|
|
Enron Mail |
???????????? PG&E has?filed the attached, =01&Motion to Establish Final Ma=
rket =20 Valuation of Non-Nuclear Generating Assets Pursuant to Public Utilities Cod= e =20 Section 367.=018? The motion requests that the Commission consolidate in t= he=20 docket used for the recent rate stabilization decision the existing record= =20 of PG&E=01,s remaining major non-nuclear generating asset market valuation= =20 proceedings and immediately adopt a final market valuation for all of PG&E= =01,s=20 remaining non-nuclear generating assets.? The market valuation dockets tha= t=20 would be consolidated in this proceeding include A.99-09-053 (hydroelectri= c=20 assets); A.00-05-031 (Kern); and A.00-05-034 (Humboldt Bay). =20 ??? ??? ??? The utility requests that this be done?prior to establishing= =20 the revenue requirements and rates for PG&E=01,s retained generating asset= s=20 pursuant to the June 15 Chief ALJ=01,s Ruling.? That ruling set a hearing= =20 schedule for determining the revenue requirements of the three utilities= =20 related to retained generation,?QFs, bilateral contracts, and ancillary=20 services.? PG&E asks that the?Commission rule on its Motion as soon as=20 possible and no later than July 19, so that PG&E and interested parties ha= ve=20 the benefit of the ruling prior to the beginning of hearings on July 23,= =20 2001. PG&E argues that since the Commission has not completed market valuations= =20 for PG&E=01,s generating assets,?it therefore may not legally determine th= e=20 value of those assets for ratemaking purposes until such time as those=20 market valuations are complete.? In fact, there has been no action =20 whatsoever in?PG&E=01,s hydroelectric market valuation proceeding since Ja= nuary=20 22,?when the Chief ALJ issued a ruling canceling a prehearing conference a= nd=20 public participation hearings, and extending the comment period on the dra= ft=20 environmental impact report. The utility stresses that Section 367(b) of the PU Code?requires the=20 Commission to market value the utilities=01, generation assets =01¬ lat= er than=20 December 31, 2001,=018 and that it has to be, =01&based on appraisal, sale= or=20 other divestiture.=018? They also note that AB 6 from the Legislature=01,s= First=20 Extraordinary Session modified Section 377 to?prohibit PG&E from selling a= ny=20 of its existing generating assets until at least January 1, 2006, and=20 requires that those assets be dedicated for the benefit of California=20 ratepayers.? Since AB 6X precludes the Commission from valuing PG&E=01,s= =20 generating assets by sale or divestiture, appraisal is the only lawful=20 method. PG&E concludes that effective January 1, 2002, its non-nuclear retained=20 generation must be reflected in utility rates on the same basis as the=20 market value determined for purposes of AB 1890 stranded cost computations= .?=20 Therefore, the?market valuations adopted by the Commission will have to be= =20 included in the consideration of URG ratemaking in this proceeding.? The= =20 motion says that the?valuations are also essential prerequisites to the=20 determination of any amounts that might be made available under the curren= t=20 rate structure for payment to the DWR as provided for in AB1X.? PG&E =20 concludes that market valuation of its retained generating assets is an =20 essential prerequisite to establishing their revenue requirement, which is = =20 hardly illogical. 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 - 7-3-01 PG&E URG Motion.doc
|