II. Background
In D.97-05-040, the Commission ordered the utility distribution companies (UDCs) to file their DAIPs, along with their pro forma tariffs. Prior to the submission of the DAIPs, the UDCs were ordered to meet with interested parties in an attempt to reach agreement on the protocols and policies needed to implement direct access.
In a letter dated June 25, 1997, Edison on behalf of itself, PG&E and SDG&E requested to separately file the DAIPs and the pro forma tariffs. That request was granted in a June 27, 1997 letter from the Commission's Executive Director. The joint DAIP of PG&E, SDG&E, and Edison was filed on July 1, 1997. PacifiCorp and Sierra Pacific Power Company (Sierra Pacific) also filed separate DAIPs on the same date.1 Southern California Water Company (SCWC) filed its DAIP, along with its proposed tariffs and service agreements on July 29, 1997.2
An Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) ruling dated July 9, 1997 announced the schedule for filing comments on the DAIPs and on the pro forma tariffs of PG&E, SDG&E, Edison and SCWC.3 The ruling also determined that the Energy Division should hold a workshop to address the pro forma tariffs of PacifiCorp, PG&E, SDG&E, and Edison.
Comments to the DAIP were filed by the various interested parties. Reply comments were permitted, and filed by PG&E and Edison on July 29, 1997, and July 31, 1997, respectively.
In accordance with the June 27, 1997 letter, separate pro forma tariffs and service agreements were filed by PG&E, SDG&E, and Edison on July 15, 1997.4 Comments to the pro forma tariffs and service agreements were filed in accordance with the ALJ ruling of July 9, 1997.
On August 7 and 8, 1997, the Energy Division convened a workshop to address the pro forma tariffs and service agreements of PacifiCorp, PG&E, SDG&E and Edison. At the workshop, a panel made up of PG&E, SDG&E, and Edison representatives answered questions and provided clarification about their respective utility's policies and practices as contained in the pro forma tariffs and service agreements. On August22, 1997, the Direct Access Pro Forma Tariffs and Service Agreements Workshop Report (Workshop Report) was submitted and served on the workshop participants.5
The workshop also resulted in the formation of the Direct Access Alliance (Alliance). The Alliance represents diverse participants in the direct access market. The utilities began talks with representatives from the Alliance in late July to see if consensus could be reached on direct access tariffs and service agreements for statewide use. These negotiations continued even after the comments to the Workshop Report were filed.
Despite the many discussions, the participants were unable to agree on a consensus document prior to the due date for filing comments on the Workshop Report. The Alliance though had developed a draft of statewide tariffs. For the Commission to have the most current proposals before it, the Workshop Report attached the Alliance's proposed statewide tariff and service agreement (Attachment 5 of the Workshop Report). PG&E and Edison also developed a revised draft of PG&E Rule 23 and Edison Rule 22 and a draft of the ESP service agreement. This was attached to the Workshop Report as Attachment 6.
As a result of the discussions between the UDCs and the Alliance, the Alliance and SDG&E were able to reach a consensus on a set of proposed tariffs for statewide use. 6 These tariffs were attached to their joint comments on the Workshop Report. PG&E and Edison were unable to reach agreement with the Alliance and SDG&E, but made some modifications to their proposed tariffs as a result of these discussions. The revised tariffs of PG&E and Edison were attached to their respective comments on the Workshop Report. As a result of the discussions with the Alliance, the revised tariffs of each of the utilities share the same format, offer similar direct access sign-up procedures and service options, and use the same or similar language on many pages.
Enron filed a motion on September 17, 1997 to file its comments on the Workshop Report one day out of time. The motion recites that Enron tendered its comments to the Docket Office for filing at 5:01 p.m. on September 16,1997. Due to delays in electronic transmission of the comments between Enron and its attorney, and because of delays in transportation in arriving at the Docket Office, the comments were not timely filed. Enron states that it was able to serve all parties by mail on the due date. No one filed any objection to Enron's motion. Since all the parties were served in a timely manner, and because Enron's filing arrived shortly after the Docket Office closed, Enron's motion should be granted, and the Docket Office should be directed to file the comments to the Workshop Report that were attached to Enron's motion as of September 17, 1997.
Due to the timing of the filing of these revised tariffs in the comments to the Workshop Report, an ALJ Ruling was issued on September 18, 1997, which provided interested parties with the opportunity to file a response to the revised tariffs that were submitted as part of PG&E's and Edison's comments, and to the joint tariff filing of the Alliance and SDG&E.
The talks between the Alliance and the UDCs continued after the comments were filed. As a result of those ongoing discussions, PG&E and Edison were able to resolve some additional issues with the Alliance, which are reflected in their revised tariffs filed on October 15, 1997.
1 The DAIPs of PacifiCorp and Sierra Pacific contained their proposed tariffs. Sierra Pacific's filing also included the electric service provider (ESP) service agreement. PacifiCorp subsequently revised its DAIP in a filing made on July 18, 1997. PacifiCorp also made revisions to its proposed tariffs in a September 22, 1997 filing made in its transition plan proceeding, Application 97-05-011.
2 Revised tariff pages were submitted by SCWC on July 30, 1997.
3 The schedule for filing comments on the pro forma tariffs was extended to August 4, 1997 in a July 23, 1997 letter from the Executive Director.
4 PG&E subsequently revised its proposed tariffs, rate schedules, and service agreement on August 1, 1997, September 16, 1997, and October 15, 1997. Edison made revisions to its proposed tariffs, rate schedules, and service agreements in filings made on July 25, 1997, September 16, 1997, and October 15, 1997.
5 Apparently, the Workshop Report was not filed with the Docket Office. To ensure that there is a complete record of the filings upon which we have made decisions, we will direct the Energy Division to file the Workshop Report with the Docket Office. The Docket Office is directed to file the Workshop Report as of the date the Energy Division submits it for filing.
6 The joint proposed tariffs of the Alliance and SDG&E were revised in a filing dated September19, 1997.
This Web page was produced using a Beta version of HTML Transit 3.0