Background Decisions and Information
on QF Issues

Resolution E-3645:  November 4, 1999
SCE-Delano QF Contract Restructuring Agreement.
On July 7, 1999, SCE filed Advice Letter 1390-E, requesting Commission approval of a QF contract restructuring with Delano Energy Company, Inc., pursuant to the RALF guidelines laid out in D.98-12-066. Approved.

Decision 99-10-016: October 4, 199
PG&E-San Joaquin Cogen QF Contract Termination Agreement.
PGE&E had filed Application 99-04-009 for Commission approval of the termination of Standard Offer No.2 Power Purchase between PG&E and San Joaquin Cogen Limited, L.P. This decision approves the Termination Agreement between PG&E and San Joaquin Limited.

Resolution E-3635:  September 2, 1999
SCE-Beowawe QF Contract Restructuring Agreement.
On May 20, 1999, SCE filed Advice Letter 1381-E, requesting Commission approval of a QF contract restructuring with Oxbow Power of Beowawe, Inc., pursuant to the RALF guidelines laid out in D.98-12-066 (see "Background Decisions and Information" page). Approved.

Decision 99-08-008: August 5, 1999
SCE-AES Placerita QF Contract Restructuring Agreement.
On May 5, 1999, SCE filed Application 99-05-006 seeking Commission approval of agreements restructuring the PPA between SCE and AES Placerita. Approved.

Resolution E-3625:  August 5, 1999
PG&E Enabling Agreement for greater QF operating flexibility.
On June 12, 1999, PG&E filed Advice Letter 1870-E, requesting Commission approval of two standard forms modifying standard offer contracts. The forms, for which individual QFs are eligible, give QFs greater operational latitude to participate in energy and ancillary services markets. Approved.

Decision 99-05-049: May 27, 2000
SCE-O'Brien QF Contract Restructuring Agreement.
On December 18, 1998, SCE filed Application 98-12-021. This decision approves SCE's proposed buyout and termination of a 1985 power purchase agreement with O'Brien California Cogen Limited (O'Brien). Expected customer benefits from the buyout are $13.7 million in net present value (NPV). The decisions finds the settlement embodied in the agreement to be reasonable.

Decision 99-03-021:  March 4, 1999
This decision denies SDG&E’s request to modify transmission line loss adjustment factors, stating that SDG&E has not adequately demonstrated that these factors no longer reflect  avoided line losses, or that the alternative generator meter multipliers (GMMs) proposed by SDG&E are more appropriate to use for short-run avoided cost calculations.  SDG&E’s proposal to modify its distribution line loss adjustment factors is approved.

Decision 99-02-085:  February 18, 1999
The main issues addressed are:  (1) the standard of reasonableness the Commission applies to QF contract restructuring; (2) whether QF contract restructurings should be voluntary for both the utility and the QF; (3) whether a utility’s decisions in QF restructuring negotiations should be subject to reasonableness review; (4) whether to retain and how to implement the 10% shareholder incentive to renegotiate QF contracts.

Decision 98-12-072:  December 17, 1998
This decision approves as reasonable a package of settlements with certain bidders in the Biennial Resource Plan Update (BRPU) auction proposed by SCE in an application.  The cost of the total package of ten settlements is $92,142,163.

Decision 98-12-074:  December 17, 1998
This decision approves as reasonable a package of settlements with certain bidders in the Biennial Resource Plan Update (BRPU) auction proposed by SDG&E in an application.  The cost of the total package of three settlements is $5,095,000.  SDG&E’s request to terminate its BRPU solicitation is deferred, and SDG&E is encouraged to continue negotiating with non-settling bidders.

Decision 98-12-066:  December 17, 1998
This decision adopts a process to address certain QF contract modification proposals in the instances where the restructuring Advice Letter has the support of the Office of Ratepayer Advocates.  Under the expedited process, the utility would submit a Restructuring Advice Letter Filing (RALF) to the Commission’s Energy Division.  Energy Division staff will, after a review and public comment period, submit for Commission vote a resolution either accepting or rejecting the proposed contract restructuring.

Decision 98-04-046, April 23, 1998 Energy Reliability Index (ERI)

Decision 97-11-013, November 5, 1997 Opinion on As-Available Capacity Payments.

Decision 96-12-028, December 9, 1996 Interim Opinion Replacing the Index Methodology for Calculating Avoided Energy Costs.

Decision 96-10-036, October 9, 1996 Phase 1 Opinion, , on approval of a compromise proposal (Joint Recommendation) which proposes to resolve all Phase 1 issues in the consolidated applications.

For More Information on QF Issues from the Energy Division

Contact James Loewen, Energy Division, at 415-703-1866, or by email at loe@cpuc.ca.gov.