Actions Taken

Comments

July 10, 2006

ALJ Ruling extends procedural schedule for the Agricultural definition

Agricultural definition procedural schedule extended as described above under "Next Steps".

May 25, 2006

Assigned Commissioner's Ruling and Scoping Memo issued

ALJ Fukutome issued the Scoping Memo to determine scope, schedule, category, need for hearings, and other procedural matters. The memo includes a schedule for determining the agricultural definition issue in addition to addressing marginal cost, revenue allocation, and rate design issues. The agricultural definition issue will be addressed first.

May 3, 2006

Prehearing conference held

ALJ Fukutome heard parties' statements in preparation for issuing scoping memo for proposed proceeding schedule. Proceeding issues include critical peak pricing, and separate track for considering the agricultural definition.

April 14, 2006

Ruling issued setting a prehearing conference

ALJ Fukutome issued a ruling setting a prehearing conference for May 3, with pre-conference statements submitted by April 25. The prehearing conference will address proceeding schedule, category, need for evidentiary hearings, and discovery issues.

March 2, 2006

Phase II GRC application

Exhibits include Application, Executive Summary, Marginal Cost, Revenue Allocation, and Rate Design.

Back to Table of Contents

E. PacifiCorp General Rate Case

Proceeding No.

Commissioner

Admin. Law Judge (ALJ)

Counsel

Energy Division Staff

A.0511022

Brown

Galvin

none

Lafrenz

What it Does

    1. Request an $11.0 million increase

    2. Increase rates by an average of 15.6%.

    3. Requests authority to implement an energy cost adjustment clause and to implement a Post Test-Year Adjustment Mechanism in this GRC

Note: PacifiCorp through the advice letter process proposed to move customers covered by a 1956 contract that expired on April 17, 2006, to full tariff rates. It was determined that the appropriate process is to include this issue in PacifiCorp's GRC and not through the advice letter process.

Next Steps

· August 21, 2006 - opening briefs and deadline to file a request for final oral arguments

· September 8, 2006 - reply briefs/proposed submission date

· December 14, 2006 - final decision

Proceeding Overview

Date

Actions Taken

Comments

July 21, 2006

Motion filed

Joint motion filed by PacifiCorp, DRA, and California Farm Bureau Federation for the adoption of a settlement agreement on revenue allocation, rate design issues, service fees, and tariff rules

July 7, 2006

Motion filed

Joint motion filed by PacifiCorp and DRA to adopt a settlement agreement on revenue requirement issues

June 16, 2006

DRA & Interested Party Results of Operations Direct Testimony Served

  

Apr. 13, 2006

Commission issues D.06-06-034

Decision adopts a four-year transition plan to bring Klamath Irrigation Project customers that no longer qualify for fixed rates under a 1956 Contract between PacifiCorp and the U.S. Dept. of Interior up to full PA-20 Irrigation tariff rates. This decision authorizes PacifiCorp to establish a Klamath Transition Memorandum Account and to seek recovery of any shortfall in subsequent hearings in this proceeding. In addition, Klamath Water Users Association can seek a separate rate classification and challenge the proposed tariff rates in subsequent hearings in this proceeding.

Apr. 10, 2006

Reply Comments on Proposed Decision filed March 21, 2006

Reply comments filed by PacifiCorp and Klamath Water Users Assoc.

Apr. 3, 2006

Comments on Proposed Decision filed March 21, 2006

Comments filed by U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Siskiyou County, Klamath Water Users Assoc., PacifiCorp, and DRA.

Mar. 23, 2006

Ruling

Sets a hearing schedule

Mar. 21, 2006

Proposed Decision - Opinion granting interim irrigation rates within the Klamath River Irrigation Project

By this decision, a four-year transition plan is adopted to bring Klamath Irrigation Project customers that no longer qualify for fixed rates under a 1956 Contract between PacifiCorp and the U.S. Dept. of Interior up to full PA-20 Irrigation tariff rates. This decision would authorize PacifiCorp to establish a Klamath Transition Memorandum Account and to seek recovery of any shortfall in subsequent hearings in this proceeding. In addition, Klamath Water Users Association could seek a separate rate classification and challenge the proposed tariff rates in subsequent hearings in this proceeding. Comments due April 3, 2006 and reply comments due April 10, 2006.

Feb. 24, 2006

Rebuttal Testimony to propose agreement on transition rates

DRA opposes the creation of a memorandum account to track the subsidy and allocate the entire subsidy to California ratepayers during the phase-in period.

Feb. 6, 2006

Scoping Ruling

Confirms that this is a ratesetting proceeding. Set the following procedural schedule: March 6 -7, 2006 - evidentiary hearing; March 17, 2006 - prehearing conference; April 13, 2006 - decision on propose agreement on transition rates for Klamath Water Users Association customers; other issues - December 31, 2006. Decision submittal date December 31, 2006.

Jan. 30, 2006

Propose agreement on transition rates for Klamath Water Users Association customers

PacifiCorp, the Klamath Water Users Association (KWUA), and the Department of Interior (DOI) reached an agreement on a transition plan that is designed to move the customers covered by the 1956 contract between PacifiCorp's predecessor, Oregon Power Company, and the DOI from the current rates of $0.006/kWh to full tariff rates over a four-year period. This plan also includes a creation of a memorandum account to track the subsidy during the phase-in period.

Dec. 22, 2005

Notice filed

Prehearing conference on January 18, 2006

Nov. 29, 2005

Application filed

  

Back to Table of Contents

1II. OTHER RATEMAKING PROCEEDINGS

A. DWR Bond Charge

Proceeding No.

Commissioners

Admin. Law Judge (ALJ)

Counsel

Energy Division Staff

R.06-07-010

Brown

Allen

Perlstein

Roscow

What it Does

Sets annual bond charge for payment of debt service on DWR bonds.

Next Steps

· DWR submitted its "final" determination of its 2007 debt service revenue requirement and 2007 bond charge to the CPUC on August 2, 2006

· A Prehearing Conference is scheduled for August 9, 2006

Proceeding Overview

Date

Actions Taken

Comments

Aug 2, 2006

DWR submitted 2007 Determination

DWR seeks $831million to cover its bond-related costs, via a DWR bond charge of $.00464 per kWh

Jul 20, 2006

CPUC issues Rulemaking R.06-07-010

This Rulemaking replaces A.00-11-038

Dec 1, 2005

The Commission adopted D.05-12-010

Adopts the 2006 DWR bond charge of $.00485 per kWh

Aug 3, 2005

DWR submitted 2006 Determination

DWR sought $919 million to cover its bond-related costs

Apr 7, 2005

The Commission adopted D.05-04-025.

The 2005 DWR bond charge is $.00459 per kWh. This reflected a $75 million downward revision to DWR's bond-related revenue requirement.

Back to Table of Contents

B. DWR Revenue Requirement

Proceeding No.

Commissioners

Admin. Law Judge (ALJ)

Counsel

Energy Division Staff

R.06-07-010

Brown

Allen

Perlstein

Roscow

What it Does

1. Sets annual power-related revenue requirement, allocates it between the three utilities, and establishes utility-specific power charges for DWR power.

2. Trues-up prior year allocations.

Next Steps

· The Commission still must issue a decision regarding the allocation of benefits of Williams gas contract (deferred from recent decision allocating 2006 DWR revenue requirement).

· DWR submitted its "final" determination of its 2007 contract cost revenue requirement to the CPUC on August 2, 2006.

· A Prehearing Conference is scheduled for August 9, 2006

Proceeding Overview

Date

Actions Taken

Comments

Aug 2, 2006

DWR submitted 2007 Determination

DWR seeks $4.3 billion from ratepayers to cover its power-related costs in 2007, via a DWR power charge of approx 8.9 cents per kWh

Jul 20, 2006

CPUC issues Rulemaking R.06-07-010

This Rulemaking replaces A.00-11-038

Dec 1, 2005

The Commission adopted D.05-12-010

Allocates DWR's 2006 power cost revenue requirement among IOUs, and sets IOU power charges for 2006.

The allocation of benefits of the Williams gas contract was deferred to a yet-to-be-issued Commission decision.

Oct 27, 2005

DWR supplemented and updated its August 3rd Determination

DWR's power-related revenue requirement increased $418 million, mainly due to higher forecast gas costs, to a total of $4.546 billion

Aug 3, 2005

DWR submitted it 2006 Determination of Revenue Requirement

DWR sought $4.128 billion to cover its power-related costs

Jun 30, 2005

The Commission adopted D.05-06-060

This decision grants, in part, a petition to modify D.04-12-014, the Commission's previous order adopting a "permanent" methodology for the allocation of DWR's contract costs, replacing it with the methodology in the instant order.

The adopted methodology is considered effective as of Jan 1, 2004.

Under the adopted method, the "variable" costs of each DWR contract will be directly assigned to the IOU that physically manages that contract. The "fixed" costs of the DWR revenue requirement are allocated to each IOU as follows: PG&E (42.2%), SCE (47.5%) and SDG&E (10.3%).

Apr 7, 2005

The Commission adopted D.05-04-025.

Adopts DWR's revised revenue requirement, a $166 million reduction. IOUs filed implementing advice letters by April 21st, with rate changes effective no later than June 1, 2005.

Back to Table of Contents

C. SoCalGas Native Gas

Proceeding No.

Commissioner

Admin. Law Judge (ALJ)

Counsel

Energy Division Staff

A.04-01-034

Brown

Wong

None

Effross

What it Does

Consider SoCalGas' (SCG) request for authority to establish a cost/revenue sharing mechanism that would provide SCG with the incentive to drill additional wells at or near its existing storage fields in an effort to locate and produce new gas supplies.

Next Steps

· Potential settlement agreement forthcoming.

Proceeding Overview

Date

Actions Taken

Comments

June 26, 2006

Comments filed by California Independent Petroleum Association, California Natural Gas Producers Association, Indicated Producers, Western States Petroleum Association

  

June 26, 2006

Comments filed by SoCalGas

  

June 26, 2006

Comments filed by Exxon Mobil

  

June 19, 2006

Comments filed by DRA PELEO, Southern California Generation Coalition, TURN

  

June 14, 2006

Ex parte filed by DRA, Southern California Generation Coalition

LATE FILED. On June 6, 2006, Norman A. Pedersen, attorney for the Southern California Generation Coalition (SCGC) met with Belinda Gatti, advisor to Cmmr. Brown, in San Francisco. Also present were Marion Peleo and Jacqueline Greig of the Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA). Written materials (attached to the notice) were used. Parties' representatives stated that if the proposed decision (PD) is not modified, the definition of `existing access rights' of producers as meaning `Maximum Daily Volumes specified in a producers access agreement or, for Exxon Mobil and its affiliated POPCO, a volume not less than 70 MMcfd' could be locked in much longer that until the Commission adopts a decision in the FAR proceeding. DRA and SCGC urged the Commission that the PD be modified by conditioning the approval of Paragraph 12 to make it clear that such approval shall not prejudice the outcome in A04-08-018 regarding the equal access issue raised by DRA and SCGC in that proceeding.

May 30, 2006

Proposed decision of ALJ Wong

Adopts as the cost and revenue sharing mechanism for SoCalGas' native gas program the Settlement Agreement, the Revised Joint Stipulation, and the rules which were attached to the supplement to the original stipulation. The adoption of this sharing mechanism will provide an incentive for SoCalGas to explore for, and produce native gas that is located at its gas storage fields, while providing an opportunity for SoCalGas' ratepayers and shareholders to equally share in the benefits of such a program.

Jan 27, 2006

Reply Briefs submitted by SoCalGas, SCGS, Exxon Mobil

  

Jan 13, 2006

Opening briefs submitted by TURN, CIPA/CNGPA/Indicated Producers/WSPA, DRA, SCGC, SoCalGas, Exxon Mobil

  

Nov 2, 2005

Ruling regarding procedural schedule issued by ALJ Wong.

1. Southern California Generation Coalition, The Utility Reform Network, and the Office of Ratepayer Advocates shall serve their "factual presentation," as described above, on the factual issues in dispute on November 10, 2005.

2. Any party who wants to respond to the November 10, 2005 factual presentation shall serve their responsive prepared testimony on December 7, 2005.

3. Evidentiary hearings in this proceeding shall be held beginning on December 13, 2005, at 10:00 a.m. at the Commission's hearing room, 505 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, and continue through December 15, 2005.

Sept 22, 2005

Response filed by ORA/PELEO/PUC,
Southern California Generation Coalition, TURN

  

Sept 8, 2005

Comments filed by SoCalGas

  

Sept 7, 2005

Motion filed by CIPA, ExxonMobil, Indicated Producers, SoCalGas, & WSPA for Approval of Revised Joint Stipulation.

 

Aug 9, 2005

Administrative Law Judge's Ruling

Notices a prehearing conference for September 19, 2005 to discuss whether evidentiary hearings should be held on the July 21, 2004 stipulation and the July 25, 2005 settlement agreement that were filed in this proceeding. This ruling also provides notice that interested parties shall file their opening comments and reply comments on the July 25, 2005 settlement agreement by August 24, 2005, and September 8, 2005, respectively.

June 30, 2005

ALJ Wong issued a ruling granting motion.

Comments requesting evidentiary hearings should be filed by July 18, 2005. Responses to the comments should be filed by July 29, 2005.

Apr. 19, 2005

Office Of Ratepayer Advocates,

The Utility Reform Network, and
Southern California Generation Coalition
Motion to Sever and Suspend
Consideration of Access Issues

Issues regarding access to the Southern California Gas Company ("SoCalGas") system currently are being considered in a variety of other proceedings. Severing and suspending access issues in the instant proceeding would permit consideration and resolution of all remaining issues without prejudice to considering access issues at a later date in the unlikely event that access issues were not fully resolved in the other proceedings.

Aug 24, 2004

Procedural schedule suspended as active parties discuss possible settlement.

  

Jul 21, 2004

Joint motion of SoCalGas, the Indicated Producers, Independent Petroleum Association, and the Western States Petroleum Association for approval of stipulation.

Indicated producers favor 10% share for ratepayers. Other concerns include Terms and Conditions of Access to the SoCalGas Transportation System, Monitoring and Reporting, and the Future of Depleted Native Gas Wells.

Jul 21, 2004

· TURN served testimony.

· Southern California Generation Coalition served testimony.

· TURN proposed straight 35% share for ratepayers.

· The Coalition proposed different mechanisms for different circumstances, with ratepayers' shares to range from 25% - 50%.

Jan 26, 2004

SoCalGas filed A.04-01-034.

· SCG wants to drill for gas on a portfolio of lands that it owns outright, leases, owns mineral rights to, or leases mineral rights to. This is a nontraditional activity for a publicly regulated utility, therefore SCG needs a cost/revenue sharing scheme to be approved and implemented before it can proceed.

· SCG proposes to set up a royalty trust-like arrangement whereby its shareholders undertake to provide all the capital and bear all the risk, and ratepayers would be issued a royalty share of revenue generated from new natural gas production.

Back to Table of Contents

D.      SoCalGas Native Gas Access

Proceeding No.

Commissioner

Admin. Law Judge (ALJ)

Counsel

Energy Division Staff

A.04-08-018

Brown

Wong

None

Effross

What it Does

· In A.04-08-018 SoCalGas requests the Commission establish and approve standardized terms and conditions under which gas produced by California gas producers will be granted access to SoCalGas' natural gas operating system.  To that end, SoCalGas wants CPUC to approve a standard access Interconnect and Operational Balancing Agreement (IOBA) tariff. 

· SoCalGas filed this application in order to comply with a Joint Stipulation in its A.04-01-034 native gas proceeding.   The Joint Stipulation was entered into on July 13, 2004 among SoCalGas and the Joint Parties.  (The Joint Parties are comprised of the Indicated Producers, California Independent Petroleum Association and the Western States Petroleum Association.)    In the Joint Stipulation, SoCalGas agreed that it would file an application "to address gas quality monitoring protocols and off-shore and on-shore California producer access terms and conditions."  

· The other parties are concerned about ensuring nondiscriminatory access to SoCalGas's system. 

Next Steps

· Potential settlement agreement forthcoming.

Proceeding Overview

Date

Actions Taken

Comments

April 27, 2006

Reply brief filed

    CIPA/Indicated Producers/WSPA

April 26, 2006

Reply briefs filed

    Exxon Mobil, SoCalGas, SCGC

April 7, 2006

Opening briefs filed

    Exxon Mobil, SoCalGas, SCGC, CIPA/Indicated Producers/WSPA, DRA/PELEO/PUC

March 6-10

Evidentiary hearings conducted

  

Feb 14, 2006

Ex Parte filed by Indicated Producers.

    On February 9, 2006, Evelyn Kahl, counsel to the Indicated Producers (IP), met in San Francisco with Belinda Gatti, advisor to Commissioner Brown. Kahl advised the Commission that the IP and WSPA are very interested in gaining greater certainty in the relationship between SoCalGas and interstate producers. Kahl indicated that IP/WSPA have proposed a standardized agreement. Kahl observed that SoCalGas is in a strong monopoly position in this relationship.

November 2, 2005

Ruling: ALJ Wong revises the procedural schedule.

    · Utility to serve updated testimony: January 10, 2006

    · Prepared testimony by all other parties to be served: January 31, 2006

    · Prepared rebuttal testimony by all parties to be served.: February 21, 2006

    · Evidentiary hearings: March 6-10, 2006. Start time on March 6, 2006 at 10:00 a.m.

October 31, 2005

Comments on ALJ Ruling dated 10/25/05 filed by CIPA, ExxonMobil, Indicated Producers, CNGPA, WSPA

 

October 31, 2005

Comments on revised procedural schedule filed by ORA/PELEO/PUC, SCGC

  

October 25, 2005

ALJ Wong issued ruling.

Revises the evidentiary hearing dates. Sets evidentiary hearing for February 21-24, 2006. Comments on the procedural schedule/Responses to the ruling are due by October 31, 2005.

August 30, 2005

Scoping Memo and Ruling of Assigned Commissioner and Administrative Law Judge

Evidentiary hearings to be held daily Dec. 8-14, 2005. The following issues will be addressed: What should be the terms and conditions of access to SoCalGas' transmission system for California natural gas producers? Should the Commission approve the standard access agreement that SoCalGas has proposed in its application? Should all of the existing California access agreements with SoCalGas be replaced with a standard access agreement as they expire or are terminated under their existing terms? Should the standard access agreement replace ExxonMobil's existing agreement with SoCalGas regarding supplies of gas from

Pacific Offshore Pipeline Company (POPCO) entering SoCalGasGas' system?

August 17, 2005

Prehearing conference is held.

  

June 27, 2005

Ruling noticing prehearing conference

ALJ Wong issues  ruling noticing prehearing conference for August 17, 2005, at 10:00 a.m.  ALJ Wong states that it will be more efficient to wait until the prehearing conference is held before deciding whether to grant SocCalGas's motion.   

June 3, 2005

Status report issued by SoCalGas and joint parties. 

The parties reported that they were still engaged in discussions and recommended that a prehearing conference be scheduled in August 2005. 

May 25, 2005

ExxonMobil and SoCalGas respond, asking the Commission to reject SCGC's motion. 

 

May 10, 2005

Southern California Generation Coalition filed a Motion to Suspend Consideration of SoCalGas's application. 

SCGC's reasoning was that the issues covered by A.04-08-018 are currently under consideration in both R.04-01-025 (Gas OIR) and SoCalGas Advice Letter 3413-A. 

December 9, 2004

Status report issued by SoCalGas and joint parties. 

 

October 29, 2004

Status report issued by SoCalGas and joint parties. 

 

September 30, 2005

SoCalGas files response to protests.

SoCalGas' response also stated that SoCalGas and the joint parties had entered into discussions concerning the issues in this proceeding. 

September 20, 2004

Protests filed by by ExxonMobil Gas & Power Marketing Company (ExxonMobil), Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA), and the Southern California Generation Coalition (SCGC).  Joint protest filed by the Indicated Producers, California Independent Petroleum Association, and Western States Petroleum Association (joint parties).

The protest of the joint parties stated that SoCalGas and the joint parties had entered into discussions concerning the issues in this proceeding. 

August 16, 2004

· SoCalGas files application

  

E. SoCalGas/SDG&E System Integration-Firm Access Rights

Proceeding No.

Commissioner

Admin. Law Judge (ALJ)

Counsel

Energy Division Staff

A.04-12-004

Brown

Wong

None

Alfton

What it Does

This proceeding addresses SoCalGas and SDG&E's application regarding System Integration-Firm Access Rights-Off-System Sales (SI-FAR-OFF). The Commission will decide on the two utilities' proposal to establish an integrated transmission system and firm access rights, and for off-system deliveries.

Next Steps

    · ALJ to Rule on SDG&E and SoCalGas Motion of June 13, 2006.

Proceeding Overview

Date

Actions Taken

Comments

June 21, 2006

Joint Response of Coral Energy Resources, Division of Ratepayer Advocates, Kern River Gas Transmission Company, Questar Southern Trails Pipeline, SES Terminal, LLC, California Manufacturers and Technology Association, Department of General Services, BHP Billiton LNG International, Inc. Exxon Mobil Corporation, Woodside Natural Gas, Inc., Southern California Generation Coalition, The Utility Reform Network, Clearwater Port LLC, and Indicated Producers to the June 13, 2006 Motion of SDG&E and SoCalGas

Parties do not necessarily object to SoCalGas and SDG&E submitting revised testimony to reflect changes in their proposals that result from the SA. Parties allege that many aspects of the SA have not been reflected in the revised testimony, however. Parties request an extension of the procedural schedule to enable them to evaluate the impact of the SA on the issues and proposals in Phase 11. Parties propose a schedule at least 6 weeks later than the current schedule.

June 13, 2006

SDG&E and SoCalGas filed a Motion for leave to submit revised direct testimony in Phase 2 and to shorten time in which to respond.

SDG&E, SoCalGas and Southern California Edison Company entered into a Settlement Agreement (SA), provisions of which will affect issues in this and other Commission proceedings. SDG&E and SoCalGas request authorization to file revised testimony in Phase 2 based on provisions of the SA, but not to change the current Phase 2 schedule.

April 13, 2006

D. 06-04-033 issued in Phase 1 approving system integration

SDG&E and SoCalGas are permitted to combine the transmission costs of the two utilities, and to develop integrated transmission rates for the various customer classes of both utilities using the cost allocation methodology they proposed. These rates shall go into effect on the first day of the month in which regasified liquefied natural gas (LNG) is expected to flow through Otay Mesa.

Nov 4, 2005

Reply briefs filed.

  

Oct 21, 2005

Opening briefs filed.

  

Sept 12-15, 2005

Evidentiary hearings held.

  

Sept 1, 2005

PHC held

Witness Order and cross examination schedule for evidentiary hearings discussed.

Aug 26, 2005

Rebuttal Testimony of all parties issued

  

July 29, 2005

Intervenor Testimony Issued

  

June 27, 2005

SoCalGas and SDG&E issued Supplemental Testimony on Phase 1.

  

May 24, 2005

Assigned Commissioner's and ALJ's Scoping Memo and Ruling Issued

Proceeding is bifurcated into Phase 1 - System Integration, and Phase 2 - Firm Access Rights and Off-System Issues. Phase 1 issues were delineated.

Apr 29, 2005

PHC held.

Issues, bifurcation and schedule were discussed.

Jan 20, 2005

Interested Parties filed comments, protests and responses to the application.

  

Dec 2, 2004

SoCalGas and SDG&E filed A.04-12-004.

The application requests authority to integrate the transmission component of their gas transportation rates; establish a system of firm access rights ("FAR") into their transmission system, and provide off-system gas transportation services.

Back to Table of Contents

F. Agricultural Internal Combustion Equipment (ICE) - Incentives for Conversion to Electric Service

Proceeding No.

Commissioner

Admin. Law Judge (ALJ)

Counsel

Energy Division Staff

A.04-11-007

A.04-11-008

Brown

McKenzie

 

Auriemma

What it Does

This proceeding considered applications by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) and Southern California Edison (SCE) seeking authority to offer reduced rates and additional line extension allowances to agricultural customers that convert engines used for agricultural pumping from diesel fuel to electricity. The proposed incentives for these engine conversions would potentially achieve reductions in various air pollutants in the San Joaquin and Sacramento Valleys.

Next Steps

· This proceeding remains open to consider requests for awards of intervenor compensation.

Proceeding Overview

Date

Actions Taken

Comments

Aug 1, 2005

PG&E's and SCE's AG-ICE tariffs

  

June 27, 2005

PG&E filed Advice Letter (AL) 2679-E, and SCE filed AL 1897-E.

  

June 16, 2005

CPUC issued D.05-06-016.

Approves Settlement Agreement with one modification. At the request of the parties to the Joint Settlement, the effective date of the program was deferred until August 1, 2005 to allow time for the utilities to implement the program.

May 25, 2005

ALJ issued proposed decision.

Approves all-party settlement agreement.

April 29, 2005

Parties filed Brief

Sets forth the justification for an 851 exemption In connection with the transfer of the nitrous oxide credits that would be received as a result of replacing the diesel engines

April 7, 2005

Hearing held on the Settlement Agreement

  

March 30, 2005

settlement agreement and joint motion for its approval filed

Main features:

· AG-ICE initial average rate set at approximately 7.5 cents per kWh, to increase by 1.5 percent annually over the ten-year program term

· Rates structured on a time-of-use basis to discourage peak period usage

· Additional line extension "adder" for ICE customers limited by a maximum based on the engine's kilowatt (kW) rating

· Total program capital investment limited to $27.5 million for PG&E and $9.17 million for SCE over two-year enrollment period

· Utility reimbursed by ICE customers departing utility system early

· Limit of 100 program participants within the boundaries of the South San Joaquin Irrigation District in southern San Joaquin County

· Acquired CO2 emission reductions held for the benefit of ratepayers

Mar 11, 2005

Intervenor testimony was filed.

The California Farm Bureau Federation, ORA, and TURN filed testimony. The Agricultural Energy Consumers Association filed its testimony earlier, on February 24.

Mar 4, 2005

Applicants served updated testimony on reliability and other issues.

  

Mar 3, 2005

Scoping Memo and Ruling issued.

Consolidated the two applications, confirmed the proceeding category as ratesetting, established the issues and procedural schedule, and designated the principal hearing officer.

Feb 8, 2005

The applicants and interested parties unanimously agree and stipulate to reduce comment period on the Proposed Decision.

From 20 days to 13 days with the reply period reduced from 5 days to 4 days.

Jan 28, 2005

The Energy Division held a Workshop, and technical experts met in a follow-up session on February 1, 2005.

Explored the issues raised in protests, including: (1) the extent to which reliability may be impaired as a result of increasing load on utility systems in the summer of 2005, and possible means of mitigating those concerns; (2) whether the utilities' proposed incentives contribute to margin, or instead negatively impact other ratepayers; and (3) whether the increased capital costs and operation and maintenance costs associated with the proposals for additional line extension incentives will, in the future, have to be borne by other ratepayers.

Nov 9, 2004

PG&E filed A.04-11-007, and SCE filed A.04-11-008.

Both applications offer incentives to customers that convert engines used for agricultural pumping from diesel fuel to electricity including:

· A 20% reduction compared with the current average rate of the otherwise applicable tariff for their engine use, a reduction that would remain in effect for ten years (subject to escalation of the total average rate at 1.5% per year);

· Ratcheted demand charges would be eliminated from the rate applicable to the converted engines; and

· Additional line extension allowances tied to reductions in various air pollutants that could be expected from the proposed engine conversions in the San Joaquin and Sacramento Valleys.

Back to Table of Contents

G. PG&E Incremental Core Storage

Proceeding No.

Commissioner

Admin. Law Judge (ALJ)

Counsel

Energy Division Staff

A.05-03-001

Grueneich

Wong

 

Cadenasso

What it Does

    1. Determines how much incremental (amount above current levels) gas storage the core requires.

    2. Establishes process by which independent gas storage providers may compete for incremental gas storage needs.

    3. Sets cost recovery methods for incremental gas storage acquired by PG&E.

Next Steps

    · Decision issued July 20, 2006.

    · This proceeding is closed.

Proceeding Overview

Date

Actions Taken

Comments

July 20, 2006

Decision issued.

Commission adopts 1-day-in-10-year peak day planning standard for PG&E's core demand. PG&E is authorized to use a RFO to solicit bids for gas storage to meet the standard. PG&E and the Independent Storage Providers (ISP) are to select a 3rd party evaluator to assess the creditworthiness of the ISPs. ISPs deemed creditworthy would be allowed to participate in the RFO.

July 17, 2006

Reply comments on PD filed.

Parties present similar arguments that were expressed in their opening comments.

July 10, 2006

Comments on PD filed.

Wild Goose and Lodi assert that the Commission should order PG&E to use a 3rd party evaluator to assess the Independent Storage Provider's creditworthiness.

Jun 20, 2006

Proposed Decision mailed.

PD adopts 1-in-10 day winter reliability standard for PG&E's core customers. Authorizes PG&E to issue an RFO for incremental storage to meet the reliability standard if acceptable credit standards can be reached with the independent storage providers (ISP). If incremental storage is not obtained, PG&E is to acquire firm pipeline capacity to meet the winter reliability standard.

Mar 6, 2006

Reply briefs filed.

  

Feb 17, 2006

Opening briefs filed.

TURN argues that additional core storage is not needed for reliability and that if a 1-in-10 peak day standard is adopted PG&E's noncore customers would unfairly benefit by lower gas spot prices. Lodi Gas Storage and Wild Goose allege PG&E's proposed credit standards are anti-competitive. PG&E argues that its credit standards protect core customers from the potential unavailability of gas injected into storage. DRA supports a 1-in-10 standard because core load is growing and the core should pay for any additional storage due to the benefits core customers receive.

Jan 25, 2006

Partial settlement agreement filed.

Outlines RFO process for acquiring additional storage. All parties except TURN agree that 1-in-10 peak day standard should be used to determine amount of incremental core storage to obtain and that the costs be recovered from bundled core customers.

Jan 17-18, 2006

Evidentiary hearings held.

 

Sept 13, 2005

Intervenor testimony filed by ORA, TURN, Lodi Gas Storage (LGS), Wild Goose Gas Storage (WGS), and SPURR.

ORA recommends that PG&E make the list of storage products that it would make bids on less restrictive, and to be allowed to enter gas storage open seasons. TURN opposes PG&E's proposal as it unfairly benefits non-core customers. LGS prefers bilateral negotiations rather than an RFO and notes several PG&E credit policy issues. WGS recommends modifications to the list of products PG&E can bid for. SPURR supports PG&E's proposals regarding the treatment of CTAs.

Aug 12, 2005

PG&E files supplemental testimony.

Provided estimates of rate impacts for incremental storage; proposes that CPIM changes would be negotiated with ORA and filed by advice letter; and submitted proposed RFO procedures and evaluation methodology.

June 7, 2005

ALJ Scoping Memo issued.

Major issues to be considered in proceeding are:

1) Should 1-in-10 peak day standard be adopted as core reliability planning standard.

2) What storage services can independent storage providers be allowed to compete for.

3) What processes should be adopted for the solicitation of storage proposals and how will they be evaluated.

June 2, 2005

Prehearing conference held.

  

Apr 14, 2005

Reply by PG&E to protests.

PG&E says that: 1) any benefits the noncore gain from its proposal is not a subsidy from the core; 2) will work with gas storage providers on the RFO process; 3) reducing the amounts of firm interstate pipeline holdings in lieu of storage represents a reversal of Commission policy, and; 4) it will maintain its current credit standards.

Apr 4, 2005

Comments filed by ORA.

ORA recommends that the Commission adopt an agreement it reached with PG&E addressing approval procedures and the acquisition of gas storage above the 1 in 10 year standard.

Apr 4, 2005

Protests filed by Lodi Gas Storage, Wild Goose and TURN.

TURN argues that PG&E's proposal results in the core maintaining system reliability to the noncore's advantage and that the Commission set standards for noncore to hold firm pipeline capacity. Wild Goose raises technical issues about the RFO process. Lodi advocates a broader definition of "incremental" gas storage that would lessen the need for firm interstate pipeline capacity and questions PG&E's credit policy.

Mar 2, 2005

Application filed.

Filed in compliance with directive issued in R.04-01-025. PG&E proposes: 1) to add incremental storage to meet a 1-day-in-10-year peak day standard; 2) use gas storage for reliability and hedging; 3) use pre-approval and expedited advice letter procedures to acquire gas storage, and; 4) solicit gas storage proposals from independent gas storage providers through an RFO.

Back to Table of Contents

H. PG&E, SCE, SDG&E and SCG Applications for Approval of 2006-2008 Energy Efficiency Programs

Proceeding No.

Commissioner

Admin. Law Judge (ALJ)

Counsel

Energy Division Staff

A.05-06-004, A.05-06-011, A.05-06-015, and A.05-06-016

Grueneich

Gottstein

Lee

Tapawan-Conway

What it Does

This consolidated proceeding will determine whether the funding levels and overall portfolio plans submitted by the utilities are reasonable and consistent with the energy efficiency policy rules adopted in D.05-04-051 in R.01-08-028.

Next Steps

· The Commission will act on the utilities' compliance filings on their 2006-2008 energy efficiency final program portfolios.

Proceeding Overview

Date

Actions Taken

Comments

June 1, 2006

Energy Division issued a disposition on PG&E's advice letter compliance filing.

The disposition confirms the effective date of May 17, 2006 for PG&E's advice letter compliance filing.

April 28, 2006

Energy Division issued dispositions on SDG&E's and SCG's advice letter compliance filings.

The dispositions confirm the effective date of March 3, 2006 for SDG&E's and SCG's advice letter compliance filings.

April 18, 2006

Energy Division issued a disposition on SCE's advice letter compliance filing.

The disposition confirms effective date of February 5, 2006 for SCE's advice letter compliance filing.

Feb 17, 2006

PG&E filed an advice letter compliance filing for its 2006-2008 energy efficiency programs as required by D.05-01-055. PG&E also filed a Motion to Bifurcate its compliance filing.

In this compliance filing, PG&E only addressed the third-party program component of its portfolio, including additional details on its mass market programs. PG&E anticipates to file the local governm