Details for: PGE Comments on Draft Resolution E-5119.pdf


Click on the image for full size preview

Document data

Erik Jacobson
Director
Regulatory Relations

Pacific Gas and Electric Company
77 Beale St., Mail Code B13U
P.O. Box 770000
San Francisco, CA 94177
Fax: 415-973-3582

April 1, 2021
Energy Division
Attention: Tariff Unit
California Public Utilities Commission
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
Subject:

Joint Comments of Pacific Gas and Electric Company and the Direct
Access Customer Coalition on Draft Resolution E-5119

Dear Energy Division Tariff Unit:
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) and the Direct Access Customer Coalition
(DACC) appreciate the opportunity to provide joint comments on Draft Resolution E-5119
(the Draft Resolution) approving PG&E’s Advice Letter (AL) 5859-E and Supplemental
AL 5898-E-A, respectively submitted July 30, 2020 and February 2, 2021. 1
PG&E and DACC’s Comments:
On March 25, 2021, PG&E and DACC met to discuss the impact of the Draft Resolution
on the 2019 Settlement Agreement Resolving the Negative Indifference Amount Balance
for Pre-2009 Direct Access Customers between Pacific Gas and Electric company (E 39
E), the Direct Access Customer Coalition, and the California Large Energy Consumers
Association (Settlement), approved in Decision (D.) 19-12-010. DACC expressed
concern that recovery of the Olsen Power Partners and Hydro Sierra contracts through
the Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (PCIA) on a non-vintaged basis violates
Section 2.1 of the Settlement. Section 2.1 states that the settling parties “agree that the
PCIA obligation for Pre-2009 vintage departing load customers terminated in the year
when the Department of Water Resources (DWR) contracts expired.” In other words, to
recover the Olsen Power Partners and Hydro Sierra contracts costs through the PCIA
from pre-2009 vintage departing load customers contradicts this Settlement term.
While PG&E maintains that Section 3.1 of the Settlement provides that the Commission’s
adoption does not constitute approval or precedent for any principle or issue in any future
proceeding, PG&E agrees that the premise upon which the Settlement was reached was
based on the parties’ agreement that the pre-2009 vintage direct access customer’s PCIA
obligation was terminated.

1

Counsel for DACC has authorized PG&E to submit these Joint Comments on their behalf.





- Page 1 -

Joint Comments on Draft Resolution E-5119 -2- April 1, 2021 The nonvintaged PCIA subaccount was established to recover costs of the new Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA) standard offer contract in Rulemaking 18-07-017. In that Rulemaking, the Joint Parties 2 proposed that a non-vintaged PCIA methodology would appropriately allocate costs without respect to when a customer departed, because all customers benefit from the federal law that mandates this procurement, regardless of their departure date. 3 Meanwhile, in a separate proceeding, R.18-07-003, Energy Division was developing updates to a different PURPA program and contract – the Bioenergy Market Adjusting Tariff (BioMAT) contract. One proposed modification was to change the cost recovery of BioMAT contracts from the vintaged PCIA to a more equitable mechanism. Ultimately, the Commission agreed that “BioMAT is one of the policy programs aiming to achieve statewide air quality, climate, waste diversion, and public safety goals” and that “[b]ecause the benefits of BioMAT program are shared by all Californians, it is equitable that the cost of the program is shared by all Californians.” 4 In this case, the Commission adopted broad cost recovery through the Public Policy Program (PPP) charge to ensure all benefitting customers share the costs, rather than continuing with the vintaged PCIA cost recovery mechanism. BioMAT contracts will now be recovered through the BioMAT Non-bypassable Charge Balancing Account subaccount in the PPP pursuant to PG&E’s Advice 5966-E submitted on October 1, 2020. As stated by the Draft Resolution, “PURPA-mandated procurement provides broad policy benefits to both bundled and unbundled customers, regardless of PG&E’s need to serve load.” While the non-vintaged PCIA cost recovery mechanism ensures customer indifference under Public Utilities Code Sections 365.2 and 366.3 for the PURPA contracts, the cost allocation mechanism adopted for BioMAT PURPA contracts, via the PPP, also achieves this objective. In other words, both accounts achieve the same outcome of allocating costs to all customers that benefit from the policy procurement mandate. In light of the Settlement, PG&E and DACC agree that these PURPA contract costs are best recovered through the PPP. A rate for the non-vintaged PCIA subaccount was not established for 2021, and thus any contract costs assigned to that subaccount have not and will not be recovered until such rates are developed in PG&E’s 2022 ERRA Forecast Application. Given the Settlement and these two similar cost recovery options, PG&E will file in its 2022 ERRA Forecast Application a proposal to transfer the costs from the Portfolio Allocation Balancing Account non-vintaged subaccount to be a subaccount in the Public Policy Charge Balancing Account, so that any current or future public policy costs are not recovered from pre-2009 vintage customers through the PCIA. The Joint Parties includes Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, APT Solar Company; ACWA; CalWEA; the Clean Coalition; Division Solar, LLC; Poco Power, LLC; Solar Electric Solutions, LLC; and Utica Water and Power Authority. 3 See D.20-05-006, p. 64. 4 D.20-08-043, p. 13. 2
- Page 2 -

Joint Comments on Draft Resolution E-5119 -3- April 1, 2021 While PG&E and DACC agree that modifications to the Draft Resolution are not necessary, we wanted to document the commitments stated in these comments for each other and the Commission in the case the Commission wished to revised the Draft Resolution in accordance with these commitments. Respectfully submitted, /S/ Erik Jacobson Director, Regulatory Relations cc: Edward Randolph, Director, Energy Division Energy Division Tariff Unit Amy Mesrobian, Supervisor, Climate and Equity Initiatives, Energy Division Daniel W. Douglass, Counsel for DACC Service Lists R.16-02-007, R.20-05-003
- Page 3 -