Download Decision 11-10-043

Description

L/mal Date of Issuance October 24, 2011 Decision 11-10-043 October 20, 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 DENYING REHEARING OF DECISION 10-12-035 ON CERTAIN ISSUES RAISED BY THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO I. INTRODUCTION In Decision (D.) 10-12-035 (or “Decision”), we approved the “Qualifying Facility (“QF”) and Combined Heat and Power (“CHP”) Program Settlement Agreement” (“Settlement Agreement”). 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”). In its rehearing application, CCSF contended that we 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 524412 1 A.08-11-001 et al. L/mal providers (“ESPs”), and municipal departing load (“MDL”).1 Specifically, CCSF alleged 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) D.10-12-035 fails to correctly apply the heightened standard for settlements that do not include all parties; and (4) the Commission failed to provide non-settling parties meaningful notice or opportunity to comment on the Settlement Agreement. CCA/DA Parties’ rehearing application supported the allegations raised in CCSF’s application for rehearing.2 CMUA’s rehearing application challenged the Commission’s approval of the provisions of the Settlement Agreement that would impose new nonbypassable charges (“NBCs”) on MDL customers.