Utility-Owned Solar Generation and Green Tariff Programs

SDG&E Solar Energy Project A.08-07-017 ; PG&E Solar PV Project A.09-02-019 ; SCE Solar Photovoltaic Program (SPVP) A.08-03-015 ; RPS Proceeding R.11-05-005 ; SDG&E's A.12-01-008 , A. 12-04-020 , and A.14-01-007 (Consolidated) - SDG&E, PG&E and SCE Green Options __________ Parties filed reply briefs Dec 23 in response to the Dec 1 ALJ Ruling Setting Status Conference and Reopening the Record (see Dec 20 post). Filers included: PG&E; Coalition of Utility Employees; SDG&E; Office of Ratepayer Advocates; SCE; and the City of Davis. SDG&E continues to part company with its sister IOUs and insists that the Renewable Integration Charge is not a component of bills, but rather is only suitable as a tool to select a project with the least total cost. CUE weighs in on the side of using the RIC as a bill component. ORA clarifies in its reply that the costs to integrate only the Green Tariff Shared Renewables projects should properly be included in a GTSR rate, i.e. the RIC. PG&E and SCE are steadfast in their belief that the RIC should be a bill adder, and suggest that comments from Shell, MCE, Clean Coalition, and IREC are outside of scope and must be disregarded. City of Davis says SB 43 gave it special status and prohibits imposition of RICs on it. PG&E also filed Dec 22 Advice Letter 4555-E , "PG&E’s Photovoltaic Program – Termination and Current Status." PG&E requests approval for termination of the program. Dec 30 the Commission sent out notice of ALJ McKinney's Proposed Decision : "Approving Green Tariff Shared Renewables Program for San Diego Gas & Electric Company, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and Southern California Edison Company Pursuant to Senate Bill 43." This proposed decision begins the implementation of SB 43 (Wolk, 2013). SB 43 set a formal requirement for the three large electrical utilities to implement Green Tariff Shared Renewables (GTSR) Programs. As envisioned by statute, the GTSR Programs can include both a Green Tariff Option (Green Tariff) component and an enhanced community renewables (ECR) component. This decision finds that: (1) indifference between participating and nonparticipating ratepayers can be achieved through careful rate design and procurement processes; (2) the proposed GTSR Programs, as modified by this decision, satisfy the requirements of SB 43, comply with Commission decisions and other laws, and are not anticompetitive; (3) the existing procurement mechanisms for the Renewable Portfolio Standard should be used for GTSR Program procurement; and (4) in order to ensure additional renewable facilities are built, it is necessary to set minimum advance procurement goals for 2015. This proceeding was divided into three phases:; This decision addresses all three phases, and establishes a new Phase IV. This decision sets forth the steps for Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison Company, and San Diego Gas and Electric Company (collectively, IOUs) to implement the Green Tariff and ECR components, including procuring resources that qualify for the reservations set forth in Section 2833(d). Phase IV will examine if additional actions are necessary to optimize participation in the GTSR Program. This may include: (a) consideration of sub-500 kW projects, (b) additional support for ECR projects, (c) offering a locked-in renewable procurement rate for customers with long-term contracts, (d) additional support for GTSR facilities located in areas identified by the California Environmental Protection Agency as the most impacted and disadvantaged, (e) procurement of renewable resources other than solar. and (f) increased participation by low-income and minority customers and communities. The proposed decision can be on the Commission's calendar no sooner than its Jan 29 meeting. __________ Dec 20, 2014 post: Parties filed comments Dec 18 on the Administrative Law Judge’s Ruling Setting Status Conference and Reopening the Record (see Dec 5 post). Comments were filed by: PG&E; Interstate Renewable Energy Council; The Utility Reform Network; SCE; Shell; Marin Clean Energy; Clean Coalition; SDG&E; and the Office of Ratepayer Advocates. PG&E states that it intends to design its Green Tariff Shared Renewable program similarly to the Renewable Auction Mechanism, and that it will use an interim Renewable Integration Charge (RIC). SCE similarly will charge a RIC adder. SDG&E, on the other hand, is clear that it will use the RIC only for the purpose of bid evaluation, not as a line item on customers' bills. IREC feels strongly that an interim charge is counterproductive, and should be not used until it can be determined with some certainty to encourage investment, while TURN advocates for its use only for incremental GTSR new resources procurement. Clean Coalition supports a RIC only if it includes benefits as well as costs, including locational benefits. __________ Dec 5, 2014 post: Nov 21 the Commission issued Decision 14-11-026 "Granting In Part PG&E's Petition for Expedited Order Granting Modification of D1004052 - Solar Photovoltaic Program" signed by the Commission at its November 20, 2014 Commission Meeting. The decision grants PG&E’s February 26, 2014 Petition for Modification of Decision (D.) 10-04-052, PG&E’s request to close its Solar Photovoltaic Program. The Decision denies PG&E's request to permit PG&E to procure the remaining megawatt (MW) volumes authorized in D.10-04-052 through a different procurement process, the Renewable Auction Mechanism (RAM). There are approximately 200 remaining MW in the program. These 200 MW will be addressed as part of the Commission’s current comprehensive review of the RAM procurement mechanism in Rulemaking (R.) 11-05-005. Dec 1 Administrative Law Judge Jeanne M. McKinney issued her " Ruling Setting Status Conference and Reopening Record." The ruling reopens the record in Application 12-01-008 et al. for the limited purpose of allowing parties to brief whether, in light of the Commission’s recent Decision (D.) 14-11-042, changes should be made to the Green Tariff Shared Renewable (GTSR) program proposals currently under consideration in this proceeding. Senate Bill (SB) 43 directed the IOUs to propose GTSR programs. Procurement for these programs should be accomplished through “commission-approved tools and mechanisms.” GTSR projects are required to be no larger than 20 megawatts. This proceeding has focused on two mechanisms from the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) program for procurement of small projects: the Renewable Auction Mechanism (RAM) and the feed-in-tariff available through the Renewable Market Adjusting Tariff (ReMAT). Decision 14-11-042 changes aspects of the RPS program which may require changes to the structure of the GTSR proposals currently under consideration in this proceeding. In particular, D.14-11-042 (a) directs the IOUs to hold one additional RAM auction, RAM 6, to be concluded no later than June 30, 2015; (b) sets parameters for a transitional RAM program to reflect the renewable procurement market in 2015 and beyond; and (c) sets an interim value for the Renewable Integration Cost adder for use in procuring new renewable resources. A status conference has been scheduled for Dec 12, comments are due Dec 18, and reply comments are due Dec 23. __________ Nov 5, 2014 post: PUC Executive Director Paul Clanon wrote a letter to PG&E Oct 28 granting their request to postpone PG&E's obligation to conduct solicitation for the PPA component of Year 4 of the PV Program deferred until the company's pending petition for modification is resolved (see Oct 5 post below). The petition seeks to terminate the program. Oct 21 ALJ Ebke filed a Proposed Decision to grant PG&E's petition, in part. The PD proposes to grant the request to terminate the PV program, but denies the request to transfer the remaining unprocured megawatts to the Renewable Auction Mechanism (RAM) program. There are approximately 200 remaining MW in the program. The question of whether to require PG&E to procure additional MW volumes through RAM will be addressed as part of the Commission’s current comprehensive review of the RAM procurement mechanism in Rulemaking (R.) 11-05-005. Comments are due Nov 10, replies Nov 17, and the matter is scheduled for the Nov 20 Commission Business Meeting. __________ Oct 20, 2014 post: PG&E filed substitute sheets to to Advice Letter 4492-E on Oct 13: "Implement Solar Photovoltaic Program Cost Recovery and Tariff Changes Resulting from the 2014 General Rate Case." In PG&E's Advice Letter 4492-E filed on Sept 15, PG&E included an incorrect 2014 Solar Photovoltaic Program revenue requirement amount of $66.6 million. The revenue requirement amount should be $80.7 million. On Oct 16, PG&E filed Advice Letter 4518-E : "Modifications to PG&E’s Photovoltaic Program Protocol and Appendices as Required by Resolution E-4659" which orders modifications to PG&E’s Photovoltaic Power Purchase Agreement Request for Offers Protocol within 14 days of the October 2, 2014 effective date of the Resolution. __________ Oct 5, 2014 post: On Sept 23 Paul Clanon, PUC Executive Director, sent a letter to PG&E granting their Sept 2 request for for an extension of time to bring online utility-owned generation (UOG) in Year 4 of PG&E’s Photovoltaic (PV) UOG Program. The extension will run until after the Commission resolves PG&E’s pending Petition for Modification (PFM) of the PV decision, which seeks to close the PG&E PV program. The petition seeks Commission authority to terminate the remainder of the PV Program, including Program Year 4 and 5 of the PV UOG component of the PV Program. Oct 1 PG&E wrote back requesting that the Commission grant a similar extension to the schedule for Program Year 4 of the PV Power Purchase Agreement (“PPA”) Program, requesting that its obligations to conduct a PV PPA solicitation for Year 4 of the PV Program also be deferred until the pending PV Program PFM is resolved. The PV Program PFM seeks to terminate the PV Program following completion of the Program Year 3 activities for both the PV UOG and PV PPA components. __________ Sept 20, 2014 post: On Sept 18 PG&E filed comments on Draft Resolution E-4659 with the Commission. On Aug 26 the Commission issued the Draft Resolution approving in part and denying in part PG&E’s Advice Letter 4368-E , which sought approval of modifications to the Photovoltaic (“PV”) Program Solicitation Protocol and the non-modifiable form Small and Large PV Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs). PG&E asks that the Commission allow it to conduct economic dispatch on PV projects, and also asks the Commission to relax its requirement on Guaranteed Energy Production for these small projects from 170% to 160% of contract quantity over a two-year period. __________ Sept 5, 2014 post: Acting Chief ALJ Sullivan gave notice Sept 5 that Administrative Law Judge duties in this case are being reassigned from ALJ Richard W. Clark to ALJ Jeanne McKinney. PG&E filed a request Sept 2 for an extension to its deadline associated with Program Year 4 of the Utility-Owned Generation Component of PG&E’s Photovoltaic Program . The company is seeking a postponement until after the Commission acts on PG&E's Petition for Modification which seeks to cancel the 4th year of the program. __________ Aug 20, 2014 post: SCE filed Advice 3094-E with the Commission on Aug 18, entitled: "Southern California Edison Company's Advice Letter Seeking Modifications to the Solar Photovoltaic Program Based on Its July 8, 2014 Program Forum." On May 12, 2014, the CPUC’s Energy Division issued a disposition letter, approving 17 contracts executed as a result of SCE’s third Solar Photovoltaic Program (“SPVP”) Request for Offers (“SPVP 3 RFO”). In accordance with Resolutions E-4299 and E-4453, SCE convened a program forum on July 8, 2014 to present the results of the SPVP program to date and propose certain ideas for program enhancements that may ultimately be applied to the fourth SPVP Request for Offers (“SPVP 4 RFO”). Based on the results of the Forum, SCE submitted its advice letter requesting approval of the following documents for use in its SPVP 4 RFO process: 1) the SPVP 4 RFO Participant Instructions, 2) the SPVP 4 RFO pro forma standard power purchase agreement (“PPA”) for contracts 5 MW or less, and 3) the SPVP 4 RFO standard PPA for projects greater than 5 MW but not greater than 10 MW.These documents will replace those currently being used as part of the independent power producers (“IPP”) portion of the SPVP adopted by Resolution E-4453. __________ Jul 20, 2014 post: July 14, 2014, Pacific Gas and Electric Company submitted Advice Letter 4459-E to the Commission: "Update to PG&E's 2014 Electric Generation Revenue Requirements for the Photovoltaic Program." In this Tier 1 filing (effective immediately), PG&E reports a pre-approved amount of $110,050,000 from 9 projects. __________ Jul 5, 2014 post: July 3 the Commission gave notice of its final decision, " Decision 14-06-048 in Application 08-03-015 regarding Granting In Part, the Solar Energy Industries Association Petition for Modification of Decision (D.) 09-06-049 and D.12-02-035." The decision was adopted by the Commission at its June 26 Business Meeting, and the proceeding is now closed. The decision is the Alternate Proposed Decision issued May 23 and described in the June 5 post below. SCE will be required to conduct at least one more auction for solar photovoltaics from independent power producers. If they get at least 125 MW of contracts from the solicitation, they are finished. If not, they must conduct another solicitation before the end of 2015. If they still cannot get to 125 MW in contracts, they must file a Petition for Modification of this decision to close the program. __________ Jun 20, 2014 post: Southern California Edison filed comments in response to Commissioner Peterman's Alternate Proposed Decision (APD) (see June 5 post, below), and Solar Energy Industries Assn (SEIA) filed both comments and reply comments. In its comments, SEIA supports the APD, while SCE largely also supports it, committing to a 4th PV Request for Offers, but feels it needs some flexibility to decide whether to proceed with a 5th. SEIA in its reply comes out strongly that SCE must not be given this discretion. Through a notice of ex-parte contact filed by the CA Environmental Justice Alliance on June 11 we learned that Sen Lois Wolk, author of SB 43, sent a letter to CPUC President Michael Peevey explaining legislative intent behind the bill, emphasizing the Senator's wish that the Commission implement her bill in a manner that ensures that low-income communities experience the benefits of renewable energy generation in their communities, and that the 100 MW set aside for them is actually built, not just reserved. __________ June 5, 2014 post: Commissioner Peevey filed a Ruling May 23 establishing Phase 3 of this proceeding.This phase will more fully examine and consider the Enhanced Community Renewable Option (ECRO) components of the three Green Tariff Shared Renewable (GTSR) applications. The Ruling uncharacteristically complains about PG&E's and SCE's delays in filing their ECRO applications and the consequent frustration of the Commission's ability to complete reasonableness reviews. A subsequent ruling will establish the timeline for completion of Phase 3 of this consolidated proceeding by October 31, 2014 at the latest. On May 23 Commissioner Peterman issued a Proposed Alternate Decision related to SEIA's Petition for Modification of Decision 09-06-049 and D.12-02-035 related to SCE's Solar Photovoltaic Program (SPVP) (see Mar 20 post below). The main difference between this Alternate of Commissioner Peterman and the Proposed Decision of ALJ Ebke is that the Alternate affirmatively requires SCE to conduct at least one, and possibly two, additional solicitations in the Solar Photovoltaic Program prior to any proposal to terminate the program. Thus, the Alternate partially grants the petition for modification of Decision 12-02-035 by the Solar Energy Industries Association, rather than denying the petition, as the Proposed Decision suggests. The rationale for this affirmative requirement for more solicitation opportunities is two-fold: 1) the original commitment made by the utility and this Commission to the 1-2 megawatt rooftop solar market through the adoption of this program and the fact that the expected project opportunities and possible cost reductions in solicitations have not yet occurred, and 2) the changed circumstances in the SCE territory with respect to the need for local generation after the permanent closure of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. Comments on the Alternate PD are due June 12, and replies June 17. __________ May 20, 2014 post: May 2 a "Motion to Lodge Joint Recommendation as a Late Filed Exhibit" was submitted by San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E), on behalf of itself and the Interstate Renewable Energy Council, Inc. (IREC), the Coalition of California Utility Employees (CUE), The Utility Reform Network (TURN), The Vote Solar Initiative (VSI), the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) and Recurrent Energy. On May 8 Administrative Law Judge Richard Clark filed an electronic ruling denying the motion without explanation. The motion set forth certain compromise positions regarding SDG&E’s SunRate and Share the Sun proposals in this case. Movants were requesting that the record be re-opened to admit the Joint Recommendation as a joint exhibit in the nature of supplemental testimony, not as a settlement. PG&E filed a response May 7 to SierraClub and CA Clean Energy Committee's motion for Sanctions (see May 5, post below). In their response, PG&E says they will treat the motion as a motion to limit discovery, since it is unaware of a procedure for "sanctions." PG&E also says the matter is moot because the hearings for which they were seeking discovery had come and gone, and PG&E would not pursue it further. PG&E and the City of Davis were engaged in negotiations over PG&E's Enhanced Community Renewables proposal, and needed an extension of one week, which was granted by ALJ Clark, to complete their negotiations. They failed to reach agreement however, and filed separate briefs May 16. In dispute is Davis' claim that SB43 (Senator Wolk does represent Davis) set aside 20 MW of Green Tariff Shared Renewables (GTSR) to be administered through a program and tariff specific for Davis. PG&E disagrees, and each cite legal precedent, and rules of statutory interpretation to support their side. Parties filed reply comments May 9 on SCE's and PG&E's GTSR proposals. Filers included: Marin Clean Energy; SCE; The Utility Reform Network; Ecoplexus; PG&E; Coalition of CA Utility Employees; and the Interstate Renewable Energy Council. PG&E is defensive about criticism of its program regarding support for renewables located close to load, and states that their proposal will in fact support such projects. PG&E also seems to go a stretch to characterize others' proposals, including Davis, as Direct Access and in violation of law. CUE is highly critical of SCE, but gives PG&E a bye. They criticize SCE's proposal for failing to procure incremental renewables, not serving customers from projects close to load, raising rates and violating customer indifference, and being unnecessarily complicated. IREC is similarly critical of SCE's rate design, as well as its proposal to sell the energy into CAISO markets, and makes some suggestions for improvement. TURN feels the record is insufficient for the Commission to make a determination and that programs are badly flawed, although they do side with PG&E against Davis. TURN also opposes expansion of virtual net metering, IREC's rate proposal, ORA and SCE's Renewable Integration charge, and Shell's arguments that the entire program is illegal and constitutes Direct Access. MCE made a motion to include in the record a letter from the City of Lancaster, who is close to forming a Community Choice Aggregator, which would be the first in SCE's territory, and is concerned about anti-competitive behavior. __________ May 5, 2014 post: Apr 21 ALJ Richard Clark issued a Ruling formally granting the request of the Sierra Club (Mar 7) for evidentiary hearings (which concluded Apr 29)on PG&E's Enhanced Community Renewables (ECR) program. There is no love lost between the two organizations as Sierra Club (with CA Clean Energy Committee) filed a Motion for Sanctions against PG&E's attorney in the matter, on Apr 28, accusing PG&E of "stooping to the lowest level of procedural harassment and ugly tactics," for an "abusive and unlawful discovery request." PG&E says it will respond soon to the Sierra Club Motion, and is setting aside its own Motion to Compel relative to its data request of Sierra Club. Opening briefs came in May 2 and May 5 on SCE's and PG&E's ECR proposals, respectively. Parties filing opening comments included: Vote Solar/Solar Energy Industries Assn; CA Environmental Justice Alliance; Shell Energy; Office of Ratepayer Advocates; SCE; Interstate Renewable Energy Council; Sierra Club; Coalition of Utility Employees; National Asian American Coalition/Ecumenical Center for Black Church Studies/Los Angeles Latino Chamber of Commerce (Joint Parties); Clean Coalition; The Utility Reform Network; Marin Clean Energy; Ecoplexus; PG&E; The Sustainable Economies Law Center; City and County of San Francisco; and the City of Davis. PG&E and SCE feel that their proposals are fully compliant with SB 43, and have the best chance of developing new renewables close to load. Vote Solar/SEIA feels that SCE's proposal for 40 MW out of a maximum of 269 thwarts the intent of SB 43. Vote Solar says SCE's proposal places unbounded and unmanageable risk of transmission congestion on developers, rendering all projects unfinanceable. They also criticize SCE's reservation of the right to exclude customers from the program. IREC proposes alternative rate designs that they say provide ratepayer indifference, incorporate all SB 43 components, and rely on Commission-approved values for DG which SCE's rate designs do not. Shell on the other hand says SCE's ECR program is the only one of six (2 from each IOU) that meets SB 43 requirements and should be the template for all the others. MCE however finds SCE's program "vague and inadequate" to such an extent that it cannot be evaluated for reasonableness by the Commission. Sierra Club all but calls PG&E's proposal disingenuous in that it "would falsely represent" to customers that PG&E's program would link their payments to a given project. With all of PG&E's requirements, Sierra Club doubts that a program is financially feasible. San Francisco is more generous in its comments, but still has 7 proposals for changes which are significant and would be a major reworking. PG&E agrees with its proposals, they say. Davis, home of the only ECR program that was the inspiration for SB 43, is harsh in its criticism, saying it is "haphazard," "would destroy incentives for community support of renewables development," "lacks components inviting arbitrary, capricious, and anticompetitive conduct by PG&E," and in sum "fatally flawed." __________ Apr 20, 2014 post: Reply briefs on PG&E's and SDG&E's Green Tariff programs were filed Apr 9 by: Interstate Renewable Energy Council; CA Environmental Justice Alliance; Office of Ratepayer Advocates; Shell Energy; CA Farm Bureau Federation; PG&E; National Asian American Coalition, Black Economic Council, and Los Angeles Latino Chamber of Commerce (Joint Parties); City and County of San Francisco; Coalition of Utility Employees; Marin Clean Energy; Clean Coalition; The Utility Reform Network; PG&E; and SDG&E. Testimony and/or comments and/or reply comments on SCE's GTSR were filed by Vote Solar and Solar Energy Industries Assn; The Utility Reform Network; Clean Energy Committee; SCE; Marin Clean Energy; Office of Ratepayer Advocates; Ecoplexus; CA Environmental Justice Alliance; SDG&E; Interstate Renewable Energy Council; Joint Parties; Sierra Club; San Francisco; and SCE. Because the ALJ made it clear that testimony and comments would have equal weight on the record, a close overlapping of the various utilities' timelines in this consolidated case, and some obvious difficulties parties had with the Commission's Filing Office, these comments/testimony drifted in between Apr 9 and 18. There are still many areas of controversy covering procurement methodology, rate design, customer eligibility, project eligibility, cost recovery, participant and non-participant costs, environmental justice, relationships of customers to suppliers, competitive/anticompetitive issues, program administration, and transparency. May 5 and 9 parties will have opportunity to file a round of comments and replies on PG&E's Enhanced Community Renewables Program. __________ Apr 5, 2014 post: Opening briefs were filed Mar 21 on PG&E's and SDG&E's Green Tariff programs from the City of Davis; Ecoplexus; The Utility Reform Network; CA Environmental Justice Alliance; Vote Solar/Solar Energy Industries Assn; SDG&E; City and County of San Francisco; Sustainable Economies Law Center; Coalition of CA Utility Employees; Shell Energy; SCE; National Asian American Coalition/Black Economic Council/Los Angeles Latino Chamber of Commerce (Joint Parties); Marin Clean Energy; PG&E; Interstate Renewable Energy Council; and Sierra Club/CA Clean Energy Committee. Sierra Club expressed a strong preference for San Diego's program over PG&E's and recommends imposing SDG&E's "Share the Sun" on PG&E. San Francisco rattles off a litany of complaints about PG&E's program including identifying the resources it intends to use, allowing any renewable technology to participate as specified in SB 43, conform the program to the Commission's affiliate transaction rules, committing to a Standard Offer Agreement, increasing transparency and offering a locational rate credit to encourage "buying local" to name a few. Shell Energy bemoans the anticompetitive fundamental nature of the proposals, and urges the commission to reject both utilities' proposals, instead promoting its "power displacement agreement" approach. SELC is also critical, especially of PG&E, but less harshly and offers a set of procedural recommendations aimed at emphasizing and facilitating the "community-based" nature of the programs. For its part, PG&E expresses that its Green Tariff Shared Renewables and Enhanced Community renewables programs are fully compliant with SB 43 and various commission procurement rules, and the settlement agreement reached a year ago with TURN, Joint Parties, Sierra Club, and CCUE. Similarly, SDG&E defends its proposal and urges its adoption as is, also stating that it is in full compliance with the letter and intent of SB 43, and is not anticompetitive. Apr 1 ALJ Richard Clark confirmed an earlier ruling from the bench that SCE's Application 14-01-007 was to be consolidated with the similar PG&E and SDG&E Green Tariff Option programs, and henceforth "shall be referred to in electronic correspondence as “A.12-01-008/A.12-04-020/A.14-01-007 (Consolidated) – GTSR Applications of SDG&E, PG&E and SCE." ALJ Clark stated Apr 2 that he will be concluding Phase I of this matter as follows: · Reply briefing of SDG&E’s GTSR and ECR proposals and PG&E’s GTSR proposal on April 9, 2014 (changed from April 4th) · Evidentiary hearings on PG&E’s ECR program proposal in late April and ECR specific opening and reply briefs in early May. · Phase I will stand submitted after the submission of PG&E ECR specific Reply Briefs. Assigned Commissioner Peevey and ALJ Clark issued a Scoping Ruling on Apr 2 for Phase II (SCE's Application 14-01-007 portion of the consolidated proceeding) setting forth the procedural schedule, and the scope of the proceeding. Separate decisions will be issued for Phases I and II even though the proceeding is consolidated. The scope of issues for Phase II will comprise the following questions: a. Are the SCE proposed GTSR and ECR Programs compliant with all of the technical requirements of SB 43? If so, how? If not, how not? b. Are the SCE proposed GTSR and ECR Programs compliant with the Legislative Findings and Statements of Intent contained in SB 43? If so, how? If not, how not? c. Are the SCE proposed GTSR and ECR Programs compliant with the Commission’s reasonableness standards? If so, how? If not, how not? d. Are the SCE proposed GTSR and ECR Programs compliant with Public Utilities Code Sections 365.1(a) and (b)? If so, how? If not, how not? e. Are the SCE proposed GTSR and ECR Programs compliant with our affiliate transaction rules? If so, how? If not, how not? Schedule: Testimony will be taken through April, and Opening Briefs in Phase II will be due May 2, with Reply Briefs due May 9. A Proposed Decision will be issued June 9, with a final Commission Decision in July. __________ Mar 20, 2014 post: Mar 7 and Mar 14 comments and reply comments were filed regarding PG&E's Enhanced Community Renewables Program (ECRP). PG&E had not proposed an ECRP program in its application (A.12-04-020) which was rejected by ALJ Clark,who required PG&E to prepare an exhibit, which they did on Feb 21. These comments address that proposal. City and County of San Francisco; Sierra Club; Office of Ratepayer Advocates; Clean Coalition; CA Environmental Justice Alliance; Shell Energy North America; Vote Solar/Solar Energy Industries Assn; Coalition of CA Utility Employees; City of Davis; Ecoplexus; Sustainable Economies Law Center; Marin Clean Energy; and PG&E filed comments and/or reply comments in the matter. Shell and San Francisco objected to PG&E's blending of generators as opposed to allowing customers to pick an individual project to support with their rates. Since PG&E's exhibit was hastily assembled, comments generally filled in missing program details and "rules of the game." PG&E in its response, embraced the notion of supporting disadvantaged communities, but rejects Shell's notion of direct contracting with generators, liked some of ORA's and San Francisco's suggestions, but not others. More work needs to be done on this program. ALJ Maryam Ebke issued a Proposed Decision Mar 6 to deny a petition by the Solar Energy Industries Assn. SEIA's petition would have modified Decisions 09-06-049 and 12-02-035 regarding SCE's Solar Photovoltaic Program (SPVP). Projects in SPVP that were intended to be owned by Independent Power Producers (IPPs) were to total 125 MW and be selected through a series of annual solicitations over a 5-year period. Only one year and two solicitations remain, but only 25.5 MW have made it through the hoops. SEIA wanted to increase the size of the next solicitation and authorize two additional solicitations. The PD would deny the request as unnecessary and premature. It is scheduled to go before the Commission at its Apr 10 Business Meeting. On March 18, 2014, SCE filed Advice 3017-E with the Commission: "Contracts for Procurement of Renewable Energy Resulting from SouthernCalifornia Edison Company’s (“SCE’s”) Third Solar Photovoltaic Program(“SPVP 3”) Request for Offers (“RFO”)" which seeks approval of seventeen SPVP 3 power purchase agreements (“SPVP Contracts”) resulting from SCE’s SPVP 3 RFO. The seventeen contracts total 37.93 MW DC from the SPVP 3 RFO. __________ Mar 5, 2014 post: On Feb 21 PG&E served the list with its proposed Green Tariff Shared Renewables program (GTSR). PG&E’s GTSR program will include selection criteria in its solicitations that encourage renewable developers and local communities to identify potential local projects that have significant community, customer and developer support—and then use those responses to guide PG&E’s procurement for the program. PG&E’s GTSR program will track customer enrollments in the various communities it serves (cities and counties) according to percentages of customers and of usage. At defined milestones (i.e., either 30 MW of incremental load, or at the end of the calendar year), PG&E will engage in procurement solicitations for new renewables. Customers may subscribe to an individual GTSR project, sized 0.5 to 3 MW and located within 10 miles of their address or within the boundaries of the city or county in which they reside. On Feb 28, Pacific Gas and Electric Company submitted Advice Letter 4368-E to the Commission: "Modifications to the Photovoltaic (PV) Program Solicitation Protocol and Power Purchase Agreements." PG&E submitted this Advice Letter, seeking approval of modifications to the Photovoltaic Program Solicitation Protocol and the non-modifiable form Small and Large PV Power Purchase Agreements. __________ Feb 20, 2014 post: On Feb 10, PG&E filed a Petition for expedited granting of 1) a Petition for Modification of Decision 10-04-052 (PV Program), 2) Modification of Decision 10-12-048 (Renewables Auction Mechanism), and 3) approval of a proposed schedule for the third PV Program Power Purchase Agreement solicitation. PG&E requests in their Petition that the Commission issue a final order by May 1, 2014 modifying the PV Program and RAM Decisions so that: (1) procurement under the PV Program will be terminated after the third Program Year, subject to final reporting and accounting requirements; (2) the RAM procurement process may be utilized for the limited purpose of procuring the remaining PV Program volumes; and (3) the third PV PPA Program solicitation may occur concurrently with the fifth RAM solicitation, which is currently scheduled to issue on June 3, 2014 and to close for bidding on June 27, 2014. Also on Feb 10, SDG&E filed its Annual Compliance Report on the Solar Energy Project. The report indicates that of the authorized 17 MW of utility-owned solar, only 8.8 MW would be viable, and last September SDG&E management made the decision not to pursue any further UOG solar. On Feb 17 ALJ Richard Clark issued an email "heads-up" notice to parties on the substance of his ruling which will be more formally released shortly. The motions to consolidate will be denied in part and granted in part. The motions will be denied in so far as they seek total consolidation of A.12-01-008 and A. 14-01-007. The record will continue to be developed separately in the two proceedings. The motions will be granted for purposes of the drafting and mailing of the Proposed Decision (PD), any potential Alternate Proposed Decisions (APDs), any comments on the PD [or on any potential APDs] and for purposes of issuance of the final decision. The ALJ told SCE that it should act expeditiously to resolve the lack of an Enhanced Community Renewables Program component in its Green Tariff Shared Renewables application, and supplement the record in A. 14-01-007. A tentative schedule might follow this outline. SCE supplemental proposal/testimony mid to late March Rebuttal to SCE testimony mid April Hearing (if necessary) late April Opening briefs early May Reply Briefs mid-May The ALJ is "strongly considering imposing a common outline in all three proceedings as a tool for enhancing expeditious handling." So while the SCE application is not technically consolidated, for all practical purposes it is. Shell Energy North America filed a protest Feb 20 to SCE's Green Tariff Shared Renewables application, questioning whether rates, credits and charges will maintain nonparticipating ratepayer indifference, as required in SB 43, whether SCE’s application has a detrimental impact on competition in the retail sales market, whether the Green Rate program is a form of “direct access” under P.U. Code Section 365.1(a) and (b), whether the Green Rate program violates the Commission’s affiliate transaction rules, and whether SCE’s program should be modified to provide an “enhanced community renewables program” that includes competition among developers and an opportunity for customers to negotiate directly with renewable energy suppliers. __________ Feb 5, 2014 post: Jan 22 ALJ Richard Clark denied Vote Solar and IREC's Motion to shorten time for responses, and the Sustainable Economies Law Center filed a Motion to Consolidate in support of the Vote Solar/IREC/MCE Motion (see Jan 20 post). Feb 3 SCE and SDG&E responded to the two Motions to Consolidate. SCE points out that consolidation is optional for the Commission, and that the utilities' programs have unique features, and the Commission should be able to provide consistency without consolidation, and urges denial of the Motions. SDG&E agrees, and adds that their process is nearly complete, while SCE's is just beginning, and the SB43 deadline of July 2014 for the Commission to approve all programs is fast approaching. __________ Jan 20, 2014 post: Jan 10 SCE filed an application and supporting testimony for an Optional Green Tariff program of its own, similar to the ones under discussion for PG&E and SDG&E. It is Application 14-01-xxx until the Commission assigns it a number. SB 43 (Wolk, 2013) required that SCE put the program in place, and the Oct 25, 2013 Scoping Memo directed SCE to file their application in a separate docket from PG&E and SDG&E's consolidated docket. Jan 17 the Vote Solar Initiative, the Interstate Renewable Energy Council, Inc. and Marin Clean Energy filed a Motion to Consolidate Proceedings with the PG&E and SDG&E matters, and Vote Solar and IREC also filed a Motion to Shorten Time for Responses to the Motion. The first Motion says that the issues are substantially similar, and that it would be administratively efficient, and that it would ensure similar treatment. The second Motion asks that the Commission request parties to respond to both Motions by Jan 23. __________ Jan 5, 2014 post: SDG&E and PG&E filed "Second Reply" comments in response to the Dec 20 reply comments of parties (see Dec 20 post). The argument will go on for a while, as SDG&E points out the overlap in the schedule: they filed testimony Dec 6, and rebuttals are due Jan 10, then surrebuttals from the utilities are due Jan 20. __________ Dec 20, 2013 post: Parties filed reply comments Dec 20 on PG&E's and SDG&E's Green tariff programs, in the consolidated A. 12-04-020 case. Parties filing comments included: CA Farm Bureau Federation; Sustainable Economies Law Center; Office of Ratepayer Advocates; Clean Coalition; City and County of San Francisco; the Utility Reform Network; Shell Energy; Coalition of Utility Employees; CA Environmental Justice Alliance; National Asian American Coalition, Black Economic Council, and Latino Business Chamber of Greater Los Angeles; Vote Solar, Interstate Renewable Energy Council, and Solar Energy Industries Assn; and Marin Clean Energy. Concerns raised range from cost shifting and non-participant ratepayer indifference, to transparency, inclusion of a shared renewables program per SB 43, environmental justice screening criteria for the 100 MW set aside of the 600 MW total program, inclusion of locational benefits, and competitive neutrality. __________ Nov 20, 2013 post: PG&E and SDG&E each filed opening comments on the Scoping Ruling issued Oct 25, and discussed in the Nov 5 post below. PG&E's comments consist of a description of the proposed program, a point-by-point analysis (jointly prepared by PG&E and SDG&E) of how their programs comply with state law, and a declaration of compliance with the provisions of new-enacted SB 43. SDG&E's filing is similar, and adds a lengthy section comparing and contrasting their programs to PG&E's. __________ Nov 5, 2013 post: Commission President Peevey and ALJ Clark issued a Scoping Ruling Oct 25 in the A.12-01-008 case. The scope of the case will encompass issues of compliance with Public Utilities (Pub. Util.) Code Sections 365.1(a) and (b); Affiliate Transaction rules; SB 43; competitive neutrality and guarding against anti-competitive marketing; and various programmatic details. The schedule will be as follows: [table id=26 /] __________ Oct 20, 2013 post: ALJ Richard Clark notified parties Oct 17 of modifications to the schedule for the Green Tariff Shared Renewables (GTSR) program necessitated by passage of SB 43. By November 15, 2013 PG&E and SDG&E are to file and serve Opening Comments in this consolidated docket detailing the similarities and differences between each of their programs and how each of their proposed program complies with the provisions of SB 43 relative to Green Tariff Shared Renewables Programs (GTSR Programs). The comments shall adhere to the following outline: I. A description of the proposed GTSR Program; II. Details of the similarities and distinguishing elements of the two programs; III. A subsection by subsection analysis of how the proposed GTSR Program complies with each specific subsection of Public Utilities Code section 2833 (a) through (w); IV. A description of how the GTSR Program is consistent with the Legislative Findings and Statements of Intent contained in Public Utilities Codes section 2831; V. A description of the basis for a Commission finding that the GTSR is reasonable. By December 6, 2013 PG&E and SDG&E are to serve revised testimony to support their proposed programs Reply comments by DRA and Intervenors are to be filed and served by December 20, 2013 A second round of Reply Comments by PG&E and SDG&E are to be filed and served by January 3, 2014. By January 10, 2014, SCE is to file an Application, in a separate docket, with supporting testimony and a detailed description of the similarities and distinguishing elements between the SCE program and each of the programs being proposed by PG&E and SDG&E, and serve that application and supporting testimony on the Parties to this proceeding. After concerns were raised by Shell and City & County of SF, the ALJ clarified that intervenors would have ample opportunity to file testimony and that these were only the first steps toward a final Commission decision. __________ Oct 5, 2013 post: After much back-and-forth, parties managed to file a Joint Statement in the consolidated case for PG&E and SDG&E's solar programs. The statement brings out some common legal, policy and factual issues and articulates other issues where parties did not reach consensus. The non-consensus part of the document far exceeds the length of the consensus part. __________ Sept 20, 2013 post: Sept 19 and 20, in the wake of passage of SB 43, the "Green Tariff Shared Renewables Program," and even before the bill was signed into law by the Governor, representatives of utilities and the solar industry carried on a lengthy "reply-all" chat with each other and the whole service list. Parties were attempting to put together a Joint Case Management Statement for the PG&E and SCG&E consolidated "green tariff" programs, in preparation for an upcoming Pre-hearing Conference Sept 25. Topic areas include PG&E's Settlement process for its green tariff program proposal, SDG&E's application process for its program, and SB 43 and its ramifications. __________ Sept 5, 2013 post: In a letter dated August 9, 2013, Energy Division approved SCE's Advice Letter 2899-E and authorized SCE to launch its third SPVP RFO. Since the RFO launch date proposed by SCE in AL-2899-E has passed, SCE has modified the schedule as reflected in the table below. In addition, SCE has updated its RFO instructions to reflect the new schedule. August 9, 2013 CPUC approves Tier 2 Advice Letter 2899-E for launch of SPVP 3 September 4, 2013 SCE posts RFO Instructions, PPAs and other RFO materials on the RFO website. September 13, 2013 at 9:00 am PPT SCE hosts RFO Web Conference. December 2, 2013 no later than 12:00 pm (noon) PPT Deadline for Offerors to submit Offers and required documentation. January 17, 2014 Deadline for SCE to notify each Offeror regarding the selection status of each Offer and to provide executable PPAs. January 24, 2014 Deadline for Offerors to submit executed PPAs. February 3, 2014 Deadline for SCE to execute final PPAs. March 18, 2014 Deadline for SCE to submit Tier 2 Advice Letter seeking CPUC Approval for executed PPAs. In the newly-consolidated "Green Options" cases, ALJ Richard Clark has rescheduled the first prehearing conference (PHC) for Wednesday, September 25, 2013 at 10:00 AM in the Commission’s Courtroom, 505 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, CA. The PHC is being convened in order to determine the parties, positions of the parties, scope and schedule of the proceeding, and other procedural matters. See July 31 Ruling in the Aug 3 post, below. __________ Aug 3, 2013 post: The Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) filed a response July 22 to SCE's and DRA's responses to its petition for modification (see July 20 post below). In its Petition for Modification, SEIA is seeking changes to SCE’s Solar Photovoltaic Program that would help ensure that the independent power producer portion of the program meets its targeted goal of 125 MW. SEIA fells that its petition is justified, given that with just two solicitations remaining, only 25.5 MW of the 125 MW are under contract. Nothing SCE or DRA provided refutes that, and in fact, says SEIA's response, their remarks underscore the need for the Commission to provide direction to the solar program. The Commission issued a Ruling July 31, granting MEA's petition to consolidate two applications, as described below in the June 5 post. The Commission agreed with MEA that the two applications, SDG&E's "connected ... to the sun" and PG&E's green option rate involve related issues of policy, law, and fact. Commissioner Peevey will be the Assigned Commissioner, and ALJ Clark will be the Presiding Officer. A prehearing conference is scheduled for August 27, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. at the Commission's Courtroom to determine scope and schedule, etc. __________ July 20, 2013 post: Three parties filed responses July 10 to the Solar Energy Industries Association’s (SEIA) petition for modification of Decisions (D.) 09-06-049 and D.12-02-035 which makes three requests that, collectively, are focused at ensuring that the full 125MWs authorized in SCE's Utility-owned solar program are developed. See June 20 post below for more on the petition. The 3 parties were: SCE; Clean Coalition; and Division of Ratepayer Advocates. SCE and DRA recommend that the Commission deny the petition, arguing that it is neither necessary nor cost-effective. Clean Coalition urges support of the petition, expressing its concern over midstream program changes undermine the sustained activities of developers, which need multiple years to ramp up for a new program, in this case changing from the SPVP to a RAM solicitation. __________ June 20, 2013 post: The Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) filed June 10 a Petition for Modification of Decision 09-06-049 and Decision 12-02-035 which approved, and subsequently modified, a 500 megawatt (MW) Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Program within the service territory of Southern California Edison Company (SCE). SEIA seeks modification of Decisions 09-06-049 and 12-12-035 to the extent required to assure that SCE procures, in its fourth Solar PV Program RFO solicitation (SPVP 4), all MW remaining out of the 125 MW allocated to the program which are uncontracted at that time. In addition, in recognition of program contract failure rate to date, SCE should be granted the authority to procure additional MW beyond the remaining uncontracted MW, at its discretion. Finally, SCE should be directed to conduct two additional “clean-up” solicitations (on an annual basis) after the fourth solicitation to account for any failed MW through SPVP 4. Administrative Law Judge Dudney has suspended the testimony schedule for San Diego Gas & Electric's Application 12-01-008 regarding "connected...to the sun," in light of the pending motion for consolidation of this case. See the schedule in the Apr 20 post below. ALJ Dudney will issue a new schedule shortly. __________ June 5, 2013 post: June 3 the Commission issued Decision 13-05-033 , partially granting SCE's petition, essentially adopting Commr. Florio's Proposed Alternate Decision described in the May 5 post below. The decision allows SCE to move 34 MW of capacity from its utility-owned solar program to the RAM program. The Marin Energy Authority (MEA) filed a motion May 21 to consolidate SDG&E's application ("connected...to the sun") with PG&E's application for a green option rate, citing similar legal and policy issues and a need for a consistent outcome. SCE is also rumored to be preparing an application. Four responses came in June 5 from SDG&E, Shell Energy, PG&E, and the City and County of San Francisco. SDG&E opposes the motion saying that the applications are very different. PG&E, filing jointly with all of the parties with which it has a proposed settlement in its green option application, says consolidation would would be a waste of time and resources. Both filings claim MEA's motion is dilatory, arriving late and attempting to cause delay. Shell agrees with MEA that the two monopoly utility proposals to offer renewable energy optional products that have affiliate transaction implications are remarkably similar and the cases should be consolidated. San Francisco supports the motion of MEA, noting that the two applications are on very different tracks and could well produce quite divergent results, even though they share common issues of policy and law. San Francisco also notes that there are three bills in the legislature that would introduce various types of green option programs. Commercial Solar Solutions LLC protested SCE's Advice 2899-E, which dealt with new documents for its SPVP RFO, described in the May 20 post below, finding the new language "completely unacceptable." On Friday, May 24, 2013, Pacific Gas and Electric Company filed Advice Letter 4228-E to the Commission Update to PG&E's 2013 Revenue Requirement for the Photovoltaic Program. They ask for $38.75 million. __________ May 20, 2013 post: The Solar Energy Industries Association, Independent Energy Producers Association, and SCE filed comments May 13 on Commissioner Florio's Alternate Proposed Decision regarding SCE's continuation of its Solar Photovoltaic Program (SPVP) (see May 5 post, below). Since the Alternate Proposed Decision (APD) approves its request, SCE naturally supports the APD. IEP supports the APD also, as they never supported SCE building utility-owned generation in the first place. IEP provides data from SCE's earlier reduction of the SPVP program from 250 to 125 MW, saying that it resulted in $300 million in ratepayer benefits due to subjecting the projects to competitive bidding through independent energy producers. SEIA agrees with IEP, except that it favors moving the 34 MW from the UOG program not to the RAM auction, as the APD would do, but rather to the independent power producer portion of the SPVP program, thereby subjecting projects to competition, but retaining the original objective of developing rooftop solar with the program. Clean Coalition provided reply comments, supporting SEIA's position of transferring the MW to the IPP portion of SPVP, not moving it to a RAM auction, and saying that the Commission should require SCE to supply actual cost data which would inform the decisionmaking process as opposed to the APD's approach which is "based on highly implausible assumptions that don’t at all reflect actual market experience in the last few years." Clean Coalition goes on to say "Similarly, SCE’s arguments rely on conclusory assertions with no data shared for parties to analyze and ensure that SCE’s conclusions rely on apples to apples comparisons between procurement programs." SCE filed Advice 2899-E May 8 seeking approval of the following documents used in its third SPVP RFO (“SPVP 3 RFO”) process: 1) the SPVP 3 RFO Participant Instructions, 2) the SPVP 3 RFO pro forma standard power purchase agreement (“PPA”) for contracts 5 megawatts (“MW”) or less (“the 5 MW Standard PPA”), and 3) the SPVP 3 RFO standard PPA for projects greater than 5 MW but not greater than 10 MW (together with the 5 MW Standard PPA, the “Standard PPAs”). These documents will replace those currently being used as part of the independent power producers (“IPP”) portion of the SPVP adopted by Resolution E-4453. __________ May 5, 2013 post: Reply briefs came in Apr 26 on SDG&E's proposed Connect to the Sun (CTTS) program. SDG&E, The Utility Reform Network (TURN), Alliance for Retail Energy Markets (AReM), Shell Energy North America, and the Coalition of California Utility Employees (CUE) filed reply comments in the matter. SDG&E says competitive concerns raised by AReM, Shell, and Marin do not have merit, and that overall there will be no competitive advantage to CTTS as an affiliate or otherwise. CUE and TURN fully support these positions, while AReM and Shell continue to believe otherwise. Commissioner Florio issued a Proposed Alternate Decision (AD) Apr 23 partially approving SCE's Petition for Modification (see Nov 20, 2012 post below for ALJ Ebke's PD on SCE's petition). The AD will allow SCE to move 34 MW from its utility-owned portion of the PV program to its next RAM auction, whereas ALJ Ebke's PD proposed to deny SCE's petition in its entirety. Comments on the AD are due May 13, replies May 20. Apr 22 ALJ Kevin Dudney approved the schedule revision for SDG&E's Connected to the Sun program as described in the Apr 20 post below. __________ Apr 20, 2013 post: Nine parties filed opening comments in SDG&E's Application 12-01-008 per ALJ Minkins' Scoping Memo of Nov 2012 and the ALJ's Ruling of Mar 13. SDG&E's application covers the two optional pilot programs: "SunRate" which is a green tariff permitting bundled customers to purchase electricity from local solar projects, and "Share the Sun" which permits customers to contract directly with solar providers for solar generated electricity to be delivered by SDG&E. If approved, both programs will be introduced to the public under the umbrella term “connected..... to the sun” (CTTS). SDG&E has modified its proposal to incorporate input from the 5 workshops, and is confident their program will be consistent with RPS Procurement statutes and regulations, will conform to feed-in tariffs, is not anti-competitive, will provide consumer protections, and will comply with affiliate transaction rules. The Alliance for Retail Energy Markets is concerned that CTTS is Direct Access by another name, that will lure customers away from direct access and back to bundled service, and is therefore anticompetitive. Marin Energy Authority and Shell Energy share this concern, while TURN recommends embracing the approach as superior to direct access. The Coalition of Utility Employees finds that the program as proposed complies with laws and policies and is a good example of a utility responding to their customers with a better, smarter product. The Farm Bureau appreciates the incremental nature of the program as it may mitigate future impacts on farmland. The Division of Ratepayer Advocates feels that CTTS should be incorporated into RPS procurement so that any excess CTTS procurement will not put ratepayer funds at risk. The Interstate Renewable Energy Council supports SDG&E's proposal, and will provide further testimony at a later time to support key issues of federal jurisdiction and affiliate transactions, learned from other states' successful programs. Effective Apr 5, Application 12-01-008 was reassigned from Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Angela K. Minkin to ALJ Kevin R. Dudney. ALJ Dudney reports some conflicts with the existing schedule, and after some polling of parties in the case, the following revised schedule is proposed to him: SDG&E Updated Testimony - May 10 (unchanged) Intervenor testimony - June 7 (May 24 per March 13 ruling) Rebuttal Testimony - June 28 (June 7 per March 13 ruling) Hearings - July 29-30 (if needed) Opening Briefs - September 13 (now due July 30) Reply Briefs – September 27 (now due August 15). _________ Mar 20, 2013 post: ALJ Minkin issued a Ruling Mar 13 regarding SDG&E's Application For Authority To Implement Optional Pilot Program To Increase Customer Access To Solar Generated Electricity (Application No. 12-01-008, "Connect to the Sun"). In it she notes that SDG&E conducted 5 workshops in accordance with her November Scoping Memo, and filed a report on those workshops Mar 8. ALJ Minkin asks nine more questions in her Ruling and sets forth the following schedule for the completion of the Application: [table id=20 /] _________ Feb 5, 2013 post: SCE filed, on Jan 28, Advice 2802-E-A (Supplement to and Partial Withdrawal of Advice 2802-E Regarding Contracts for Procurement of Renewable Energy Resulting from Southern California Edison Company's ("SCE's") Second Solar Photovoltaic Program ("SPVP 2") Request for Offers ("RFO")). Three of the projects listed in Advice 2802-E, and requested in that advice letter to be approved, have failed due to an inability to post development security. Accordingly, SCE filed Advice 2802-E-A to withdraw the three projects, and continue to seek approval for the remaining four projects. ________ Jan 20, 2013 post: PG&E replied Jan 8 to the Joint Solar Parties and Clean Coalition's responses to PG&E's Dec 10 Advice Letter 4161-E (see Jan 5 post, below). PG&E acknowledges that in transferring MW from the PV program to the RAM program, that projects between 1-3 MW would be cut out, hence they agree to allow projects 1-20 MW in size to participate in their RAM auction to satisfy the 252 MW being transfered. They do not agree, however to modify the PPA or any RAM protocols to accommodate the 1-3 MW projects. PG&E rejects suggestions that they accelerate their RAM solicitations to 2013. PG&E also rejects the suggestion to go to bi-annual auctions, as they feel it would create an administrative burden. They urge the Commission to approve AL 4161-E. ________ Jan 5, 2013 post: The Large-scale Solar Association and the Solar Energy Industries Association (Joint Solar Parties) sent a Dec 31 letter to Energy Division Director Randolph responding to PG&E's Advice Letter 4161-E, which was described in the Dec 20 post below. They support the filing under two conditions: 1) that the Commission approve the element of PG&E's proposal that provides for all of the MW transferred from the PV Program to be made available to the "as-available peaking" category in RAM; and 2) that the Commission reaffirm that the transfer of the MW from the PV Program to the RAM in no way reduces PG&E's obligation to procure its full MW allocation under both the RAM and the PV Programs, including replacement procurement for projects that may fall out of the earlier rounds of those programs. _________ Dec 20, 2012 post: PG&E filed Advice Letters 4160-E and 4161-E on Dec 10, proposing to eliminate its PV program, and move 252 MW to its RAM program. This proposal is to shut down both sides of its program - the Utility-Owned Generation and the Independent Power Producer portions. The Solar Energy Industries Association was the only one who filed comments Dec 10 on ALJ Ebke's Proposed Decision, which had proposed to deny SCE's petition to reduce the amount of solar PV in its utility-owned program by 34 MW (described in the Nov 20 post, below). SEIA would support SCE's proposal if the MW capacity reduction proposed by SCE were transfered to the independent power producer portion of the program, instead of to the Renewable Auction Mechanism (RAM) program as SCE proposes. __________ Dec 5, 2012 post: SCE received a total of four protests to Advice Letter (“AL”) 2802-E (discussed in the Nov 20 post below) from Commercial Solar Solutions, LLC, Constellation NewEnergy, the Solar Energy Industries Association, and Kona Solar LLC . The protests take issue with SCE’s decision to procure 10.7 MW DC, and SCE’s purported inability to keep its independent power producer (IPP) procurement on pace, from an installed capacity standpoint, with its utility-owned generation (“UOG”) program. SCE denies any favoritism, saying that delays on the IPP side are due to circumstances beyond its control. As stated in AL 2802-E, SCE fully intends to procure the remaining capacity in SPVP in the two solicitations that remain. SCE plans to hold a program forum in January and, assuming it receives timely Commission authority to initiate its third RFO, plans to launch that RFO in March of 2013. _________ Nov 20, 2012 post: Two parties wrote letters in protest of SCE's Advice 2802-E: Contracts for Procurement of Renewable Energy Resulting from SCE Company's Second Solar Photovoltaic Program Request for Offers, Commercial Solar Solutions, LLC ("CSS") on Nov 14, and the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) on Nov 20. CSS believes SCE, as Administrator of the SPVP has shown special treatment to the UOG portion and has stifled the IPP portion of the SPVP. SCE only selected 7 out of 68 projects, CSS says, leaving 61 projects out in the cold. They feel SCE has acted unfairly and has been unreasonable in its support of the IPP portion. SEIA has similar observations, pointing out that "Three years into the [5-year] program, with just two solicitations remaining, only 29.7 MW of the 125 MW are under contract -- 19 MW from the first solicitation and 10.7 MW from the most recent solicitation for which SCE now seeks Commission approval. Stated another way, with only two years remaining in the program, SCE has 95.3 MW of the programs's 125 MW left to procure." Nov 20 ALJ Ebke issued her Proposed Decision : "Decision Denying Southern California Edison Company's Petition for Modification of Decision 12-02-035 (Solar Photovoltaic Program)." SCE petitioned to reduce the utility ownership portion by 34 MW (from 125 MW to 91 MW), with the 34 MW transferred to the RAM program. The PD denies the petition, and closes the proceeding ( Application 08-03-015 ). __________ Aug 20 post: The Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) has protested Advice Letter (AL) 4087-E , submitted by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) Company on July 17, 2012. PG&E seeks to include the Photovoltaic Program (PV Program) revenue requirements in the Utility Generation Balancing Account (UGBA) base amount effective June 26, 2012. DRA recommends that the Commission deny AL 4087-E for the following reasons: 1. The PG&E revenue requirement calculation is inconsistent with Decision (D.) 10-04-052. D.10-04-052 required that the revenue requirement in the UGBA be based on actual cost of the PV projects. PG&E calculated the revenue requirement in the UGBA on the approved cost cap (including a 10% contingency) for the PV Program. 2. PG&E should not include contingency amounts in the revenue requirement unless the contingency amounts were reasonably and actually expended. 3. PG&E filed AL 4087-E as Tier 1. It should be as a Tier-2 AL since it contains or should contain cost information for Commission review and approval. ___________ Aug 5, 2012 post: Southern California Edison Company (SCE) submitted a Petition for Modification of Decision No. 12-02-035 July 27. SCE requests that the Commission permit SCE to reduce the utility-owned generation (UOG) portion of the Solar Photovoltaic Program (SPVP) from 125 MW to 91 MW, and that the megawatts it does not procure through the UOG portion of the SPVP be added to SCE’s megawatt requirement in the Renewable Auction Mechanism (RAM) program. The reason it cites is that the solar power can now, unlike when the program began, be procured cost-effectively through the other various renewable energy programs, and that the UOG program was a success. ____________ February 20, 2012 post: Decision 12-02-002 Re Partially Granting San Diego Gas & Electric Company's Petitions for Modification of D.10-09-016 (SEP) and D.10-12-048 (RAM) was signed by the Commission at its February 1, 2012 Commission Business Meeting. The result is to combine the solicitation of photovoltaic and other electricity generated by renewable resources now procured by San Diego Gas & Electric Company via two programs into one program. The Commission did this in a way intended to promote simplicity, maximize program efficiency, and minimize market disruption. The proceeding is closed. SDG&E intends to allocate all 74 Solar Energy Project MWs to its Peaking As-Available product category. SDG&E will divide this additional capacity evenly across the remaining RAM solicitations so as not to pre-judge whether market conditions will favor front-loaded or back-loaded procurement. SDG&E acknowledges that the RAM decision allows IOUs to procure over or under its procurement targets in any product category by 20 MW, which at this point appears to provide sufficient flexibility for SDG&E to respond to market conditions. SDG&E will incorporate the revised procurement targets in its documentation for the 2012 RAM solicitation. 25 MW were added to the procurement targets for each of the next three years in the "Peaking, As-Available" category. The revised solicitation documents will be posted to SDG&E’s RAM website approximately six weeks before bids are due. ____________ Jan 20, 2012 post: ALJ Mariam Ebke issued, on Jan 11, " Proposed Decision (PD) partially granting Southern California Edison Company's Petition for Modification of Decision 09-06-049 (SPVP) and making conforming changes to Decision 10-12-048 (RAM)." The PD would partially grant Southern California Edison Company’s petition for modification of the Solar Photovoltaic Program (SPVP) adopted in Decision (D.) 09-06-049. As adopted in 2009, the Solar Photovoltaic Program involves 250 megawatts of solar photovoltaic generation to be owned by the utility, and 250 megawatts to be owned by independent power producers. As modified, the program will be no more than 125 megawatts of utility ownership, no more than 125 megawatts of independent power producer ownership, and 250 megawatts to be procured through the Renewable Auction Mechanism program. The PD proposes to do this to reduce costs, promote simplicity, maximize program efficiency, and minimize market disruption. The PD would reduce the Commission's previous finding of the total amount of reasonable program costs to track the program changes adopted here. The PD would also make conforming changes to the Renewable Auction Mechanism program by modifying D.10-12-048. The proceeding would be closed. Opening comments, which shall not exceed 15 pages, are due no later than January 31, 2012. Reply comments, which shall not exceed 5 pages, are due Feb 6. _____________ Jan 5, 2012 post: The Energy Division sent out Draft Resolution E-4453 addressing SCE's Advice Letters 2571-E and 2571-E-A which request approval of proposed changes to the standard documents used in Southern California Edison Company's Solar Photovoltaic Program. This Resolution approves the majority of changes SCE has proposed to its Participant Instructions and Standard PPAs because they are consistent with D.09-06-049 and Resolution E-4299. This Resolution also responds to a party’s protest, rejects some of SCE’s requested changes, and accepts some changes with modifications. In order to make the standard SPVP consistent with other recently approved standard contracts for renewable resources, this Resolution makes additional changes beyond those proposed by SCE. Once this Resolution is effective, SCE may proceed with its next SPVP RFO. It is scheduled to be on the agenda for the February 1, 2012 Commission meeting. Comments are due Jan 11, and reply comments are due Jan 16. ________________ Nov 5, 2011 post: ALJ Maryam Ebke issued a Ruling Nov 2 regarding SCE's Petition for Modification (PFM) of the Solar Photovoltaic Program (SPVP). This ruling notifies stakeholders in Rulemaking (R.) 11-05-005, R. 08-08-009, and Application (A.) 08-03-015 that the Commission may consider certain limited, additional modifications to the Renewable Auction Mechanism, or RAM decision D.10-12-048. This consideration is relative to possible changes of Southern California Edison Company’s (SCE) SPVP adopted in A.08-03-015. Further, this ruling notifies stakeholders that consideration of modifications to the RAM decision with respect to SCE’s SPVP will be handled in A.08-03-015, directs stakeholders to become parties in A.08-03-015, as necessary, and sets a schedule for further responses and reply limited to this issue. On June 18, 2009, the Commission adopted the SPVP for SCE, a 500 megawatt (MW) solar photovoltaic (PV) program. (D.09-06-049 in A.08-03-015.) SPVP is focused on rooftop PV facilities in the range of one to two MW, with no more than 10% ground-mounted. SPVP designates 250 MW for ownership by SCE (utility-owned generation, or UOG), and 250 MW for ownership by Independent Power Producers (IPP). On February 11, 2011, SCE petitioned for modification of D.09-06-049. SCE asks that: (a) UOG be reduced from 250 MW to no more than 125 MW, (b) IPP be reduced from 250 MW to no more than 125 MW, and (c) 250 MW be reassigned to a new, restructured competitive solicitation called the IPP Revised solicitation (IPP Revised). SCE proposes that the scaled-back 125 MW UOG and 125 MW IPP portions remain under current SPVP parameters, but that IPP Revised not be subject to several of those original parameters. For example, SCE proposes that IPP Revised remain exclusively targeted on solar but asks that it be fully open to ground-mounted (as well as rooftop) projects up to 20 MWs (without focus on one to two MW), and projects with an initial operation 36 months (not 18 months) after Commission approval of the contract. On March 14, 2011, parties filed responses both in support and opposition. If the Commission revises SPVP, the Commission may also consider transferring some or all of the MWs in a revised SPVP to RAM and modifying D.10-12-048 (RAM) as necessary. This ruling notifies parties on the service lists for R.11-05-005 and R.08-08-009 (the predecessor proceeding to R.11-05-005) of this potential modification of D.10-12-048 as it relates to SPVP. Parties are also notified that further consideration of SCE’s Petition for Modification of D.09-06-049, including the related potential modification of D.10-12-048, will be handled in A.08-03-015.1 A stakeholder in R.08-08-009 or R.11-05-005 who is not now a party in A.08-03-015 but who wishes to respond to SCE’s February 11, 2011 Petition for Modification, including potential modification of D.10-12-048, should file and serve, within five days of the date of this ruling: (a) a motion to become a party in A.08-03-015, and (b) a response. The motion and response need to be filed only in A.08-03-015. Finally, current parties to A.08-03-015 who have not addressed the potential modification of D.10-12-048 as it relates to possible changes to SPVP may do so by filing and serving, within five days of the date of this ruling, a response (if they have not yet filed a response) or an amended response. The response or amended response should be limited to potential modification of D.10-12-048 as it relates to possible changes to SPVP. _______________ Nov 5, 2010 post: Pacific Gas and Electric Company filed an Application (A.10-11-XXX) for Share of Costs of California Solar Photovoltaic Manufacturing Development Facility Under U.S. Department of Energy Photovoltaic Manufacturing Initiative. In it, PG&E asks the California Public Utilities Commission (Commission or CPUC), effective as soon as possible, to authorize PG&E to increase electric rates and charges to collect $35.6 million over 3 years as the reasonable level of revenue requirements necessary to provide partial support for the balance of non-federal matching funds under an application by SVTC Technologies, a for-profit entity, for an award of $98 million in federal funds from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to construct a California solar photovoltaic (PV) manufacturing development facility (California Solar PV MDF) in San Jose, California. In return for PG&E’s financial contribution, PG&E will receive a financial interest in SVTC Solar in order to provide the potential for full reimbursement to PG&E’s customers over the long-term. _________________ Older posts: On July 13 ALJ Ebke filed a Proposed Decision: “Decision Adopting a Solar Photovoltaic Program for San Diego Gas & Electric Company.” The decision proposes to adopt 26 MW of utility-owned generation and 26 MW of PPAs with independent power producers. The PD rejects SDG&E’s proposal as well as a settlement agreement reached with several parties. The PD was set as Item 37 on the Commission’s Aug 12 agenda. The item was held until the September 2nd meeting for further review. The project was approved at the Commission’s September 2 meeting. Decision 10-09-016 rejects both SDG&E’s application as well as the settlement agreement, adopting instead a program that the Commission finds will better protect ratepayers from risk and unknown costs. The program is 100 MW, 26MW of which is utility-owned, and 74MW of which will come from PPAs. The projects will be primarily 1-2 MW, but projects of up to 5 MW are also allowed with some restrictions. SDG&E is authorized to spend up to $100.1 million for capital costs based on $3.50/W, including a contingency, and up to $25/kW-year for the operations and maintenance costs of utility-owned projects. The decision adopts a cost cap of $235/MWh for the PPAs executed under the Solar Energy Project. Item 43 on the Commission’s Oct 14th agenda approved Resolution E-4351 , approving SDG&E’s Advice Letter 2150-E/NMR which would allow the use of $345,000 of SGIP funds, previously transferred to the Rebuild a Greener San Diego Program to provide matching funds to an ARRA grant for the installation of an Advanced Energy Storage system combined with a PV system at a city public safety center. The transfer of funds was protested by CCDC and the DRA, on the grounds that the project was expensive, that the program was inconsistent with the original SGIP transfer to the Rebuild Program, and that advanced storage combined with PV is not eligible for SGIP incentives, among other things. Staff analysis overrules the protests and recommends Commission approval.

Over 11K Stories!

| Independently Powered Energy News

Utility-Owned Solar Generation and Green Tariff Programs

dgrandy

Related Posts

NRC focuses on Diablo closure, not extension, CPUC staff tout demand flexibility potential, New transmission coming to AZ-CA desert

Silicon Valley CCA to Provide Google 100% Clean Energy All Day, Every Day

Offshore wind & green h2 advance, utility home demand response programs need improvement, zinc batteries show promise

Integrated Demand –Side Resource Programs