Download Decision 11-03-051

Description

L/jav Date of Issuance March 25, 2011 Decision 11-03-051 March 24, 2011 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Application of Southern California Edison Company (U3338E) for Applying the Market Index Formula and As-Available Capacity Prices Adopted in D.07-09-040 to Calculate Short-Run Avoided Cost for Payments to Qualifying Facilities Beginning July 2003 and Associated Relief. Application 08-11-001 (Filed November 4, 2008) Rulemaking 06-02-013 Rulemaking 04-04-003 Rulemaking 04-04-025 Rulemaking 99-11-022 And related matters. ORDER MODIFYING DECISION (D.) 10-12-035; DENYING REHEARING OF D.10-12-035, AS MODIFIED, ON CERTAIN ISSUES RAISED BY THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO; AND GRANTING THE MOTION FOR ABEYANCE FILED BY THE CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL UTILITIES ASSOCIATION I. INTRODUCTION In Decision (D.) 10-12-035 (or “Decision”), the Commission approved the “Qualifying Facility (“QF”) and Combined Heat and Power (“CHP”) Program Settlement Agreement” (“Settlement Agreement”). A. Issues in the Rehearing Applications Applications for rehearing of the Decision were filed by the City and County of San Francisco (“CCSF”), the California Municipal Utilities Association (“CMUA”), and jointly filed by the Marin Energy Authority, the Alliance for Retail Energy Markets, and the Direct Access Customer Coalition (collectively, “CCA/DA Parties”). 446798 1 A.08-11-001 et al. L/jav In its rehearing application, CCSF contends that the Commission should grant rehearing and modify the Decision to remove from the Settlement Agreement those provisions that impose requirements on community choice aggregators (“CCAs”), electric service providers (“ESPs”), and municipal departing load (“MDL”). Specifically, CCSF alleges the following error: (1) D.10-12-035 unlawfully exceeds the Commission’s limited jurisdiction over CCAs; (2) providing for expanded stranded cost recovery for the CHP program is inconsistent with the law and contrary to Commission precedent; (3) the Decision fails to correctly apply the heightened standard for settlements that do not include all parties; and (4) the Commission failed to provide nonsettling parties meaningful notice or opportunity to comment on the Settlement Agreement. In its rehearing application, CCSF further makes a request for oral argument, pursuant to Rule 16.3 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.