COMPARISON OF JULY 15, 1996 RATE & PRODUCT
UNBUNDLING REPORTS
ISSUE SDG&E PG&E SCE
--------------------- -------------------------------- -------------------------------- -------------------------------
Total Revenue · 1998 base rate revenues · Based on that authorized in 1996 · Nongeneration base rate
Requirement determined from escalated 1996 GRC · Will be adjusted based on revenues and Hydro PBR revenues
authorized PBR base rate revenues 1997 Base Revenue Filing · escalated from 1995 GRC adopted
· Combined with most recently Describes how rate freeze proposal levels · Base rate PBR
adopted ECAC revenue requirement and Rate Settlement are consistent exclusions to be held at 1995
with PG&E's unbundling proposal · GRC adopted levels · Recovery of
Proposes to maintain costs which are fixed with
schedule-specific rate levels as respect to divestiture of fossil
of 1/1/96, effective 1/1/97 units, A&G and general plant not
through 2001 included in the ICIP price
through the Nongeneration PBR ·
Reduced scope ECAC remains for
minor, limited fuel costs
Transition of Current · Describes need to eliminate · Endorses streamlined regulatory · Describes schedule for
Cost Recovery 1999 GRC due to CPUC's rate cap, process, but points out that some unbundling and restructuring
Proceedings the success of SDG&E's PBR, and rate cases may continue to be proceedings
limited resources of CPUC staff, needed · GRC shouldn't be
utility and intervenors eliminated before PBR mechanism is
approved · Revenue allocation and
rate design phases of GRC should
be retained
CTC Revenue Requirements · Will be developed in SDG&E's · Details will be provided in · Proposes a residual
8/30/96 CTC filing 8/30/96 filing calculation of CTC revenues to
obviate need for a separate
allocation and rate design
Functional Unbundling · Generation revenues will be · Presents discussion of · These costs are contained in
of Generation derived in SDG&E's Generation PBR "Physical" versus "Contractual" SCE's July 15 PBR application ·
· O&M and capital-related costs generation and the interaction Describes the mapping process
will be directly assigned to with PX and ISO · Describes a that was used for direct, joint
business functions · Methods of "mapping" approach for aggregated and common costs
assigning A&G, general plant and costs and allocation of shared
common plant expenses are costs · Result is $5.1 billion
described (includes CTC, which will be
identified in 8/30 filing)
Functional Unbundling · Transmission revenues will be · Demarcation between transmission · Expects the revenue
of Transmission determined by the FERC and will and distribution must be resolved requirement for transmission
be subtracted from total revenue · Transmission will include will be authorized by FERC based
requirements · Implications of revenue requirements for all on ISO Phase II filings in early
FERC and CPUC scenarios are facilities 60 kV and greater · 1997 · Proposes a revenue-credit
discussed but no preference is Result is $272 million methodology to separate FERC
stated jurisdictional revenue
requirements
Functional Unbundling · Once the transmission revenue · Estimated using a mapping · Proposes to calculate by
of Distribution requirement is identified, it approach · Result is $1.7 billion subtracting the FERC-adopted
will be subtracted from the total transmission revenue requirement
T&D amount to obtain the from the non-PBR revenue
distribution revenue requirement requirement that the CPUC will
adopt. · More fully described in
PBR proposal
Further Unbundling of · Emphasizes that meaningful · Believes that unbundling the · Further unbundling first
Distribution Functions competition cannot be achieved so five cost categories satisfy the requires determination of
long as services are bundled · criterion in the June 21 ACR · whether it provides customer
Unbundling should occur by 1/1/98 Further unbundling should use the value · Believes that the CPUC's
· Examples of unbundled services same principles as the Commission deadline of 1/1/98 requires
are provided · Classifying and applied to the unbundling of deferring this determination ·
costing methodology is described generation: no cost-shifting, rate Notes that parties were directed
in detail cap, and stranded cost recovery to focus "only on resolving
issues that are necessary for
implementation by January 1,
1998"
Revenue Allocation · Minimize revenue shifting by · Provides a step-by-step · Plans to use the currently
continuing use of capped EPMC methodology which minimizes adopted marginal costs to
methodology · Use residual revenue shifting · Use FERC's allocate the unbundled revenue
approaches for CTC and PGC costs method for Transmission requirements to the maximum
to avoid cost shifting · Supports allocation, and EPMC for extent possible consistent with
cost-based, uncapped, allocation Distribution · Use a residual the new market structure
in the long-term approach for CTC costs to avoid
cost shifting
Rate Design · Proposes a single average cost · Describes how the unbundled · Believes that the existing
of PX energy for non-RTP components will add to the current rate structures should remain
customers · To minimize bill rate · The rate freeze proposal the same as rates are unbundled
impacts and to encourage demand and CTC residual allocation will · Therefore, no change in the
side bidding, continue to recover keep rates capped and avoid relative size of charges in any
UDC costs via TOU energy charges cost-shifting rate schedule · Anything else
during a five-year transition would violate the goal of no
period · Proposed that all cost-shifting
utilities use fixed charges and
demand charges to recover
distribution costs
Transmission Rate Design · Presents illustrative rates · States that the FERC must · Assumes CPUC jurisdiction of
based on noncoincident demand and approve any proposed rate design · rate design for retail customers
energy use (not a 12 CP rate Transmission charges could consist · Proposes allocation and rate
design) of both energy and demand charges design be based on marginal costs
RTP Metering · Proposes universal metering for · No discussion
all customers on a state-wide
basis within 5 years, beginning
1/1/98
CTC Recovery · Recover CTCs implicit in UDC · Recover CTCs residually to avoid · Recover CTCs residually to
rate design to avoid bill impacts rate impacts avoid bill impacts
· CTC percentage and amount can
be identified on customer bills
Public Purpose Programs · Recover program costs implicit · Proposes that PPP include: DSM, · Proposes recovery as a percent
(PGC, CARE, etc.) in UDC rate design to avoid bill RD&D, Low-income programs, of all applicable charges on the
impacts · If required, percentage economic development, and LEVs · rate schedule · If costs are 1%
and amount can be identified on Estimates program costs at $122 of total revenue requirements,
customer bills million then 1% would be charged on each
rate schedule
Billing Information · Concerned that there may be too · Describes how many line items · Emphasizes that many of the
many line-items · Proposes that could be developed and shown, but CPUC's proposed line-items would
Low-Income Surcharge be included emphasizes that customers may not be very small · No details
in UDC rates need or want all this information provided on what should be on
· Recommends that other means be bills
considered for communication of
this information · Proposes that
the Ratesetting Working Group
address this issue
Rate Closure · Proposes to close many · Not mentioned · Not mentioned
generation-related TOU options to
new customers