California Public Utilities Commission

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has concluded that Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (PG&E) acted imprudently in deciding to enter a 15-year contract for interstate capacity on Transwestern Pipeline Co. expansion projects that came on line in 1992. It disallowed recovery of the costs associated with the Transwestern commitments in 1992 and in each subsequent year of the 15-year contract. The disallowed amount for 1992 is $13.6 million for the utility's gas department and $4.5 million for its electric department.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) on January 24 held a technical conference on independent system operators (ISOs) and power pools, as part of its electric transmission open-access Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR). The FERC's question: Is it necessary in a competitive market for utilities to transfer control over transmission facilities to ISOs, and if so, what form should ISOs take? (18 CFR Part 35, Docket Nos. RM95-8-000 and RM94-7-001).

Standard & Poor's (S&P) plans to maintain negative outlooks on the three largest California electric utilities (em Southern California Edison (SCE), San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E), and Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). Although it considers the California Public Utilities Commission's (CPUC's) December 20 electric restructuring order "reasonably favorable," S&P will not reexamine the ratings until it is sure the plan will be finalized as proposed. S&P's concern is that some members of the California State Senate believe small customer interests would not be adequately protected.

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has declined to adopt standards in the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPAct) that concern integrated resource planning and energy efficiency for electric and gas utilities, exempt wholesale generators and affiliated transactions, and investment in foreign utilities.

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has directed the state's electric and gas utilities to implement a two-year pilot allowing applicants such as residential real estate developers to design distribution facilities for their projects. (Currently, utilities are responsible for designing distribution plant.) In limiting the experiment to residential projects, the CPUC rejected allegations that the limitation would unfairly deny all ratepayers the immediate benefit of savings associated with the "unbundling of engineering costs" for distribution plant.

Southern California Gas Co. (SoCalGas) has unveiled a "transaction-based" storage program that allows customers to arrange one storage transaction at a time and to negotiate storage fees.The program was approved by the California Public Utilities Commission in November. Previously, most storage customers had to choose between basic, long-term, or auction services, which required differing storage commitments that ranged from a few months to 15 years.

Mark your calendars for April 29, 1996. That's the date of the "filing of the century," according to Donald Garber, group manager for strategic plans and projects at San Diego Gas & Electric Co.

Garber is talking about plans to file a draft operating agreement at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for the proposed California Power Exchange. The April filing will mark an important step in executing the December 20 order by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC).

As electric restructuring spreads around the nation and the world, the idea of a "PoolCo" spot market (pool) gains credence. Pools already exist in England, Australia, Norway, Alberta, and Argentina. On December 20,1 the California Public Utilities Commission formally proposed a pool, called the California Power Exchange, to begin operation as of January 1, 1998.

While reducing rates by $5.7 million for Citizens Utility Co.

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) has approved requests by the state's major energy utilities to maintain (and in some cases expand) funding for certain programs designed to aid in the development of low emission vehicles (LEV) and infrastructure. However, the CPUC approved less than the total requested by the state's energy utilities and stressed that ratepayer funding should not be used to support utility involvement in the competitive transportation market.