OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
|
|
- Morris Evans
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Order Instituting Rulemaking to Examine the Commission s Post-2008 Energy Efficiency Policies, Programs, Evaluation, Measurement, and Verification, and Related Issues. Rulemaking (Filed November 20, 2009) OPENING COMMENTS OF THE DIVISION OF RATEPAYER ADVOCATES IN RESPONSE TO ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE S PROPOSED DECISION AND ALTERNATE PROPOSED DECISION OF COMMISSIONER FERRON REGARDING PUBLIC PURPOSE PROGRAM FUNDS, PHASE III DIANA L. LEE Attorney for the Division of Ratepayer Advocates California Public Utilities Commission 505 Van Ness Ave. San Francisco, CA Phone: (415) Fax: (415) diana.lee@cpuc.ca.gov CHRIS UNGSON Analyst for the Division of Ratepayer Advocates California Public Utilities Commission 505 Van Ness Ave. San Francisco, CA Phone: (415) Fax: (415) chris.ungson@cpuc.ca.gov September 22,
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND...1 II. DISCUSSION...3 A. THE COMMISSION SHOULD CONDUCT ANNUAL INDEPENDENT FINANCIAL AND MANAGEMENT AUDITS OF INCOME (COLLECTIONS) AND EXPENSES RELATED TO THE UTILITIES ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS, AND ISSUE A PUBLIC AUDIT REPORT...3 B. THE COMMISSION SHOULD AUTHORIZE PG&E AND SDG&E TO USE UNSPENT, UNCOMMITTED ELECTRIC FUNDS FROM PREVIOUS CYCLES TO FUND ONLY GAS PROGRAMS THAT ALSO BENEFIT ELECTRIC RATEPAYERS AND SHOULD ALLOCATE THE BURDEN OF SB 87 FAIRLY BETWEEN GAS AND ELECTRIC RATEPAYERS IN DETERMINING THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF UNSPENT, UNCOMMITTED PRE-2010 ELECTRIC FUNDS THAT CAN POTENTIALLY BE MADE AVAILABLE TO GAS PROGRAMS...4 C. THE COMMISSION SHOULD REJECT THE PD S ALLOCATION OF THE ENTIRE $21.6 MILLION GAS PPP FUNDS REMAINING TO PG&E IF THE $155 MILLION IS TRANSFERRED TO THE GENERAL FUND...6 D. THE COMMISSION SHOULD REDIRECT ANY REMAINING UNSPENT, UNCOMMITTED FUNDS FROM PREVIOUS CYCLES AND FROM THE PROGRAM CYCLE TOWARD A STATEWIDE CONSOLIDATED FINANCING PROGRAM RUN AND OPERATED BY AN INDEPENDENT FINANCING ADMINISTRATOR...7 III. CONCLUSION...8 APPENDIX 1 APPENDIX 2 i
3 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES COMMISSION DECISIONS D , 5 ii
4 OPENING COMMENTS OF THE DIVISION OF RATEPAYER ADVOCATES IN RESPONSE TO ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE S PROPOSED DECISION AND ALTERNATE PROPOSED DECISION OF COMMISSIONER FERRON REGARDING PUBLIC PURPOSE PROGRAM FUNDS, PHASE III I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Pursuant to Rule 14.3 of the Commission s Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) submits the following comments on the Proposed Decision of Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Ferrar regarding Gas Public Purpose Program Funds ( PD ) and the Alternate Proposed Decision of Commissioner Ferron Regarding Gas Public Purpose Program Funds ( APD ). The PD and APD were issued on September 2, 2011 in response to Senate Bill (SB) 87, signed by Governor Brown on June 30, SB 87 authorized the transfer of up to $155 million of natural gas Public Purpose Program (PPP) surcharge funds from the Board of Equalization to the state s General Fund. If this transfer occurs in full, there will be approximately $21.6 million left in the PPP fund, thus creating a shortfall between the Commission s approved budget for authorized gas energy efficiency programs and the amount of funds actually available to implement those programs. The PD and APD each address how the Commission should deal with this potential funding gap. The PD would: Authorize Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) and Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) 1 to use uncommitted and unspent gas energy efficiency funds from previous program cycles to help defray the current funding shortfall; Authorize PG&E and SDG&E to use 18% of the unspent prior years electric energy efficiency funds to cover the funding shortfall expected to result from SB 87; Allocate to PG&E the entire $21.6 million of the gas PPP surcharge funds expected to be available from the Board of Equalization in the event the full $155 million is transferred to the General Fund, thereby effectively requiring SDG&E and SoCalGas customers to fund programs that benefit PG&E ratepayers; and 1 DRA s Comments refer collectively to PG&E, SDG&E and SoCalGas as Utilities. 1
5 Direct an audit to determine the amount of funds left. The APD would: Authorize PG&E, SDG&E and SoCalGas to use uncommitted and unspent evaluation, measurement and verifications funds from previous program cycles, to the extent those funds are available to help defray the current funding shortfall; Authorize PG&E, SDG&E and SoCalGas to use uncommitted and unspent gas energy efficiency funds from previous program cycles to help defray the current funding shortfall; Authorize PG&E, SDG&E and SoCalGas to use uncommitted and unspent electric energy efficiency funds from previous program cycles to help defray the current funding shortfall, without any showing that the expenditure of electric funds for gas programs would also benefit electric ratepayers. DRA agrees with the PD and the APD that the Commission should authorize PG&E, SDG&E and SoCalGas to use any prior unspent gas energy efficiency funds to close the SB 87 funding gap. DRA agrees with the PD that the Commission should perform an audit to determine the exact amount of funds that remain available, and with its fundamental premise that funding by electric ratepayers for gas energy efficiency programs require that such funding delivers benefits to electric ratepayers. DRA recommends that the Commission reject the APD and adopt the PD with the following changes. DRA disagrees with the PD s allocation to PG&E of the entire $21.6 million remaining after the Board of Equalization transfers $155 million of gas PPP funds to the general fund. Such an allocation effectively requires SDG&E and SoCalGas ratepayers to fund programs that provide no benefits to them, and should be revised to reflect the contributions of each utility s ratepayers. While DRA appreciates the PD s rationale for the use of the 82/18 ratio of electric and gas benefits to allocate prior unspent electric energy efficiency funds to close the SB 87 funding gap for PG&E and SDG&E, it believes that a greater proportion of these funds could be used to more fairly allocate the burden created by SB 87, so long as the funds are used to support gas programs that also benefit electric ratepayers. Table A in Appendix 1 shows that under DRA s recommendations, all three Utilities will have enough funds to mitigate the full impact of SB 87 and still have $52.32 million in surplus unspent monies, which should be directed to the 2
6 Consolidated Financing Program DRA recommended in the Bridge Funding phase of this proceeding. Thus, DRA s recommendation allows the Commission to 1) reaffirm its existing policies on the use of funds across utilities and the use of gas and electric funds; 2 2) distribute the burden of SB 87 fairly between gas and electric customers; 3) reaffirm and support its policy to encourage energy efficiency programs that employ comprehensive, integrated, whole building system delivery approaches that reduce the overall energy consumptions of buildings; and 4) take meaningful and material action toward addressing a longstanding market barrier in energy efficiency financing. II. DISCUSSION A. The Commission should conduct annual independent financial and management audits of income (collections) and expenses related to the Utilities energy efficiency programs, and issue a public audit report. Given the uncertainty about the amount of funds available to cover the potential deficit in gas energy efficiency program caused by SB 87, DRA recommended that the Commission require an annual independent financial and management audit. 3 The APD is silent on the discrepancy between the funds identified as available in the ACR and those identified in the Utilities motion. 4 In contrast, the PD acknowledges the significant problem that exists for both SB 87 planning and overall Commission oversight given the uncertainty regarding the amount of energy efficiency funds available: Though Energy Division met several times with IOU representatives, and the Assigned ALJ issued a ruling requiring the IOUs to clarify the estimates of funds available to them, we ve yet to conclusively determine what these amounts actually are, why they are so substantial, or even why the IOUs are in possession of funds they were previously directed to spend. While some of this confusion is likely the result of ongoing spending, 2 No party disagrees with the soundness of these policies. 3 Comments of the Division of Ratepayer Advocates in Response to Assigned Commissioner s Ruling and Scoping Memo Regarding Public Purpose Program Funds, Phase III (DRA Comments) p. 3; see also Comments of TheUtility Reform Network on 2013 Bridge Funding and Mechanics of Portfolio Extension, June 16, 2011, pp , citing D , p. 300 (recommending a similar audit). 4 See Joint Motion of Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company to Shift Unspent, Uncommitted Energy Efficiency Funds to Ensure Adequate Funding for the Energy Efficiency Portfolio in the Wake of Senate Bill 87, July 1,
7 we are obliged to investigate further. We will therefore direct that Energy Division supervise an audit of these program funds. 5 The PD therefore directs the Commission s Energy Division to supervise an audit of the program funds. 6 DRA believes the PD does not go far enough. Some parties were surprised to learn about the existence of substantial amounts of unspent funds ($117,000,000 reported in the Joint IOU Motion in this proceeding) accumulated from previous program cycles. Had this been known, the Commission could have considered returning these monies to ratepayers or otherwise redirecting them to other productive uses. 7 The Commission should address this obvious lack of transparency and accountability. DRA therefore urges the Commission to require annual independent financial and management audits of income (collections) and expenses related to energy efficiency programs and to issue a report on an annual basis to be made available to all interested parties and to the general public. The Commission should authorize the Energy Division to hire an outside auditing firm to accomplish this task and should authorize funding for these audits in current and future EM&V budgets. B. The Commission should authorize PG&E and SDG&E to use unspent, uncommitted electric funds from previous cycles to fund only gas programs that also benefit electric ratepayers and should allocate the burden of SB 87 fairly between gas and electric ratepayers in determining the total amount of unspent, uncommitted pre-2010 electric funds that can potentially be made available to gas programs. The APD would authorize SDG&E and PG&E to use without limitation all unspent, uncommitted electric SDG&E and SoCalGas funds from prior energy efficiency cycles to close the SB 87 funding gap. 8 This would in effect make whole the funding for PG&E and SDG&E gas programs. The APD contends that the Energy Efficiency Policy Manual provision providing that gas PGC funds must fund natural gas energy efficiency programs and that electric PGC funds must fund electric energy efficiency programs 9 is not a firm legal requirement. 10 The 5 PD, p PD, p. 6 and Ordering Paragraph 2, p See e.g., D , Ordering Paragraph 15(j), p. 371 directed the Utilities to identify, as a component of their adopted budgets the applicable unspent/unallocated funds to be used to reduce energy efficiency budgets. 8 APD, p APD, p. 10, citing Energy Efficiency Policy Manual Version 4, p. 6; see also DRA Comments, p. 6. 4
8 APD states the Commission in the unique circumstances presented here may authorize the use of electric [energy efficiency] funds to make up part of the loss gas PPP funds to prevent hardship. 11 While the Energy Efficiency Policy Manual may not establish a firm legal requirement in establishing a nexus between the payment of PGC energy efficiency funds and the receipt by ratepayers of benefits from PGC energy efficiency funds, it reflects good public policy. Allowing the unrestricted use of electric PGC funds to backstop the SB 87 shortfall without regard to benefits provided to electric ratepayers would conflict with sound and established Commission policy, and there is no reason to believe as the APD suggests that the SB 87 will be the only time the legislature authorizes the transfer of gas PPP funds. The PD, in contrast, denies as overbroad the requested authority to offset any remaining gas-under collection by transferring funds from any remaining electric funds. 12 Instead, the PD determines that consistent with D s recognition that electric funds can be used to support gas programs that also benefit electric ratepayers, a portion of the unspent electric funds should be used to backstop the gas funds shortfall SB 87 may create. SDG&E and PG&E failed to state which of the programs in jeopardy are mutually beneficial programs or to provide information about the relative (gas/electric) benefits of the programs at issue, 13 so the PD used the formula for the electric and gas cost recovery expense ratio developed in D as a proxy. 14 The PD therefore applied the 18% figure used to the unspent electric funds. The PD justifies the use of the proxy by the failure of PG&E and SDG&E to identify which gas programs are beneficial to gas and electric ratepayers. DRA believes, however, that the application of the proxy does not fairly distribute the burden of SB 87 and, in addition, may shortchange such mutually beneficial programs that strive to employ consolidated, integrated, whole building delivery approaches to energy efficiency. In this 10 APD, p APD, p PD, p PD, p PD, p
9 regard, DRA agrees with the APD. 15 SB 87 was not an indictment on gas programs; the gas PPP surcharge funds were simply available to close California s budget deficit because of the mechanics of their collection. However, unlike the APD, DRA would only allocate unspent electric funds to fill the funding gap that remains after exhaustion of the available funds from all other sources. In addition, DRA believes that the use of electric funds made available to fill this remaining gap should be limited to gas programs that also benefit electric ratepayers. 16 To this end, the Commission should direct PG&E and SDG&E to file advice letters to identify the gas programs that meet this condition. Referring to Table A in Appendix 1, the funding gap that remains after all other funds have been exhausted is $18.3 million for PG&E and $2.10 million for SDG&E. PG&E has $47.9 million of unspent electric funds. SDG&E has $22.2 million in unspent electric funds. Of these unspent electric funds, the Commission should authorize PG&E to use $18.3 million and SDG&E to use $2.10 million, thus fully addressing the remaining funding gap. As mentioned earlier, use of these electric funds made available should be limited to gas programs that also benefit electric ratepayers. DRA s recommendation results in an unspent funds surplus of $52.32 million across all of the three Utilities. As DRA suggests below, these surplus funds should be directed to the Consolidated Financing Program, which DRA recommended in the Bridge Funding phase of this proceeding. C. The Commission should reject the PD s allocation of the entire $21.6 million gas PPP funds remaining to PG&E if the $155 million is transferred to the general fund. The PD proposes to allocate the [entire] amount that will be left over if a full transfer occurs ($21.6 million) to PG&E. 17 The Energy Efficiency Policy Manual reflects the sound public policy that energy efficiency funds should be spent to deliver energy efficiency benefits 15 APD, p PG&E, SDG&E and SoCalGas argue electric ratepayers benefit from natural gas usage by customers because it results in lower natural gas prices overall, which lowers the cost of producing electricity. Thus, by extension, they appear to argue that all gas energy efficiency programs benefit electric ratepayers. See Utility Opening Comments, pp. 5-6, citing the CEC 2009 Integrated Energy Policy Report, California Energy Commission (CEC) =CMF, p PG&E, SDG&E and SoCalGas have failed to demonstrate in this proceeding the extent to which their gas energy efficiency programs have specifically contributed to lower natural gas prices. 17 PD, p. 7. 6
10 to ratepayers in the service territory from which funds were collected. 18 The requirement that funds be spent to deliver benefits to ratepayers in the service territory from which funds were collected reflects more than rational public policy; the requirement is consistent with the Commission s obligation under Section 451 of the Public Utilities Code to ensure just and reasonable rates. 19 Both the PD and the APD recognized that [n]o party asserted that shifting funds among the utilities was either permissible or desirable. 20 DRA noted that [i]t would be patently unfair to require ratepayers of one utility to pay rates for programs whose benefits accrue solely to the ratepayers of another utility in another service territory. 21 Yet the PD s allocation of the entire remaining $21.6 million in PPP funds to PG&E, when those funds include money contributed by ratepayers of SDG&E and SoCalGas, would require ratepayers in southern California to fund energy efficiency in northern California with no showing that this would benefit those ratepayers. The Commission should revise the PD consistent with Table A in Appendix 1 to ensure that SoCalGas and SG&E ratepayers do not pay for programs in PG&E s service territory. This table also notes and resolves discrepancies between the raw numbers used in the PD and the APD. D. The Commission should redirect any remaining unspent, uncommitted funds from previous cycles and from the program cycle toward a statewide Consolidated Financing Program run and operated by an independent financing administrator. The PD would return any remaining unspent, uncommitted funds to the originating Utility. DRA disagrees. In its opening comments, DRA recommended that any remaining unspent, uncommitted funds that cannot be used to mitigate the impact of SB 87 be redirected to the Consolidated Financing Program advocated by DRA in the 2013 Bridge Funding Proceeding. 22 The purpose of establishing the Consolidated Financing Program is to fund, develop, and implement a variety of financing mechanisms that will leverage several-fold the capital raised from ratepayers with private capital to make low interest loans or financing 18 PD, p DRA Comments, p PD, p. 9; APD, p DRA Comments, p DRA Comments, p
11 available for energy efficiency projects. 23 DRA suggested an initial budget of at least $85 million, much more if possible, and urged the Commission to begin a separate proceeding to develop the details of the program. The initial budget for the program would be obtained through the elimination of rebates, incentives, and subsidies for screw-in Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFLs) and the appliance recycling programs (which would generate more than $50 million), reducing the EM&V budget for the 2013 Bridge Year by about half (which would free up an additional $21.6 million), and allocating to the program all unspent monies remaining from the program cycle. As Table A in Appendix 1 shows, there will be $52.32 million of surplus funds after the impact of SB 87 is mitigated consistent with DRA s recommendations. DRA believes these surplus funds should be redirected to the Consolidated Financing Program. DRA believes it is necessary to facilitate the development and implementation of a variety of financing mechanisms which substantially increase the flow of private capital in energy efficiency markets. Vibrant participation of private capital is necessary to transform energy efficiency markets, increase the order volume of energy efficiency projects, accelerate innovation, and, ultimately, reduce the need for ratepayer subsidies. Therefore, DRA urges the Commission to act now to establish a Consolidate Financing Program, administered by an independent entity with the single mission of facilitating the development and commercialization of financing mechanisms in the marketplace. This needs to be in place, with adequate funding, beginning of the 2013 Bridge Year, sooner if possible. Otherwise, DRA is fearful that the Commission may have to wait until the program cycle in order to do so. This is a delay that energy efficiency markets and ratepayers cannot afford. III. CONCLUSION The Commission should adopt the PD, but should allocate to PG&E, SDG&E, and SoCalGas each utility s proportionate share of gas PPP funds remaining after the Board of Equalization transfers up to $155 million of gas PPP funds to the General Fund. DRA supports replacing the PD s use of the 82/18 ratio of electric and gas benefits to allocate prior unspent electric energy efficiency funds to close the SB 87 funding gap and in its place providing PG&E and SDG&E the authority to use $18.30 million and $2.10 million of the unspent electric funds 23 The Division of Ratepayer Advocates Comments In Response to Administrative Law Judge s Ruling Requesting Comments Regarding 2013 Bridge Funding and Mechanics of Portfolio Extension ( DRA 2013 Bridge Funding Opening Comments ), June 16, 2011, p. 7. 8
12 respectively to be allocated to gas programs that also benefit electric ratepayers. DRA believes this limited use of electric funds more fairly allocates the burden of SB 87 between gas and electric ratepayers. Finally, any funds remaining should be allocated to DRA s proposed Consolidated Financing Mechanism, which would substantially increase the flow of private capital in energy efficiency markets. Vibrant participation of private capital is necessary to transform energy efficiency markets, increase the order volume of energy efficiency projects, accelerate innovation, and, ultimately, reduce the need for ratepayer subsidies. Respectfully submitted, /s/ DIANA L. LEE Diana L. Lee Attorney for the Division of Ratepayer Advocates September 22, 2011 California Public Utilities Commission 505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, CA Phone: (415) Fax: (415) Diana.lee@cpuc.ca.gov 9
13 APPENDIX 1 Table A - As Revised by DRA Estimated Summary of IOU Available Funds (million $) PG&E SDG&E SCG Total 1 Forecast Gas PPP Collections/Budget FY 2011/2012 $ $ $ $ Pro Rata Impact if SB 87 Transfer Occurs $ (63.55) $ (15.50) $ (75.95) $ (155.00) 3 Gas Funds Remaining (Line 1+ Line 2) a/ $ $ 5.20 $ (9.95) $ Total (Gap) to be addressed $ (37.20) $ (10.30) $ (85.90) $ (133.40) 5 Estimated 6/30/2011 Unspent Gas Funds $ (1.80) $ 0.70 $ Pre-2010 Uncommitted, Available Gas Funds b/ $ 7.20 $ 7.20 $ Pre-2010 EM&V $ $ 0.30 $ Subtotal Available Funds (add Lines 5, 6, 7) $ $ 8.20 $ Subtotal Remaining (Gap)/Surplus (Line 4 + Line 8) $ (18.30) $ (2.10) $ Pre-2010 Unspent, Uncommitted Electric Funds c/ $ 47.9 $ Allocation of Unspent, Uncommitted Electric Funds for Gas $ $ 2.10 Programs that also Benefit Electric Ratepayers 12 Total Surplus (Directed to Consolidated Financing $ $ $ a/ Table A of APD does not address use of this $21.6M, while Table A of the PD allocates this entire amount to PG&E (in effect transferring monies from one IOU to another). b/ For SDG&E, the PD uses $7.2M and the APD uses $6.9M. For SCG, the PD uses $31.3M and the APD uses $28.1M. This revised table uses $7.2M for SDG&E and $31.4M for SCG, consistent with Joint Reseponse of Joint IOUs to ALJ Ruling Seeking Information Regarding Gas EE Programs, pg. 7. c/ Table A of the PD recognizes the existence of $22.2M of Pre-2010 Unspent, Uncommitted Electric Funds for SDG&E while Table A of the APD does not.
14 APPENDIX 2 Proposed Changes to Findings of Fact and Ordering Paragraphs of the PD Findings of Fact 4. If the full amount allowed by SB 87 is transferred, there will only be $21.6 million remaining in the Gas Consumption Surcharge Fund: $26.5 million for Pacific Gas and Electric Company; $5.2 million for San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and an undercollection of $9.95 million for Southern California Gas Company, as shown in Table A of DRAs Appendix For the most part, parties agreed that the IOUs should fully fund their ARRA, and, in particular, the Energy Upgrade California program, and gas programs that demonstrate benefits both gas and electric ratepayers, including programs that deliver consolidated, integrated, whole building approaches to energy efficiency. Ordering Paragraphs 7a. Pacific Gas and Electric Company and San Diego Gas & Electric Company each shall file a Tier 3 Advice Letter within 30 days of the mailing of this decision that identifies which gas energy efficiency programs benefit both gas and electric ratepayers. 10. Pacific Gas and Electric Company may use up to $18.3 million and San Diego Gas & Electric Company may use up to $2.10 million 18% of their electric energy efficiency program funds to support gas programs that they identify as also having electric energy efficiency program benefits. 11. All funds provided for in today s decision in excess of funds transferred pursuant to Senate Bill 87 shall be returned to their source of origin on or before July be redirected to the Consolidated Financing Program advocated by DRA in the 2013 Bridge Funding phase of this proceeding.
APPENDIX E. Advice No Table of Compliance
APPENDIX E Advice No. 4449 Table of Compliance 1 Budget 21 Compliance AL 2 Budget 39 84 Compliance AL 3 Budget 85 Compliance AL 4 Budget 80 101 Compliance AL 5 Budget 107 Compliance AL IOUs shall fund
More informationBEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Application of Southern California Edison Company (U 338-E) for Approval of Energy Efficiency Rolling Portfolio Business Plan. Application
More informationBEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Application of Pacific Gas and Electric Company for Authority to Establish the Wildfire Expense Memorandum Account. (U39E) Application
More informationPUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298 FILED 10/29/18 02:02 PM October 29, 2018 Agenda ID #16979 Ratesetting TO PARTIES
More informationApril 6, Your courtesy in this matter is appreciated. Very truly yours, James M. Lehrer
James M. Lehrer Senior Attorney James.Lehrer@sce.com April 6, 2005 Docket Clerk California Public Utilities Commission 505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, California 94102 RE: APPLICATION NO. 04-12-014
More informationENERGY DIVISION Resolution E-4663 June 26, 2014 RESOLUTION
Date of Issuance: June 27, 2014 PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ENERGY DIVISION Resolution E-4663 June 26, 2014 RESOLUTION Resolution E-4663: Submit for approval by the Commission
More informationNovember 14, 2014 Advice Letters: 4582-G 4582-G-A. SUBJECT: Establishment of Rule No. 43, OBR Tariff in Compliance with D.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298 November 14, 2014 Advice Letters: 4582-G 4582-G-A Rasha Prince, Director Regulatory
More informationENERGY EFFICIENCY POLICY MANUAL
ENERGY EFFICIENCY POLICY MANUAL Version 5 July 2013 Applicable to post-2012 Energy Efficiency Programs Table of Contents i. Introduction ii. Common Terms and Definitions iii. Reference Documents I. Energy
More informationBEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Application of Pacific Gas and Electric Company (U 39 E) for Authority to Establish the Wildfire Expense Memorandum Account. Application
More informationBEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. And Related Matters. Application Application
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Application of San Diego Gas & Electric Company (U902E) for Authority to Implement Optional Pilot Program to Increase Customer Access to
More informationBEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Order Instituting Rulemaking on the ) Commission s Own Motion to address the ) R.10-02-005 Issue of customers electric and natural gas
More informationBEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Order Instituting Rulemaking evaluating the ) Commission s 2010 Water Action Plan Objective ) Of Achieving Consistency between the Class
More informationDecember 14, 2016 Advice Letter 5053
lstate OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298 Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor December 14, 2016 Advice Letter 5053 Ronald van der Leeden Director, Regulatory
More informationSECOND REVISED SDG&E DIRECT TESTIMONY OF KENNETH J. DEREMER (POST-TEST YEAR RATEMAKING) April 6, 2018
Company: San Diego Gas & Electric Company (U 0 M) Proceeding: 01 General Rate Case Application: A.1--00 Exhibit: SDG&E--R SECOND REVISED SDG&E DIRECT TESTIMONY OF KENNETH J. DEREMER (POST-TEST YEAR RATEMAKING)
More informationTO: ALL PARTIES OF RECORD IN RULEMAKING
STATE OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298 ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor December 29, 2009 TO: ALL PARTIES OF RECORD IN RULEMAKING 08-12-009 Decision
More informationCA IOU Programs for Low Income Energy Efficiency
CA IOU Programs for Low Income Energy Efficiency Energy Efficiency and Weatherization Programs Forum on Affordable Multifamily Housing February 10, 2011 San Francisco, CA 1 CA IOU Low Income Energy Efficiency
More informationPREPARED REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF SCOTT R. WILDER ON BEHALF OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY (PHASE 2)
Exhibit No.: Application No.: 1-0-01 Witness: Scott R. Wilder Date: December 1, 01 PREPARED REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF SCOTT R. WILDER ON BEHALF OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY (PHASE ) BEFORE THE PUBLIC
More informationBEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. And Related Matter. Rulemaking
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Application of SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY (U902E) for Approval of its Electric Vehicle-Grid Integration Pilot Program. Application
More informationResidential Line and Service Extension Allowance Testimony. Application No.: Witnesses: C. Silsbee S. Reed J. Schichtl L. Vellanoweth (U 338-E)
Application No.: Exhibit No.: Witnesses: SCE-1 C. Silsbee S. Reed J. Schichtl L. Vellanoweth (U -E) Residential Line and Service Extension Allowance Testimony Before the Public Utilities Commission of
More informationUNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION California Independent System ) Docket No. ER18-641-000 Operator Corporation ) MOTION TO INTERVENE AND PROTEST OF THE DEPARTMENT
More informationWHAT DOES CALIFORNIA S ENERGY CRISIS MEAN FOR THE BUDGET?
BUDGET PROJECT April 12, 2001 WHAT DOES CALIFORNIA S ENERGY CRISIS MEAN FOR THE BUDGET? California s energy crisis has overshadowed deliberations over the 2001-02 fiscal year. At issue are amounts spent
More informationBEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Application of Southern California Edison Company (U 338-E) for Approval of Energy Efficiency Rolling Portfolio Business Plan A.17-01-013
More informationORA. Office of Ratepayer Advocates California Public Utilities Commission
ORA Office of Ratepayer Advocates California Public Utilities Commission http://ora.ca.gov 505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, California 94102 Tel: 415-703-2381 Fax: 415-703-2057 CPUC, Energy Division
More informationBEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Order Instituting Rulemaking Regarding Policies, Procedures and Rules for Development of Distribution Resources Plans Pursuant to Public
More informationBEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA CLEAN COALITION COMMENTS ON THIRD REVISED POWER PURCHASE AGREEMENT
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Order Instituting Rulemaking to Continue Implementation and Administration of California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program. Rulemaking
More information2016 Statewide Retrocommissioning Policy & Procedures Manual
2016 Statewide Retrocommissioning Policy & Procedures Manual Version 1.0 Effective Date: July 19, 2016 Utility Administrators: Pacific Gas and Electric San Diego Gas & Electric Southern California Edison
More informationAkbar Jazayeri Vice President, Regulatory Operations Southern California Edison Company P O Box 800 Rosemead, CA 91770
STATE OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298 Edmund G. Brown Jr. Governor February 1, 2012 Advice Letter 2677-E Akbar Jazayeri Vice President, Regulatory Operations Southern
More informationOPINION APPROVING A RATE DESIGN SETTLEMENT LOWERING PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY S RATES BY $799 MILLION
ALJ/JJJ/hl2 Mailed 2/27/2004 Decision 04-02-062 February 26, 2004 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Order Instituting Investigation into the ratemaking implications for
More informationALJ/UNC/lil Date of Issuance 2/17/2017
ALJ/UNC/lil Date of Issuance 2/17/2017 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Order Instituting Investigation pursuant to Senate Bill 380 to determine the feasibility of minimizing
More informationSUBJECT: Establishment of the Transportation Electrification Portfolio Balancing Account Pursuant to D
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298 February 26, 2018 Advice Letter 3734-E Russell G. Worden Director, State Regulatory
More informationFebruary 6, Advice 3805-G (Pacific Gas and Electric Company ID U 39 G) Public Utilities Commission of the State of California
Erik Jacobson Director Regulatory Relations Pacific Gas and Electric Company 77 Beale St., Mail Code B10C P.O. Box 770000 San Francisco, CA 94177 Fax: 415-973-1448 February 6, 2017 Advice 3805-G (Pacific
More informationFebruary 14, RE: Southern California Edison 2006 General Rate Case, A , et al.
Frank A. McNulty Senior Attorney mcnultfa@sce.com February 14, 2005 Docket Clerk California Public Utilities Commission 505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, California 94102 RE: Southern California Edison
More informationSDG&E REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF CYNTHIA S. FANG (ELECTRIC RATES AND BILL COMPARISON) JUNE 18, 2018
Company: San Diego Gas & Electric Company (U902M) Proceeding: 2019 General Rate Case Application: A.17-10-007/-008 (cons.) Exhibit: SDG&E-246 SDG&E REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF CYNTHIA S. FANG (ELECTRIC RATES
More informationENTERED 09/14/06 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF OREGON AR 499 ) ) ) ) DISPOSITION: PERMANENT RULES ADOPTED
ENTERED 09/14/06 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION OF OREGON AR 499 In the Matter of Adoption of Permanent Rules to Implement SB 408 Relating to Utility Taxes. ) ) ) ) ORDER DISPOSITION: PERMANENT RULES
More informationFebruary 26, 2018 Advice Letter 3926-G/5214-E
STATE OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298 EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor February 26, 2018 Advice Letter 3926-G/5214-E Erik Jacobson Director, Regulatory
More informationSECOND REVISED SOCALGAS DIRECT TESTIMONY OF JAWAAD A. MALIK (POST-TEST YEAR RATEMAKING) April 6, 2018
Company: Southern California Gas Company (U 0 G) Proceeding: 01 General Rate Case Application: A.1--00 Exhibit: SCG--R SECOND REVISED SOCALGAS DIRECT TESTIMONY OF JAWAAD A. MALIK (POST-TEST YEAR RATEMAKING)
More informationBEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY S BRIEF ADDRESSING THE SCOPE OF THE PROCEEDING
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Amended Application of Southern California Edison Company (U 338-E) for Authorization to Recover Costs Related to the 2007 Southern California
More informationJOINT SETTLEMENT COMPARISON EXHIBIT SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY TEST YEAR 2008 GENERAL RATE CASE
Application of SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY for authority to update its gas revenue requirement and base rates effective January 1, 2008 (U 904-G). ) ) ) ) Application No. 06-12-010 Exhibit No.: (SCG-302)
More informationADVICE LETTER (AL) SUSPENSION NOTICE ENERGY DIVISION
ADVICE LETTER (AL) SUSPENSION NOTICE ENERGY DIVISION Utility Name: Southern California Edison Utility No./Type: U 338-E Advice Letter No.: 3743-E Date Utility Notified: March 9, 2018 via: email [X] E-Mailto:
More informationSECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION. Washington, D.C FORM 8-K CURRENT REPORT
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 FORM 8-K CURRENT REPORT Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Date of Report: June 19, 2003 Exact Name of Registrant
More informationBEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) )
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Application of Southern California Edison Company (U 338-E) To Establish Marginal Costs, Allocate Revenues, Design Rates, and Implement
More informationSubject: Withdrawal Request to Increase Funding for SoCalGas Company s Gas Assistance Fund (GAF)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298 April 17, 2013 Advice Letter 3963 Rasha Prince, Director Regulatory Affairs
More informationSouthern California Edison Company (U 338-E) Smart Meter Opt-Out Phase 2 Rebuttal Testimony
Application No.: Exhibit No.: Witnesses: A.-0-00 K. Ellison G. Huckaby L. Letizia J. Lim L. Miller L. Oliva (U -E) Southern California Edison Company (U -E) Smart Meter Opt-Out Phase Rebuttal Testimony
More informationSubject: Supplement - Southern California Gas Company Request for Approval of Annual Energy Efficiency Budget Filing for Program Year 2017
Ronald van der Leeden Director Regulatory Affairs 555 W. Fifth Street, GT14D6 Los Angeles, CA 90013-1011 Tel: 213.244.2009 Fax: 213.244.4957 RvanderLeeden@semprautilities.com November 8, 2016 Advice No.
More informationSeptember 4, Advice Letter 3622-G/4693-E
STATE OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298 Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor September 4, 2015 Erik Jacobson Director, Regulatory Relations Pacific Gas
More informationSDG&E REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF NORMA G. JASSO (REGULATORY ACCOUNTS) June 2015
Company: San Diego Gas & Electric Company (U0M) Proceeding: 01 General Rate Case Application: A.1--00 Exhibit: SDG&E- SDG&E REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF NORMA G. JASSO (REGULATORY ACCOUNTS) June 01 BEFORE THE
More informationPara más detalles en Español llame al BACKGROUND KEY REASONS WHY SDG&E IS ASKING FOR INCREASES ARE:
Para más detalles en Español llame al 1-800-311-7343 NOTIFICATION OF SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY S REQUEST TO INCREASE RATES AND REVENUES FOR THE 2019 GENERAL RATE CASE APPLICATION FILING NO. A.17-10-007
More informationApplication of PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY for Approval of the Energy Efficiency Programs and Budget A et al.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company TM Chonda J. Nwamu Mailing Address P.O. Box 7442 San Francisco, CA 94120 Street/Courier Address Law Department 77 Beale Street San Francisco, CA 94105 (415) 973-6650 Fax:
More informationUNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION. San Diego Gas & Electric Company ) Docket No.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION San Diego Gas & Electric Company ) Docket No. EL15-103-000 REQUEST FOR REHEARING OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY AND SOUTHERN
More informationBEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Application of San Diego Gas & Electric Company (U 902 M) for Authority, Among Other Things, to Increase Rates and Charges for Electric
More informationBEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Application of Pacific Gas and Electric Company (U 39-E) for Approval of Demand Response Programs, Pilots and Budgets for Program Years
More informationSummary of NAESCO Comments
To: CAEECC From: Donald Gilligan Re: NAESCO Comments on PG&E, SDG&E and SoCal Gas October 18 Draft Business Plan Filings Date: November 21, 2016 NAESCO appreciates the opportunity to offer these comments
More informationSOCALGAS REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF RENE F. GARCIA (ADVANCE METERING INFRASTRUCTURE POLICY) JUNE 18, 2018
Company: Southern California Gas Company (U0G) Proceeding: 01 General Rate Case Application: A.1--00/-00 (cons.) Exhibit: SCG-1 SOCALGAS REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF RENE F. GARCIA (ADVANCE METERING INFRASTRUCTURE
More informationBEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA APPLICATION OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY ANN H. KIM GAIL L.
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Application of Pacific Gas and Electric Company for Approval of Economic Development Rate for 2013-2017 (U 39 E) Application No. 12-03-
More informationBEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Order Instituting Rulemaking on the Commission s ) Own Motion into Addressing The Commission s ) R.11-11-008 Water Action Plan Objective
More informationBEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES CO1SThUSSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES CO1SThUSSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Order Instituting Rulemaking on Regulations R. 12-12-011 Relating to Passenger Carriers, Ridesharing, And New Online-Enabled Transportation
More informationDecoupling Mechanisms: Energy Efficiency Policy Impacts and Regulatory Implementation
Decoupling Mechanisms: Energy Efficiency Policy Impacts and Regulatory Implementation Tory Weber, Southern California Edison Company Athena Besa, San Diego Gas and Electric Company and Southern California
More informationBEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) )
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Application of Southern California Edison Company (U 338-E for Authority to, Among Other Things, Increase its Authorized Revenues for Electric
More informationCounty of Los Angeles INTERNAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT 1100 North Eastern Avenue Los Angeles, California 90063
County of Los Angeles INTERNAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT 1100 North Eastern Avenue Los Angeles, California 90063 To enrich lives through effective and caring service Telephone: (323) 267-2101 FAX: (323) 264-7135
More informationPursuant to Rules 211, 213, and 214 of the Rules and Regulations of the Federal
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BEFORE THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Winding Creek Solar LLC ) ) ) Docket Nos. EL15-52-000 QF13-403-002 JOINT MOTION TO INTERVENE, PROTEST, AND ANSWER OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
More informationSTATE OF NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
STATE OF NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION At a session of the Public Service Commission held in the City of New York on December 17, 2003 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: William M. Flynn, Chairman Thomas J. Dunleavy
More informationBEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ALJ/BWM/sid Mailed 7/27/2007 Decision 07-07-027 July 26, 2007 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Order Instituting Rulemaking to Continue Implementation and Administration
More informationPREPARED REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF GARRY G. YEE ON BEHALF OF SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY AND SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY
Application of San Diego Gas & Electric Company (U90M) for Authority, Among Other Things, to Increase Rates and Charges for Electric and Gas Service Effective on January, 0. A.0--00 (Filed December, 00)
More informationBEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA NOTICE OF EX PARTE COMMUNICATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (U 338-E)
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Application of Southern California Edison Company (U 338-E) for Authority to, Among Other Things, Increase its Authorized Revenues for
More informationGREAT OAKS WATER COMPANY
GREAT OAKS WATER COMPANY California Public Utilities Commission Division of Water and Audits Room 3102 505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102-3298 May 31, 2018 P.O. Box 23490 San Jose, CA 95153 (408)
More informationREVISED SOCALGAS DIRECT TESTIMONY OF RONALD M. VAN DER LEEDEN POST-TEST YEAR RATEMAKING. March 2015
Company: Southern California Gas Company (U 0 G) Proceeding: 01 General Rate Case Application: A.1--00 Exhibit: SCG--R REVISED SOCALGAS DIRECT TESTIMONY OF RONALD M. VAN DER LEEDEN POST-TEST YEAR RATEMAKING
More informationBEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA REPLY COMMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA INDEPENDENT SYSTEM OPERATOR CORPORATION
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Order Instituting Rulemaking to Develop an Electricity Integrated Resource Planning Framework and to Coordinate and Refine Long-Term Procurement
More informationSubject: Supplement - Southern California Gas Company Request for Approval of Annual Energy Efficiency Budget Filing for Program Year 2018
Ronald van der Leeden Director Regulatory Affairs 555 W. Fifth Street, GT14D6 Los Angeles, CA 90013-1011 Tel: 213.244.2009 Fax: 213.244.4957 RvanderLeeden@semprautilities.com November 22, 2017 Advice No.
More informationREBUTTAL TESTIMONY VOLUME *** REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF DEBBIE S
Company: Southern California Gas Company (U 0 G)/San Diego Gas & Electric Company (U 0 M) Proceeding: 01 General Rate Case Application: A.1--00/00 (cons.) Exhibit: SCG-1/SDG&E- SOCALGAS/SDG&E REBUTTAL
More informationSUBJECT: Establishment of Demand Response Load Shift Working Group Memorandum Account in Compliance with Decision
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298 February 23, 2018 Advice Letter 3729-E Russell G. Worden Director, State Regulatory
More informationCITY OF DANA POINT. FINANCIAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Agenda Report
01/23/18 Page 1 Item #3B CITY OF DANA POINT FINANCIAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Agenda Report DATE: JANUARY 23, 2018 TO: FROM: FINANCIAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MIKE KILLEBREW, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: UTILITY
More informationAdvice Letters 2311-E and 2311-E-A
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298 April 27, 2009 Advice Letters 2311-E and 2311-E-A Akbar Jazayeri Vice President, Regulatory
More informationAnd Related Matters. Application Application Application
Application No.: A.--0 Exhibit No: Witness: Rendler, Daniel J. Application of Southern California Edison Company (U E) for Approval of its Energy Savings Assistance and California Alternate Rates for Energy
More informationHERO Program Profile Final Report
HERO Program Profile Final Report CALMAC ID: PGE0388.01 October 3, 2016 Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison, and Southern California Gas Company This
More informationSouthern California Gas Company Annual Report on the Gas Cost Incentive Mechanism April 1, 2010 through March 31, 2011
Southern California Gas Company Annual Report on the Gas Cost Incentive Mechanism April 1, 2010 through March 31, 2011 I. Summary of Year 17 GCIM Results This report summarizes the results of the Gas Acquisition
More informationTransmission Access Charge Informational Filing
California Independent System Operator September 27, 213 The Honorable Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 2426 Re: California Independent
More informationBEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Order Instituting Rulemaking to Review, Revise, and Consider Alternatives to the Power Charge Indifference Adjustment. Rulemaking 17-06-026
More information106 FERC 61,263 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
106 FERC 61,263 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Before Commissioners: Pat Wood, III, Chairman; Nora Mead Brownell, and Joseph T. Kelliher. San Diego Gas & Electric Company
More informationLEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE UPDATE
January 2017 Volume 2 Issue 1 LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE UPDATE Welcome Back! Welcome to the first issue of the 2017 SCCA Legislative Committee Newsletter. Our first volume produced 19 issues packed with 64
More informationBEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Request for Modifications to SCE s Renewable Auction Mechanism ( RAM ) Program Pursuant to Decision 10-12-048 Rulemaking 11-05-005 (Filed
More informationJanuary 12, 2017 Advice Letter 5070
lstate OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298 Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor January 12, 2017 Advice Letter 5070 Ronald van der Leeden Director, Regulatory
More informationCOM/MP1/avs DRAFT Agenda ID #9721 (Rev.6) Ratesetting 1/13/11 Item 44 Decision PROPOSED DECISION OF COMMISSIONER PEEVEY (Mailed 8/25/2010)
COM/MP1/avs DRAFT Agenda ID #9721 (Rev.6) Ratesetting 1/13/11 Item 44 Decision PROPOSED DECISION OF COMMISSIONER PEEVEY (Mailed 8/25/2010) BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
More informationBEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Application of Pacific Gas and Electric Company for Authority to Establish the Wildfire Expense Memorandum Account. (U 39E) Application
More informationPREPARED REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF LEE SCHAVRIEN SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
Application No: Exhibit No.: Witness: A.0-0-01 Lee Schavrien ) In the Matter of the Application of ) San Diego Gas & Electric Company (U 0 E) ) A.0-0-01 for Authorization to Recover Unforeseen Liability
More informationCOUNTY PENSION REFORM Time to Stop Kicking the Can
Contact: Linda Chew Foreperson (925) 957-5638 Contra Costa County Grand Jury Report 1107 COUNTY PENSION REFORM Time to Stop Kicking the Can TO: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors SUMMARY Contra Costa
More informationJanuary 31, 2006 ADVICE 1960-E (U 338-E) PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ENERGY DIVISION
Akbar Jazayeri Director of Revenue and Tariffs January 31, 2006 ADVICE 1960-E (U 338-E) PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ENERGY DIVISION SUBJECT: Statewide Pricing Pilot Advanced
More informationPREPARED REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF RANDALL G. ROSE ON BEHALF OF SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY AND SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY
Application of San Diego Gas & Electric Company (U0M) for Authority, Among Other Things, to Increase Rates and Charges for Electric and Gas Service Effective on January, 0. A.0--00 (Filed December, 00)
More informationUNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION Before Commissioners: Pat Wood, III, Chairman; William L. Massey, and Nora Mead Brownell. California Power Exchange Corporation Docket No.
More informationGREAT OAKS WATER COMPANY
GREAT OAKS WATER COMPANY California Public Utilities Commission Division of Water and Audits Room 3102 505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102-3298 March 31, 2015 Advice Letter 244-W-A Great Oaks Water
More informationBEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Application of Southern California Edison Company (U 338-E To Establish Marginal Costs, Allocate Revenues, And Design Rates In the Matter
More informationJuly 17, 2013 Advice Letter 4504
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298 July 17, 2013 Advice Letter 4504 Rasha Prince, Director Regulatory Affairs
More informationSeptember 22, Advice Letter 3033-E
STATE OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298 Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor September 22, 2014 Advice Letter 3033-E Megan Scott-Kakures Vice President,
More informationTestimony of Stephen E. Pickett
Application No.: Exhibit No.: Witness: SCE-1 S. Pickett (U -E) Testimony of Stephen E. Pickett Before the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California Rosemead, California August, 0 1 PREPARED
More informationNorthwest Power and Conservation Council 851 SW 6 th Ave, Suite 1100 Portland, OR 97204
April 26, 2004 Northwest Power and Conservation Council Submitted to: 851 SW 6 th Ave, Suite 1100 comments@nwcouncil.org Portland, OR 97204 Re: Comments of Alcoa on the April 8, 2004 Draft Recommendation
More informationDEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE GENERAL COUNSEL DIVISION MEMORANDUM. Legality of setting utility rates based upon the tax liability of its parent
HARDY MYERS Attorney General PETER D. SHEPHERD Deputy Attorney General DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE GENERAL COUNSEL DIVISION MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Commissioner Baum Commissioner Beyer Commissioner
More informationCOM/CAP/jt2/lil DRAFT Agenda ID #15815 (Rev. 2) Quasi-legislative 6/29/2017 Item #21 Decision
COM/CAP/jt2/lil DRAFT Agenda ID #15815 (Rev. 2) Quasi-legislative 6/29/2017 Item #21 Decision BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Order Instituting Rulemaking to Review, Revise,
More informationPrepared Remarks of Edison International CEO and CFO Fourth Quarter and Full-Year 2018 Earnings Teleconference February 28, 2019, 1:30 p.m.
Prepared Remarks of Edison International CEO and CFO Fourth Quarter and Full-Year 2018 Earnings Teleconference February 28, 2019, 1:30 p.m. (PST) Pedro Pizarro, President and Chief Executive Officer, Edison
More informationBEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA REPLY BRIEF OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY (U 338-E)
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Expedited Application of Southern California Edison Company (U338E) Regarding Energy Resource Recovery Account Trigger Mechanism. Application
More informationApril 3, Advice 4085-G/5517-E (Pacific Gas and Electric Company ID U 39 M) Public Utilities Commission of the State of California
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 3, 2019 Advice 4085-G/5517-E (Pacific
More informationSouthern California Edison Revised Cal. PUC Sheet No E Rosemead, California (U 338-E) Cancelling Revised Cal. PUC Sheet No.
Southern California Edison Revised Cal. PUC Sheet No. 49319-E Rosemead, California (U 338-E) Cancelling Revised Cal. PUC Sheet No. 46179-E PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Sheet 1 1. Purpose The purpose of the Public
More information