This proceeding is part of the Commission’s larger effort to promote competition in electric generation markets. Decision (D.) 95-12-063, as modified in D.96-01-009, set forth in general terms the Commission’s policy in matters concerning electric industry restructuring. That order acknowledged that under the new market structure electric system transmission would be regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and that distribution would remain under the Commission’s jurisdiction. The order identified the need to disaggregate electric utility rates by "unbundling" generation, transmission and distribution for all all direct access customers. This proceeding is the Commission’s forum to accomplish such unbundling.
A series of rulings provided guidance to the utilities with regard to the scope of their applications to unbundle their system rates. On September 23, 1996, Assembly Bill (AB) 1890 became law, generally codifying the restructuring plan set forth in D.95-12-063. That legislation established a Power Exchange (PX), through which electricity could be purchased and sold, and the Independent System Operation (ISO), which would dispatch and manage the transmission system.
Subsequently, the Commission issued D.96-10-074 specifying the extent of cost separation to be addressed in the utility applications. It ordered each utility to separate its last authorized rate base and revenue requirement into generation, transmission, and distribution consistent with the anticipated FERC order on transmission revenue requirement. On March 31, 1997, the ISO and PX trustee filed tariffs and other documents at the FERC in order to create the ISO and PX by January 1, 1998. The utilities filed proposals for their respective transmission revenue requirements at the FERC concurrently.
On December 6, 1996, PG&E, Edison and SDG&E filed these applications in separate dockets. The three dockets were consolidated to facilitate review. On January 31, 1997, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a ruling defining the scope of the proceeding and addressing other procedural matters. In accordance with the ruling, utilities served supplemental testimony on February 14. Other parties served testimony on February 28. The Commission held evidentiary hearings for 15 days from March 24 through April 14 at which 53 witnesses testified on behalf of 18 parties.
The active parties other than the utilities are Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA), the California Energy Commission (Energy Commission), Agricultural Energy Consumers Association (AECA), Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), California City-County Street Light Association (CAL-SLA), California Building Industry Association (CBIA), California Farm Bureau Federation (Farm Bureau), California Industrial Users (CIU), California Large Energy Consumers Association (CLECA), California Manufacturers Association(CMA), California Mobilehome Resource and Action Association, Inc. (CMRAA), Cogeneration Association of California (CAC), Energy Producers and Users Coalition (EPUC), Department of Defense/Department of the Navy/Federal Executive Agencies (DOD), Enron and its affiliate Enron Capital and Trade Resources (Enron), Southern Energy Retail Training and Marketing (Southern), The Utility Reform Network (TURN), Utility Consumers Action Network (UCAN), and Western Mobilehome Parkowners Association (WMA).
On March 19, the utilities, ORA , CIU, CLECA, CMA, and DOD filed their Joint Motion for Adoption of Retail Transmission Rate Stipulation, together with the Retail Transmission Rate Stipulation dated March 19. No party filed comments on the motion or opposed it.
On April 30, parties filed opening briefs. On May 9, 1997, parties filed reply briefs and the matter was submitted.
Footnotes are bracketed and in blue