Energy Division's workshop notice framed the issues in this phase of this proceeding by posing several questions for the parties' consideration:
1. What tracking and/or balancing accounts are currently included in utilities' ERAM/ECAC applications or proceedings?
2. Please describe the function and purpose of each of the accounts listed in Question 1 above. (a) How are each of these functions impacted by the rate freeze? (b) Will any of these functions continue to be needed during 1997 and/or the transition period 1998 through 2001? Why?
3. For those functions that you believe will be needed, what are the proper proceedings to address them?
4. How do PBR incentives interact with ERAM? (a) Given the rate freeze, what incentives are appropriate?
5. For PG&E and SDG&E, should the ERAM for Transmission and Distribution be eliminated?
6. When tracking ERAM/ECAC costs, are there issues that the Commission should consider for market power abuse?
In response to the written comments of participants and the discussions at the workshops, Energy Division's workshop report recommends the Commission:
· Eliminate several accounts;
· Request that the utilities develop balancing accounts for generation costs in the proceeding addressing transition costs;
· Explore alternatives to the ERAM for distribution services in distribution PBR proceedings;
· Eliminate the forecast phase of ECAC proceedings beginning in 1997;
· Retain the reasonableness review portion of ECAC proceedings.
Appendix B presents Energy Division's recommendations with regard to each account in tabular form. Energy Division recommended eliminating accounts only where the parties agreed that the accounts should be eliminated.
In the workshop report, Energy Division emphasizes that its recommendations are the beginning of a process it believes should be ongoing and should recognize evolving industry characteristics.
