|
|
Enron Mail |
Looks like current and returning DA customers are exempt from the San Diego=
=20 surcharge Sue Mara Enron Corp. Tel: (415) 782-7802 Fax:(415) 782-7854 ----- Forwarded by Susan J Mara/NA/Enron on 07/17/2001 02:11 PM ----- =09"Dan Douglass" <douglass@energyattorney.com< =0907/17/2001 09:57 AM =09=09=20 =09=09 To: "ARM" <arem@electric.com< =09=09 cc:=20 =09=09 Subject: Resolution E-3726 Approved The Commission approved Resolution E-3726 on a 5-0 vote at the July 12 =20 meeting.? A copy of the final resolution, which has several changes from t= he=20 draft issued a few weeks ago, is attached for your information.? The =20 Resolution explicitly states that DA customers are exempt from the AB 265= =20 rate surcharge, as AReM advocated in its July 9 comments.? It also states= =20 that any DA customer returning to bundled service will not be exempt from= =20 the surcharge.? However, a subsequent return to DA appears to make the=20 customer exempt again.? The following are some excerpts from the Resolutio= n=20 relating to these issues.: ? ?"Two parties filed comments on the re-circulated resolution, SDG&E and AR= M,=20 both on July 9, 2001.? Some of the implementation issues raised by SDG&E= =20 require clarifications as discussed in the remainder of this section. . . = .=20 . . . =20 ?SDG&E next maintains that the draft Resolution resolves two issues that= =20 instead should be resolved in A.00-10-045 and A.01-01-044:? changes in the= =20 definition of =01&small=018 customers and the treatment of DA customers.? (= We note=20 that the Commission has not publicly issued a Proposed Decision or draft= =20 Alternate Decision in those proceedings addressing the treatment of DA=20 customers or the definition of small customers.) . . . . .=20 With respect to the treatment of DA customers we see no reason why it is= =20 improper to address that issue here, as that issue has been addressed by t= he=20 participants in this informal proceeding.? Accordingly, we determine that D= A =20 customers are exempt from recovery of the undercollection that results from= =20 the AB 265 energy price ceiling based only on the record established for= =20 this Resolution.? That is we base this determination on relevant=20 information contained in protests and responses to protests on the advice= =20 letters addressed by this Resolution and comments and reply comments on=20 drafts of this Resolution that were circulated for public comment . . . . = .=20 . . .? ?SDG&E also asserts in its July 9, 2001 comments that the draft Resolution= =20 finds DA Issues moot but addresses them anyway.?? SDG&E also argues that it= =20 withdrew AL 1264-E and that the draft Resolution inappropriately addressed= =20 two issues:? exempting DA customers from any future cost recovery=20 obligations associated with AB 265 rate ceiling benefits, and determining= =20 what the obligations are of DA customers who return to utility bundled=20 service.? SDG&E also maintains that the Resolution must be revised to avoi= d=20 gaming by customers who attempt to avoid paying their share of the=20 undercollection. We first note that the draft Resolution clearly noted at page 6 the=20 continued relevance of DA issues despite SDG&E=01,s withdrawal of AL 1264-= E.?=20 The passage of Assembly 1X 1 and the potential for the Commission to suspe= nd=20 Direct Access reduce the potential for gaming.? With no individual tracking= , =20 miss-matches between benefits and repayment obligations are inevitable.?=20 Limiting rate ceiling cost recovery responsibility to bundled service=20 customers is an expedient way to mitigate such mismatches and is supported= =20 in the discussion section of the resolution by the ADJ's intent to not=20 discriminate against DA customers.?=20 SDG&E states in its July 9 comments that the draft Resolution? must be=20 changed to clearly state that customers cannot avoid paying for costs simp= ly=20 by switching back and forth between bundled service and DA, and that the= =20 only customers who will avoid paying for costs are those who never caused= =20 them to be incurred in the first place.? But the reverse could also be=20 true.? Some DA customers that were returned to bundled service in early=20 2001, not having received the largest part of the rate ceiling benefit,=20 might have the same repayment obligations as bundled SDG&E customers that= =20 received the benefit back to June 2001, as well as those that just move in= to=20 SDG&E service territory when the benefit ends and the repayment begins.?? = We=20 do not address these issues in this Resolution.? In the Resolution, we=20 determined that the complexity of individual tracking at this point is=20 likely to outweigh its benefits. . . . . . . =20 ARM, in its comments on the re-circulated resolution, supports the order = =20 that DA customers should not be liable for any SDG&E undercollection =20 balancing account.? However, ARM proposes a single change to the draft=20 Resolution, regarding the treatment of customers who spend some time on, a= nd=20 sometime off, direct access (DA), and who find themselves, for whatever=20 reason, off DA when SDG&E recovers under-collections arising from AB265.? = =20 If the Commission is unwilling to require individual customer tracking, an= d=20 if these customers are for whatever reason off DA when SDG&E assesses =20 under-collection obligations arising from AB265, the Commission should trea= t =20 them as DA customers.?=20 We will not adopt ARM's proposal on this record.? Customers in the position= =20 described by ARM would have at least received a portion of the rate ceilin= g=20 benefits and are not differently situated from new customers in the SDG&E= =20 service territory.???=20 ARM argues that a DA customer who has not received the benefit of the rate= =20 cap has not contributed to the utility=01,s purchased power undercollectio= n.?=20 If that customer later finds herself, for whatever reason, on bundled=20 service and subject to the AB265 rate cap, she should be liable for her=20 share of undercollections incurred during the period when she was on bundl= ed=20 service.? But since SDG&E contends that it cannot support individual=20 tracking, ARM proposes that customers that were DA during the period since= =20 June 2000 be exempt from the repayment obligations.?=20 As further support, ARM also cites the ACR issued on July 2, in A.00-11-03= 8,=20 seeking comments by July 10 on a =01&proposed settlement of pending litiga= tion=018=20 between the Commission and SDG&E.? As part of the settlement, SDG&E would= =20 write off $219 million plus interest from its Energy Rate Ceiling Revenue = =20 Shortfall Account (ERCRSA), where SDG&E tracks AB265 undercollections.? ARM= =20 notes that the proposed write-off would benefit bundled customers, but not= =20 DA customers.?=20 ARM contends that if the Commission were to adopt the =01&proposed settlem= ent=20 of pending litigation,=018 DA customers below 100 kW would lose out on the= ir=20 share of the $219 million write off.? That is the very kind of=20 discrimination described in the Assembly Daily Journal, and the draft=20 Resolution seeks =01&to guard against such inequities.=018? In view of th= e harm=20 that would be imposed on DA customers if the Commission were to adopt the= =20 =01&settlement,=018 and to simultaneously avoid tracking individual AB265 = =20 benefits, ARMargues that the Commission should direct that any customer who= =20 was ever a DA customer be exempt from cost recovery obligations associated= =20 with AB 265 rate ceiling benefits.?=20 As discussed in other parts of this Resolution? we have addressed these?=20 issues by our treatment of DA customers with respect to the recovery of th= e=20 undercollection that results from the AB 265 energy rate ceiling."? =20 Dan Law Offices of Daniel W. Douglass 5959 Topanga Canyon Blvd.? Suite 244 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Tel:?? (818) 596-2201 Fax:? (818) 346-6502 douglass@energyattorney.com - Resolution E-3726 - Final 7-12-01.doc
|