Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC FRANCHISES
Pacific Gas & Sectric I SEPTEMBER 8, 2011 TO: STATE, COUNTY AND CITY OFFICIALS NOTIFICATION OF FILING OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY'S GAS TRANSMISSION PIPELINE SAFETY ENHANCEMENT PLAN R.11-02-019 What Is the Pipeline Safety Enhancement Pian Filing? On June 9, 2011, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) issued its Decision Determining Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure Methodology and Requiring Filing Of Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline Replacement Or Testing Implementation Plans (D.11-06-017). D.11-06-017 requires all California natural gas transmission operators to develop and file an Implementation Plan setting forth criteria for which segments of natural gas pipelines that were not strength tested, or lack sufficient details related to performance of any such test, are identified for strength testing or replacement. D.11-06-017 also states that the Implementation Plan must include interim safety enhancement measures that will enhance public safety during the implementation period and that the Implementation Plan must consider retrofitting pipelines to allow for in-line inspection tools and, where appropriate, automated shut- off valves. DETAILED INFORMATION ABOUT THIS FILING On August 26, 2011, PG&E filed its proposed, two-phase, Pipeline Safety Enhancement Plan (or Implementation Plan) with the CPUC in compliance with D.11-06-017, requesting changes to its Gas Transmission and Storage (GT&S) rates effective January 1, 2012. Phase 1 (2011-2014) targets pipeline segments that are in highly populated urban areas, have vintage seam welds that do not meet modem standards, or are 'grandfathered" under current regulations and have not been strength tested. Phase 2 (wmmencing in 2015) targets pipeline segments that have been previously strength tested or are in rural areas. in this firing, PG&E seeks approval of the work scope proposed for both phases of the Implementation Plan, and Proposes a three-year adjustment.to rates for 2012 through 2014 for Phase 1 work. Cost recovery for Phase 2 will be addressed in a subsequent filing with the Commission. PG&E also presents how the costs to operate its transmission and storage business will be assigned to each customer class. The Implementation Plan focuses on the following key areas: Pipeline Modernization Program — During Phase 1, PG&E proposes to strength test 783 miles, replace 186 miles, upgrade 199 miles of pipe to allow for in-line inspection, and in-line inspect 234 miles. Valve Automation Program — During Phase 1, PG&E proposes to automate 228 valves, which includes remote- controlled valves (RCV) in urban areas and automatic shut-off valves (ASV) in populated areas that cross earthquake faults. In addition, PG&E will enhance its Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system to provide operators additional information, tools, and training to allow for early detection and quick response to pipeline rupture events. PG&E will also conduct a study to evaluate potential SCADA expansion and improvement. Pipeline Records Integration Program — This program consists of two work efforts: (1) collecting and verifying all pipeline strength tests and pipeline features data necessary to calculate the maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) of all gas transmission pipelines and associated components, and (2) transition away from relying on traditional paper records by consolidating data into integrated, core data management systems and building materials traceability for gas transmission pipeline components from receipt, through installation, to retirement from service. Interim Safety Enhancement Measures — PG&E's Implementation Plan includes the following interim safety enhancement measures: (1) validate the MAOP for all gas transmission pipelines in the system, (2) interim pressure reductions and (3) increased leak surveys and patrols. This filing does not address distribution (gas lines handling reduced pressure) rates or the commodity costs of gas. Rates for PG&E's gas distribution services, and the rates PG&E charges for natural gas itself, are set in separate CPUC proceedings. Will rates Increase as a result of this filing? Yes, if the CPUC approves PG&E's request, a typical residential customer using 37 therms per month would see an average monthly gas bill increase of $1.93, from $45.23 to $47.16. A typical small business customer using 287 therms per month would see an average monthly gas bill Increase of $14.95, from $279.80 to $294.75. Individual customers' bilis may differ A table Illustrating the Impact of the requested $247.3 million Increase In gas revenue for 2012, on each customer class, was Included in a bill insert mailed directly to customers beginning earlier this month.. In addition to the $247.3 PG&E is seeking for 2012, PG&E also requests Implementation Plan revenue requirements for 2013 and 2014 of $220.8 million and $300.6 million, respectively. This money will be used to implement the work scope indicated in the Implementation Plan related to pipeline modernization, valve automation, pipeline records integration, and interim safety enhancement measures, all in a safe and reliable manner. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION To request a copy of the filing and exhibits or for more details, call PG&E at 1-800-743-5000. For TDDfM (speech -hearing impaired), call 1-800.652-4712. Para mas detailes flame of 1-800-680-6789 • It It N B IR 1400493.9555 You may request a copy of the filing and exhibits by writing to: Pacific Gas and Electric Company Gas Transmission Pipeline Safety Enhancement Plan P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, CA 94120. THE CPUC PROCESS The CPUC's Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) will review this filing. The DRA is an independent arm of the CPUC, created by the Legislature to represent the interests of all utility customers throughout the state and obtain the lowest possible rate for service consistent with reliable and We service levels. The DRA has a multi -disciplinary staff with expertise in economics, finance, accounting and engineering. The DRA's views do not necessarily reflect those of the CPUC. Other parties of record may also participate. The CPUC may hold evidentiary hearings where parties of record present their proposals in testimony and are subject to cross-examination before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). These hearings are open to the public, but only those who are parties of record may present evidence or cross-examine witnesses during evidentiary hearings. Members of the public may attend, but not participate in, these hearings. After considering all proposals and evidence presented during the hearing process, the ALJ will issue a draft decision. When the CPUC ads on this filing, it. may. adopt all or pail of PG&E's request, amend or modify it, or deny the filing. The CPUC's final decision may be different from PG&E's filing. If you would like to learn how you can participate in this proceeding or if you have comments or questions, you may contact the CPUC's Public Advisor as follows: Public Advisor's Office 505 Van Ness Avenue Room 2103 San Francisco, CA 94102 1-415-703-2074 or 1-666849-6390 (toll free) TTY 1-415-7034282 or TTY 1-066836-7825 (toll free) E-mail to pubiic.advisor@cpuc.ca.gov If you are writing a letter to the Public Advisors Office, please include the number of the filing (R.11-02-019) to which you are referring. All comments will be circulated to the Commissioners, the assigned Administrative Law Judge and the Energy Division staff. A copy of PG&E's Gas Transmission Pipeline Safety Enhancement Plan and exhibits are also available for review at the California Public Utilities Commission, 505 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, Monday—Friday, 8 a.m.— noon, .m—noon, and on the CPUC's website at http:/A~...cpue.ca.gov/puc/. July 26, 2011 TO STATE, COUI AND CITY OFFICIALS NOTIFICATION OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY'S APPLICATION FILING FOR APPROVALTO RECOVER THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE AGREEMENT WITH THE LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY FOR 21" CENTURY ENERGY (A.11.07-008) On July 18,2011, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) filed a joint application filing with Southern California Edison Company and San Diego Gas & Electric Company (collectively, "Utilities"), with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). The joint application filing is seeking authority from the CPUC to recover the costs associated with a strategic applied research and development agreement between the Utilities and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The agreement is known as the "California Energy Systems for the 21" Century Pmjecr ("Project"). rhe partnership seeks to leverage the joint resources of the Utilities. California agencies, and California research laboratories and institutions to develop the necessary technologies and computing power necessary to expand and enhance the use of renewable energy and energy efficiency resources for the benefit of California consumers, businesses, and governments. The consortium will employ a joint team of technical experts who will combine data integration with the nation's most advanced modeling, simulation, and analytical tools to provide problem solving and planning to achieve California's energy and environmental goals. The joint Utilities' application filing requests authorization for the Utilities to increase their electric and gas rates, where applicable, and charges to collect up to a maximum of $150 million over five years. PG&E seeks to recover its share ($83.44 million) of the associated revenue requirements, allocated 75 percent to electric revenue requirements and 25 percent to gas revenue requirements, in electric and gas rates over the five year period. Therefore PG&E will increase its electric revenue requirements by approximately $12.5 million in 2013 and its gas revenue requirements by approximately $4.2 million in 2013 and these amounts will remain in rates through the end of 2017. Will rates increase as a result of this application? Yes approval of this application will increase electric rates for electric distribution and gas transportation and distribution service customers by less than 1 cement relative to current rates and would not have a significant impact on individual customer rates. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION To request a copy of the application and exhibits or for more details, call PG&E at 1.800-743so00. For TDD/TTY (speech -hearing impaired), call 1-000-0524712. Para mis detalles (tame al 1-600.660"6789 " E112 1-000.893-9555 You may request a copy of the application and exhibits by writing to: Pack Gas and Electric Company LLNL/JOINT IOU Application P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, CA 94120. THE CPUC PROCESS The CPUC's Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) will review this application. The DRA is an independent arm of the CPUC, created by the Legislature to represent the interests of all utility customers throughout the state and obtain the lowest possible rate for service consistent with reliable and safe service levels. The DRA has a muhf-disciplinary staff with expertise in economics, finance, accounting and engineering. The DRA's views do not necessarily reflect those of the CPUC. Other parties of record will also participate. The CPUC may hold evidentiary hearings where parties of record present their proposals in testimony and are subject to cross-examination before an Administrative Law Judge (AW). These hearings are open to the public, but only those who are parties of record may present evidence Or cross-examine witnesses during evidentiary hearings. Members of the public may attend, but not participate in, these hearings. After considering all proposals and evidence presented during the hearing process, the AW will issue a draft decision. When the CPUC acts on this application, it may adopt all or part of PG&E's request, amend or modify it, or deny the application. The CPUC's final decision may be different from PG&E's application. If you would like to learn how you can participate in this proceeding or if you have comments or questions, you may contact the CPUC's Public Advisor as follows: 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room T011 -free: t-600.849-0390 2103 TTY: (415) 703-5262; San Francisco CA 94102 TTY Toll-free: 1$66$36.7825 If you are writing a letter to the Public Advisor's Office, please include the number of the application to which you are referring (A.11-07-008). All comments will be circulated to the Commissioners, the assigned Administrative Law Judge and the Energy Division staff. A copy of PG&E's LLNL/JOINT IOU Application and exhibits are also available for review at the California Public Utilities Commission, 505 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, Monday—Friday, 8 a.m.—noon, and on the CPUC's website at htI:p://www.cpuc.ca.gov/puri. ;001 I8150.13Oq l I RECEIVES! AUG 4 1011 SLO CITY CLERK Nr 'ATION OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY'S Iune 3, 2011 t ELECTRIC PROCUREMENT FORECAST COSTS AND OTHER PROJECT COSTS APPLICATION rQ: STATE; CQjy; AND CITY QF ;-I r ` On June 1°, 2011, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) fled an application with the California r ICS Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to request an increase in electricity rates Of $205 million, or an JUN lu,� '1 average of approximately 1.6 percent,.effective January 1, 2012. This increase is due primarily to rising energy prices as compared with the current casts reflected in PG&E rates. SLO CITY CLERK Each Year. PG&E is required to file an application that forecasts how much it will spend the following year to ensure an adequate supply of electricity for its customers. The CPUC Carefully reviews PG&E's forecast to ensure that customers are not charged more for electricity than it costs PG&E to Provide. The forecasted costs are updated in late 2011 and when approved by the CPUC are included In PG&E's electric rates the following year. During that year. PG&E's actual costs and revenues are tracked, and any difference is allocated to PG&E's customers at a later date. 16 E-mail to PuMLIIdvisorfdfeoue ca aov This application requests that the CPUC adopt PG&E's 2012 electric procurement forecast of approximately $4.5 billion for the Energy Resource Recovery Account (ERRA) and Generation i Non Bypassable Forecast costs. PG&E recovers Its electric procurement costs dollar for dollar, with no profit margin. Will rates increase as a result of this application? Yes, because of rising energy costs, rates will increase for most customers, although impacts for individual customers will vary. Bundled customers, or those who receive electric generation as well as transmission and distribution service from PG&E, will see rate Increases. Most direct access customers, or those customers who purchase their energy from a non-utility supplier, will see rate decreases. If the CPUC approves this application, a typical bundled residential customer using 550 kilowatt- hours (kWh) per month will see his or her average monthly bill change from $79.70 to $80.61, an increase of $0.91 per month. A residential customer using 850 kWh per month, which is about twice I the baseline allowance, will see his or her average monthly bill change from $178.64 to $183.97, an 1 increase of $5.33 per month. Individual customers' bills may differ. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION To request a copy of the application and exhibits or for more details, call PG&E at 1 -BOD -PGE -5000. For TDO/TTY (speech -hearing impaired), call 1.800-652-4712. Pam mas detalles [lame at 1.800.660-6789 - PtINEX 1.800.893-9555 You may request a copy of the application and exhibits by writing to: Pacific Gas and Electric Company 2012 ERRA and 2012 Generation Non Bypessabie Forecast Proceeding P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, CA 94120. The CPUC Process The CPUC's Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) and the Energy Division will review this application. The DRA is an independent arm of the CPUC. created by the Legislature to represent the interests of all utility customers throughout the state and obtain the lowest possible rate for service consistent with reliable and safe service levels. The DRA has a multi -disciplinary staff with expertise In economics, finance, accoun8ng and engineering. The DRA's views do not necessarily ' reflect those of the CPUC. Other parties of record may also participate. The CPUC may hold evidentiary hearings where parties of record present their proposals in testimony and are subject to cross-examination before an Administrative Law Judge (AW), These hearings are open to the public, but only those who are parties of record may present evidence or Cross-examine witnesses during evidentiary hearings. Members of the public may attend, but not Participate in, these hearings. After considering all proposals and evidence presented during the hearing process, the AW will issue a draft decision. When the CPUC acts on this application, It may adopt all or part of PG&E's request. amend or modify It, or deny the application. The CPUC's final decision may be different from PG&E's application. _ R EC E 1 �.• `D If you would like to learn how you can participate In this proceeding or if you have comments or questions, you may contact the CPUC's Public Advisor as follows: _ JUN lu,� '1 Public Advisor's Office505 Room 2103 ss Avenue Room 2103 SLO CITY CLERK San Francisco. CA 94102 1.415.703.2074 or 1-866-849-6390 (toll free) TTY 1-415.703.5282, TTY 1.866.836.7825 (toll free) E-mail to PuMLIIdvisorfdfeoue ca aov If you are wridng a letter to the Public Advisor's Office, please include the name of the application to which you are referring. All comments will be circulated to the Commissioners, the assigned Administrative Law Judge and the Energy Division staff. A copy of PG&E's 201ii 2 ERRA and 2012 Generation NonBypasProceeding Forecast Proceeding a exhibits are also available for review at the California Public Utllitles Van Ns Commission. Avenue, San Frandsen, CA 94102, Monday—Friday, 6 a.m.—noon, and on the CPUC's webslts hftP:l/www. W uaw.aovleud May 23, 2011 TO: STATE, COUNTY AND CITY OFFICIALS NOTIFICATION OF APPLICATION FILING OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY:.APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF ENERGY SAVINGS ASSISTANCEICARE PROGRAMS AND BUDGET (A.11-05019) On March 30, 2011, Commissioner Michael Peavey and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) issued a ruling that ordered Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) to file an Application proposing programs and budget for PG&E's 2012 - 2014 Low -Income Assistance programs -i.e., California Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE) and Energy Savings Assistance (ESA) Program. On May 16, 2011, PG&E filed application No. 11-05-019, for the approval of the 2012-2014 CARE and ESA program and budget (Application). The ESA program offers free weatherization services, energy efficient appliances and energy education to income -qualifying households. The CARE program provides a discount on the PG&E bill of income -qualifying households of at least 20 percent. This Application requests an annual ESA Program budget of $137.9 million In 2012, $167.5 million in 2013, an � $173.4 million in 2014. This represents a decrease of $18.9 million in 2012 over the approved 2009-2011 ESA program budget. For the CARE program, the Application requests an annual administrative budget of $12.1 million for 2012, $11.3 million for 2013, and $11.7 million for 2014. This represents an increase of $2.6 million in 2012 over the approved 2009-2011 CARE administrative budget. HOW DOES THIS AFFECT RATES? If this application is approved, It would result In a change of less than one percent In PG&E's total annual revenue. The bundled system average electric rate in 2014, the year with the largest request, will increase by 0.1 Percent relative to current rates. PG&E's electric rate change will affect the Public Purpose Program rate component which is paid by bundled, direct access, community choice aggregation and eligible departing load customers. The bundled non -CARE residential average gas rate in 2014, the year with the largest request, will increase by 0.5 percent relative to current rates. ' FOR FURTHER INFORMATION To request a copy of the application and exhibits or for more details, call PG&E at 1-800-743-5000. For TDDITTY (speech -hearing impaired), call 1800-052-4712. Para mas detalles flame 1-800-680.6789 1-800893-9555 You may request a copy of the application and exhibits by writing to: Pacific Gas and Electric Company ESA/CARE Application P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, CA 94120. THE CPUC PROCESS The CPUC's Division of Ratepayer Advocates PRA) may review this application. The ORA is an independent arm of the CPUC, created by the Legislature to represent the interests of all utility customers throughout the state and obtain the lowest possible, rate for service consistent with reliable and safe service levels. The DR4 has a multi -disciplinary staff with expertise in economics, finance, accounting and engineering. The DRA's views do not necessarily reflect those of the CPUC. Other parties of record may also participate. The CPUC may hold evidentiary hearings where parties of record present their proposals in testimony and are subject to cross-examination before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). These hearings are open to the public, but only those who are parties of record may present evidence or cross-examine witnesses during evidentlary hearings. Members of the public may attend, but not participate in, these hearings. After considering all proposals and evidence presented during the hearing process, the ALJ will issue a draft decision. When the CPUC acts on this application, it may adopt all or part of PG&E's request, amend or modify it, or deny the application. The CPUC's final decision may be different from PG&E's application. If you would like to learn how you can participate in this proceeding or if you have comments or questions, you may contact the CPUC's Public Advisor as follows: Public Advisor's Office 505 Van Ness Avenue Room 2103 San Francisco, CA 94102 1415-703-2074 or 1.866-849-8390 (toll free) TTY 1.415703-5282 or TTY 1866-088.7825 (toll free) E-mail to public.advisonlacouc.ca.gov, If you are writing a letter to the Public Advisor's Office, please include the number of the application (11-05-019) to which you are referring. All comments will be circulated to the Commissioners, the assigned Administrative Law Judge and the Energy Division staff. A copy of PG&E's ESA/CARE Application and exhibits are also available for review at the California Public Utilities Commission, 505 Van Ness Avenue, San.Frandsco, CA 94102, Monday—Friday, 8 a.m.—noon, and on the CPUC's website at http:lhvww.cpuc.w.gov/purl. RECEIVED MAY 262011 SLO CITY CLERK MA-tr7&)4_7 V ALTI&- , i W_ QR If NQiIGE PG&E Former Manufactured Gas Plant Site Corner of Walker and Pismo Streets San Luis Obispo, California Environmental Investigation Work Scheduled Between March 29 — April 29, 2011 DEPARTMENT 0"=C SUBSTANCE CONTROL The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is distributing this notice to inform the community about the second phase of field work to be performed as part of an environmental site investigation at the Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) property located at 1390 Walker Street and 280-290 Pismo Street in San Luis Obispo (referred to as the site.) PG&E and its contractors, under the oversight of DTSC, will be collecting samples of soil, soil gas (the air spaces between particles of soil), and groundwater from various locations both on- and off- site to provide additional information about the extent of old gas plant residues that remain in the soil and groundwater. The field investigation work will be conducted from March 29 through April 27, 2011 during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. An environmental project manager will be on-site daily to monitor the work and site conditions. Work for the. site will include: • Drilling approximately 26 bore -holes through concrete, asphalt paving, and gravel using hand equipment and a truck -mounted drill rig (including a support truck). • Installing eight groundwater monitoring wells. • Collection of soil and soil gas samples from a depth of approximately 1 to 40 feet. • Collection of groundwater samples at depths of approximately 25 and 45 feet. • Backfilling holes with a concrete mixture and patching the surface with asphalt, concrete, or gravel to match surrounding conditions. • General site cleanup during and at the end of each work day. Several borings will be drilled in the alleyway north of the site and within a private parking lot adjacent to the alleyway, in the sidewalk areas adjacent to Walker and Pismo Street, and in Pismo Street, as approved by the City of San Luis Obispo. During these drilling activities, project staff and traffic control signs will direct traffic around the work area for two to three hours. Notices will also be posted to inform the community that local businesses will remain open during these activities. During the sidewalk sampling, pedestrian traffic will be detoured temporarily to the other side of the street in accordance with City requirements. For More Information: If you have questions about this project please call: • Kevin Shaddy, DTSC Project Manager, at (559) 297-3929 or by email: kshaddvCa)dtsc.ca.eov • Christina Fu, DTSC Public Participation Specialist, at (714) 484-5488 or (866) 495-5651 (Press 4 twice) or by email: cfu@dtsc.ca.sov. 1;k7 E6 RECEIVE® MAR 2 4 2011 SLO CITY CLERK Where to Find Project Document; 0 DTSC encourages you to review the investigation work plan and other site -related documents which are available at the information repositories listed below: San Luis Obispo Public Library DISC— File Room To find information on the web, 995 Palm Street 1515 Tollhouse Road please visit the following two sites: San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 Clovis, CA 93611 www.environstar.dtsc.ca.gov (805) 781-5989, (559) 297-3902, www.pge.com/mgp Reference Desk Contact Sarah Toles All documents made available to the public by the DTSC can be made available in alternate format (i.e. Braille, large print, etc.) or in another language as appropriate, in accordance with State and Federal law. Please contact Christina Fu noted above for assistance. TTY/TDD Speech -to -Speech users may dial 711 for the California Relay Service. Printed on recycled paper i A SQ: D A MI-, I TR -, BA Sitio de la Planta Antigua de Gas Manufacturado de la PG&E .�. Esquina de las calles Walker y Pismo OEP„Rr,,,ENTOF„ -• San Luis Obispo, California SUBSTMCES CONI Trabajo de Investigacion Ambiental Programado entre el 29 de marzo — 29 de abril, 2011 EI Departamento de Control de Sustancias Toxicas (DTSC) esta distribuyendo este aviso para informar a la comunidad sobre la segunda fase del trabajo de campo a ser realizado como parte de una investigacion ambiental del Sitio perteneciente a la propiedad de Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) ubicada en la 1390 Walker Street y la 280-290 Pismo Street en San Luis Obispo (referida como el sitio.) La PG&E y sus contratistas, bajo la supervision del DTSC, estaran obteniendo muestras de la tierra, del gas del suelo (los espacios de aire entre las particulas de la tierra), y de las aguas subterraneas en varios lugares, tanto dentro como afuera del sitio, para proporcionar informacidn adicional sobre la cantidad de residuos que quedan en el suelo y las aguas subterraneans de la antigua planta de gas. EI trabajo de investigacion del campo sera conducido a partir del 29 de marzo hasta el 27 de abril, 2011 durante las 7:00 a.m. a 5:00 p.m., de lunes a viernes. Estara presente un administrador del proyecto del medio ambiente todos los dias para controlar el trabajo y las condiciones del sitio. EI trabajo incluira to siguiente: • Perforacidn de aproximadamente 26 agujeros a traves del concreto, asfalto y grava utilizando equipo manual y un camion montado con equipo de perforacidn (incluyendo un camion de apoyo). • Instalacion de ocho pozos de monitoreo de las aguas subterraneas. • Obtencion de muestras de la tierra y gas del suelo de profundidades de 1 a 40 pies aproximadamente. • Obtencion de muestras de las aguas subterraneas de profundidades de 25 a 45 pies aproximadamente. • Relleno de agujeros con una mezcla de concreto y parchar la superficie con asfalto, concreto y grava para que coincida con las condiciones del entorno. • En general la limpieza del sitio durante y al final de cada jornada de trabajo. Varios agujeros seran perforados en el norte del callejon del sitio y dentro del estacionamiento privado adyacente al callejon, en las areas adyacentes a la acera de las calles Walker y Pismo, y en la calle Pismo, tal como aprobado por la Ciudad de San Luis Obispo. Durante estas actividades de perforacidn, el personal del proyecto y las senales del control de trafico estaran dirigiendo el trafico en todo el area de trabajo durante dos a tres horas. Tambien se colocaran avisos para informara la comunidad que los negocios locales permaneceran abiertos durante estas actividades. Durante el muestreo de la acera, el trafico de peatones sera desviado al otro lado de la calle, en conformidad a los requisitos de la Ciudad. Para mas informacion: Si tiene preguntas relacionadas a este proyecto, favor de Ilamar a: • Kevin Shaddy, Gerente de Proyecto del DTSC, al (559) 297-3929 o por correo electronico a: kshaddv@dtsc.ca.sov • Christina Fu, Especialista en la Participacidn del Publico del DTSC, al (714) 484-5488 d (866) 495-5651 (oprima el 4 dos veces) o por correo electrdnico: cfu@dtsc.ca.sov. Donde encontrar los documentos . proyecto EI DTSC recomienda que ustedes revisen el plan de trabajo de investigacion y otros documentos asociados con el sitio, los cuales se encuentran a su disposicion en los repositorios de informacion indicados a continuacidn: San Luis Obispo Public Library 995 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 (805) 781-5989, Escritorio de Referencia DTSC — File Room 1515 Tollhouse Road Clovis, CA 93611 (559) 297-3902, Comuniquese con Sarah Toles Para obtener informacion en el internet, visite los dos sitios siguientes: www.environstar.dtsc.ca.gov www.pge.com/mgp Todos los documentos estan puestos a disposicidn del publico por el DTSC, tambien pueden encontrarse en un formato alternativo ( como Braille, letra grande, etc.) o en otros idiomas, en su caso, en conformidad a las leyes estatales y federales. Favor de comu.nicarse con Christina Fu como indicado anteriormente. Los usuarios de TTY/TDD Speech -to -Speech pueden marcar el 711 para obtener los servicios de California Relay Service. Impnmido an papal re ldado March 9, 2011 To STATE, COUNTY AND CITY OFFICIALS NOTICE OF APPLICATION OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY FOR RECOVERY OF COSTS OF DEMAND RESPONSE PROGRAMS 2012.2014 PROGRAMS AND BUDGETS (A.11-03.001) The Cafdomia Public 1:110fies Commission (CPUC) requires PG&E to Ne an application to authorize and fund PG&E's Demand Response Programs. Per this requirement, PG&E filed application No.11-03-001 on March 1, 2011, requesting approval of Its 2012-2014 Demand Response Program CAppficallorr ) What are Demand Response Programs? Demand response programs Increase electric reliability and reduce PG&E's total power purchase costs by motivating electric customers to reduce electric usage during high -demand, or peak usage, periods and/or shift electric usage to other periods when electric demand is lower. PG&Fs Application proposes a total demand response related revenue footnote (1) requirement of $228 million) (2)t: $76.8 million in 2012; $73.8 million in 2013; and $77.4 million in 2014. PG&E proposes to recover these costs in etec bic distribution rates from both bundled and direct access customers. The annual revenue requirement increase (as compared to 2011 revenue requirements) is approximately $76.8 mgton. Bundled customers are customers who receive electric generation as well as transmission and distribution service from PG&E. Direct Access customers are customers who receive transmission and distribution service from PG&E, but who purchase electric generation service from third -party energy service providers. Will Electric Rates Increase if the Application Is Approved? Yes. Approval of PG&E's proposed 2012.2014 demand response program budget will increase electric distribution rates paid by all electric bundled and direct access customers. PG&E expects any rate changes associated with its Application will be consolidated with electric rate changes in other CPUC proceedings. The eventual net change in rates is difficult to predict Absent other electric rate changes, PG&Es budget request resulting from this Application filing would increase average bundled electric rates approximately 054 percent and would not have a significant impact on individual customers' rates. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION To request a copy of the application and exhibits or for more details, call PG&E at 1.800.743.5000. For TDDTrY (speech -hearing impaired), call 1.800-052.4712. Para mbs defalies Game al 1800.660.6789 $ pT ME in 1.8004ise-9555 You may request a. copy of the application and exhibits by writing to: Pacific Gas and Electric Company Demand Response Application P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, CA 94120. THE CPUC PROCESS The CPUC's Division of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) will review this application. The DRA is an independent arts of the CPUC, created by the Legislature to represent the interests of ail utility customers throughout the stale and obtain the lowest possible rate for service consistent vNh reliable and safe service levels. The DRA has a multi-discipfinary staff with expertise in economics, finance, aocountng and engineering. The DRA's views do not necessarily reflect those of the CPUC. Other parties of record will also participate. The CPUC may hold evidentiary hearings where parties of record present their proposals in testimony and are subject to cross- examination before an Administrative Law Judge (AU). These hearings are open to the public, but only those who are partes of record may present evidence or cross-examine witnesses during evidentiary hearings. Members of the public may attend, but not participate in, these hearings. After considering all proposals and evidence presented during the hearing process, the AU will Issue a draft decision. When the CPUC acts on this application, it may adopt ail or part of PG&Es request, amend or modify it, or deny the application. The CPUC's final decision may be different from PG&E's application. If you would like to learn how you can participate in ads pnoceetling or if yeu have comments or questions, you may contact the CPUC's Public Advisor as follows: Public Advisofs Office 505 Van Ness Avenue Room 2103 San Francisco, CA 94102 1415703.2074 or 1.8664MM390 (toll free) TTY 1115703,5!82 or TTY 1.866836.7825 (toil free) If you are writing a letter to the Public Advisots Office, please include the number of the application (11-03.001) to which you are referring. All comments will be circulated to the Commissioners, the assigned Administrative taw Judge and the Energy Division staff. A copy of PG&E's Demand Response application and exhibits are also available for review at the California Public UBlibes Commission, 505 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, Monday -Friday, 8 am. -noon. 1. Revenue Is a technical term used to describe the total amount of money customers pay in rates for the electric and gas service they receive. 2. Budget total includes charges for franchise fees (fees that PG&E pays to cities and counties for the right to use or occupy public streets, roads and ways) and uncollectibles (bNed revenues that are unpaid by other customers). RECEIVED MAR 15 2011 SLO CITY CLERK M* rr1XJ,94,y tJAt,-ri.,e— NOTIFICATION OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANrs APPLICATION TO SHARE THE COSTS OF CALIFORNIA SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC MANUFACTURING DEVELOPMENT FACILITY UNDER U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY PHOTOVOLTAIC MANUFACTURING INITIATIVE On November 1. 2010. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) filed the above referenced application with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). In this application, PG&E sake for authorisation from the CPUC to recover costs from contributing matching funds to support the establishment of a first -of -its kind photovoltaic (PV) manufacturing development facility developed by SVTC Solar (SViC). SVTC has submitted an application for a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) grant to develop this facility In San Jose, CA. and matching funds are required by the DOE to support SVEC's application. The facility would support new forms of PV technology. which Is a method of genersting electrical power using solar panels. What Is the SVTC PV Manufacturing Dovelopmont Facility? The proposed San Jose, CA facility would nelp emerging PV companies progress from the research and development stage to the productlon stage faster and more cost effectively. The facility offers PV companies access to space and to advanced, up-to-date equipment. Finns would pay a service in to test and improve their PV technology currently in development. The facility would also house manufacturing experts who would be available to advise resident PV companies and provide a handson educational experience for students interested in pursuing careers In the actor Industry. PG&E's application asks for CPUC approval to recover PG&E's share of the matching finds, which would support establishment of the manufacturing development facility. If the project is approved by the CPUC and funding is approved by the DOE. PG&E's share of the electric costs incurred on this pmject would be recorded to the Distribution Revenue Adjustment Mechanism (DRAM) for eat recovery. Will rates increase as a result of this application? Approval of this application would result in an Increase In rates. Assuming the DOE approves the grant request from SVTC and the CPUC approves this appllotion, PG&E would Increase Its electric revenues to cover these coats, plus taxes, by approximately $35.6 million over a throo-year period beginning January 1, 2010. Using the 2012 (highest single year) revenue requirement of approximately $18 million, the bundled system average rate would increase 0.14% in 2012, relative to currant rates, and would not have a significant Impact on Individual customers' rates. PG&E Intends to seek to structure its agreement with SVTC so that PG&E's share of the matching funds could be relmburead it a [.star time, depending on whether the facility is successful. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION To request a copy of the application and exhibits or for more details. call PG&E at 1-epo-'r4as99o. For TDDf7TY (speech -hearing impaired), ball 1.800.0524712 Pam mss detalles (lame a! 1-8004100.0789 A. VRI I .1400.6524712 You may request a copy of the application and exhibits by writing to: Pacific Gas antl Electric Company SVTC Solar P.O. Dox 7442: San Francisco, CA 04120. THE CPUC PROCESS The CPUC's Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) may review, this application. The DRA Is an Independent an of the CPUC. created by the Legislature to represent the interests of all utility customers throughout the state and obtain the lowest possible rate for service consistent with reliable and safe service levels. The DRA has a multidisciplinary staff with expertise in economics, finance, accounting and engineering. The DRA's views do not necessarily reflect those of the CPUC. Other parties of record will also participate. The CPUC may hold evidentiary hearings where parties of record present their proposals in testimony and are subject to cross-examination before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). These hearings are open to the public. but only those who are parties of record may presem evidence or crosa�mine w97esses during evidentioy hearings. Members of the public may adand. but not participate in, these hearings. After considering all proposals and evidence presented during the hearing process, the ALJ will Issue a drag dedslon. When The CPUC acts on.taa application, it may adopt all or pan of PG&E's request amen or modify IL or deny the application. The CPUC's final decision may be different from PG&E's application. If you would like to learn how you can participate in this proceeding or if you have comments or questions, you may contact the CPUC's Public Advisor as follows: Public AdvLsofs Office 505 Van Ness Avenue Room 2103 San Frandsco, CA 94102 1415703-2074 or 1-888-849-8390 (toll free) TTY 1415703.482 or TTY 1.866.8357825 (toll free) If you are writing a letter to the Public Advisors Office, please include the name of the application to which you are referring. All comments will be circulated to the Commissioners, the assigned Administrative Law Judge and the Energy Division staff. A copy of PG&E's SV7C Solar application and exhibits ere also avallame for review a! the California Public Utilities Commission, 505 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, Monday -Friday, 8 a.m.—noon. November 2, 2010 TO: STATE, COUNTY AND CITY OFFICIALS RECEIVED NOV o s 2010 SLO CITY CLERK GvA-LzzuZ 'lune 4, 2010 -To: State, County and City Officials NOTIFICATION OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY'S APPLICATION FOR ITS 2011 ELECTRIC PROCUREMENT FORECAST COSTS AND OTHER PROJECT COSTS On May 28. 2010. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) filed an application with the California Public UURies Conomssian (CPUC), requesting to lower dew .icily rates by $211 million, or approximately 1.7 percent on average. effective January 1, 2011. Each year, PG&E B required to fie an application that forecasts how much it wit spend the following year to ensure adequate electricity supply for as arstomers. The CPUC carefully reviews PG&E's forecast to ensure that customers are not charged more for electricity than it costs PG&E to provide. The forecasted costs approved by the CPUC are included in PG&E's ekstric rates the foarnving year. During that year. PG&E's actual costs and revenues are tracked, and arty difference is allocated to PG&E customers at a later date PG&E recovers is electric procurement costs dollar for dollar, with no profit margin. This app0cation requests that the CPUC adopt PG&E's 2011 electric procurement forecast of approximately $3.9 Won for the Energy Resource Recovery Account (ERRA) and Ongoing Competition Transition Cost (CTC), as well as the Power Charge Indifference Amount (PCIA). This forecast is $211 million lower than present 2011 revenue rates, which is primarily due to lower energy prices in 2010 and to 2011 forecasts being kiwer than currently reflected in PG&E rates. PG&E requests that electric rates designed to recover this amount become effective on January 1, 2011. Will rotas Increase as a recut of fhls applteatlon7 For most customers, no, aAhotig h impacts for indiftal customers will vary. Bundled aswmers Mose who receive electric generation as well as transmission and datribwion service from PG&E) will see revenue decreases, while most direct access customers Mose who purchase their energy from a non-utility supplier) wig see small increases. PG&E will provide an illustrative allocation of the proposed rate decreasesrmcreass among customer classes, in this proposal. in i bill insert to be mailed directly to custonhers later this month. If the CPUC approves this application, a typical burbled residential customer using 550 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per month wig see the average monthly big change from $77.40 to $76.92, a decrease of $0.48 per morin. A residential customer using 850 kWh per morin. which is abut twice the basefare almence, will see the average monthly big charge from $176.77 to $173.23, a decrease or $3.54 per month. Individual customers' bills may differ. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION To request a copy of the application and exhibits or for more details, call PG&E at 1•BOOPGE5000. For TDOrfTY (spemt9iearbg irnpaiired), call 144524712. Para mils deta0er game at 1.800.880.8789 �r}I���(� • 100.883.9555 You may request a copy of the appkadon and exhibits by writing to: Pacific Gas and Electric Co part' 2011 ERRA Forecast Proceeding P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, CA 94120. THE CPUC PROCESS The CPUC's Divisiorh of Ratepayer Advocates (DRI) may review this application. The DRA is an independent arm of the CPUC. created by the Legislaoae to represent the interests of all uAPy customers throughout the state and obtain the bvrest possble rate for service consistent with reliable and safe service levels. The DRA has a muH-disciplinary staff with expenise in economics. finance. accounting and engineering. The DRA's views do not necessarily reflect those of the CPUC. Other partes of record won also Participate. The CPUC may hold eAdendary hearings where parties of record present their proposals in teslinhoq and are subject to cross-examination before an AMtirktratve Law Judge WA. These hearings are open to the pub0c, but only those who are parties of record may present evidence or cross-examine witnesses during n videntary hearing& Members of the public may allerd. but not participate im these hearings After con iderin; r000sats arca evidence prese.:ed during the hearing process, tt-� ACJ will issue a draft decision. When the CPUC acts on this application. i may ad* all or part of PG&E's request, amerd or modify it or deny the application. The CPUC's fmal derision may be different from PG&E's application, u you would lice to team how you can participate in this proceeding or i you have commits or cit estlors, you may contact the CPUCs Pudic Advisor as folows: Public Adhrrsar's Office 505 Van Ness Avenue Roan 2103 San Francisco, CA 94102 If you are writing a letter to the Public AdvWs Office, please include the number of the application to which you are re". AO comments will be circulated to the Commissioners, the assigned Administrative law Judge and the Energy Division staff. A copy d PG&E's 2011 ERRA Forecast Proceeding and exhibits are also available for review at the Calfomia Public Utilities Commission, 505 Van Ness Avenue. San Franhcism, CA 94102, Monday4riday, 8 a.m.-noon. (,�'mAgqi(�,��� y �1Au eo�T REECrEiVEE: ILD -- JUN 14 2010 SLO CITY CLERK March 26, 2010 TO: STATE, COUNTY AND CITY OFFICIALS NOTICE OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY'S PHASE 0 2011 GENERAL RATE CASE APPLICATION (GRC PHASE 0) On March 22, 2010, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) hied is application with to Calibmia Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) far Phase 11 of its 2011 GRC. In the GRC Phase II application, PG&E is asking the CPUC to atioceto or divide its aulhormed revenue among d'itfarent custcrw classes and to design electric rates forthese classes. In addition, PG&E is requesting authority to recover appramrately $53.1 mifilon in costs associated with $126 nriWon in revenue requirements for 2011-2013, which includes the mat of implementing a new real firre pricing rale option, and a revised custorer energy statement for electric and gas Does dib mean ekwrk rates could change? Yes. In the GRC Phase II application, PG&E is seeking CPUC authority to change electric rales for all customer classes. PG&E makes tis request to bother afign cu ant electric rates wah current mals of serving its various customer dassas. PG&E proposes decreases for same cusloners and uweases far othem with such rate dirges to fake effect by mid -2011. The rare larges proposed in the GRC Phase 11 will abed bundled customers (those customers who receive electric generation. transmission and distribution service from PG&E) and customers Oat purchase electricity, from other suppliers (direct access and community choice aggregation customers). PG&E's proposals will also affed departing load ciutomas (astortlars that receive electric generation, transmission and distribution services from non -PG&E suppliers) Oat are required to pay certain Writes larges (in this case, the Public Purpose Program large} PG&E writ protide an illustrative table of the proposed rate changes among crutoner classes Ina bio Insert to be mailed directly to cuss beginning In mid-April, 2010 The andunal increase cur decrease to each customer class depends an haw the CPUC ultimately decides aO the Issues M the GRC Phase IL Real lime priclng and revised customer energy statement In this application, PG&E is also seeking CPUC authority to approve the secod phase of its dynamic pricing rates, or optional Real Time Pricing rates, as ordered by the Commission in July 2008. PG&E is requesting recovery of $17 million in costs associated with $7 million in revenue requirements to implement this new real time pricing rate option. In addition. In compliance with the CPUC order, PG&E needs to revise its customer energy slatamem, and is requesting cost recovery of $36.1 million in costs associated with $5.6 milfm In revenue requirements to implement the flanges. These coss arend'uxWded above, but will increase rates for all electric and gas cuslonhers that take transmission and distribution service from PG&E (bundled, duel access and community choice aggregation autom ers) by a small amount For electric customers, the maximum rate increase would occur in 2014 and would be $6.5 million, or an increase of approximately 0.05 percent to system average bundled electric rates. The maximum Increase for gas customers is expected to occur in 2013 and would be $4.8 million, or an average increase of 0.1 percent. Departing toad electric maitarrens will riot be affected by this cost recovery request THE CPUC PROCESS Tha CPUC's D'vismrm of RatepayerAdvocetes (DRA) will ravrew this application. The DRA Is an Independent arm of the CPUC, created by the Legislature m represent the Interests of all utility customers throughout the state and obtain to lowest possible rate for service consistent with reliable and safe service levels. The DRA has a mulitdisciplhnary, staff with expertise In economics, finance, accounting and engineering. The DRA's views do not necessarily retell those of the CPUC. Other parties of record will also participate. The CPUC may hold evidentiary hearings where parties ofrecord present their proposals in testimony and are subject to cross-examination before an Administrative Law Judge (AW m ). These hearings aopen to to pub k but only those who are parties d record can present evidence ar cross-exramine witnesses during evidentiary hearings. Members of the Public may attend, but not participate in, tese hearings. After considering all proposals and evidence presented during to hearlrg process. tie AW will issue a draft decision. When the CPUC ads on this application. O may adopt all or part of PG&E's request, amend or modify it, or decry the application. The CPUC's final I I ion may be different from PG&E's application. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION For more,'e n'1,Q call PG&E at 1480043GES000. For TDO/I"IY(Speedgswing ITIPiNIM Call 1480"52-4712. Para m3s detalles Marto ai 1-6004004M 9,10MIRIM11411110411113411555 O you have questions reg uft PG&E's GRC Phase II application. Please contact PG&E at the phone numbers noted above. O you would like a copy of the application and exhibits, Please write to PG&E at to address listed below: Pacific Gras and Electric Company GRC Phase II Application P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, CA 94120 You may also contact the CPUC's Public Advisor with comments or questions: Public Advisors Office 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 2103 San Francisca, CA 94102 1-41S703.2074 or 14884494ISO (toil Tree) TTY 1315703= TTY 14868367825 (til tee) Email to Rub il"dylsoKnteaucca.aev O you are waiting a letter to to Public Advisors Office, please include to name of to appGratia to which you ala nelenirg. All comments will be circulated to the Comrttissioners, to assigned Admhistratve Law Judge and the Energy Division stntb. A Copy of PG&es GRC Phase II application and exhlblts is also available for review at the Carlomia Public Utilities Commission, 505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102, Monday -Friday, 8 a.m.-noon. C (,rJ742.. TCS. RECEIVED APR 0 5 2010 SLO CITY CLERK March 1, 2010 TO: STATE, COUNTY AND CITY OFFICIALS NOTIFICATION OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY S APPLICATION FOR EXPEDITED AUTHORIZATION TO PROVIDE SUMMER 2010 RATE RELIEF FOR HOUSEHOLDS WITH UPPER TIER CONSUMPTION On February 26, 2010, PG&E filed an application for expedited authodmtion from the Carifomia Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to modify the Tier 3 through 5 electric rates of residential customers not enrolled in the California Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE) program. Specifically, PG&E proposes to increase the Tier 3 rate, and reduce the Tier 4 and 5 rates, to bring them closer together. Households with substantial upper tier consumption are experiencing great hardship due to the steeply tiered rate structure currently in place. PG&E's proposal will lower bills for such households, particularly during hot summer months in areas with large cooling demands, and reduce month-to-month bill volatility. Households with Tier 3 consumption will see moderate bill increases under PG&E's proposal. Overall, this proposal is revenue -neutral, collecting the same amount of revenue as current rates. Under PG&E's proposal, rate changes would become effective June 1, 2010. Will rates increase as a result of this application? No changes are proposed for non-residential rates or for residential customers on the CARE program. Tier 1 and Tier 2 residential rates will remain unchanged as well. Under PG&E's proposal, non -CARE Tier 3 rates well increase by about 4.3 cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh), while non -CARE Tier 4 and 5 rates will decrease by about 3.7 cents and 5.4 cents, respectively, per kWh. Increases or decreases on Individual residential non -CARE customer bilis will depend on each customer's electric usage. If the CPUC approves this application, a typical residential customer using 550 kWh per month will see the average monthly bill change from $76.79 to $79.42, an increase of $2.63 per month. A residential customer using 850 kWh per month, which is about twice the baseline allowance, will see the average monthly bill change from $172.29 to $179.87, an increase of $7.58 per month. A residential customer using 1,500 kWh per month will see the average monthly bill change from $461.13 to $437.99, a decrease of $23.14 per month. Individual customers' bills may differ. THE CPUC PROCESS The CPUC's Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) will review this application._ The DRA is an Independent arm of the CPUC, created by the Legislature to represent the interests of all utility customers throughout the state and obtain the lowest possible rate for service consistent with reliable and safe service levels. The DRA has a multi-disdplinary staff with expertise in economics, finance, a000urtting and engineering. The DRA's views do not necessarily reflect those of the CPUC. Other parties of record will also participate. The CPUC may hold evidentiary hearings where parties of record present their proposals in testimony and are subject to cross-examination before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). These hearings are open to the public, but only those who are parties of record can present evidence or cross-examine witnesses during evidentiary hearings. Members of the public may attend, but not participate in, these hearings. After considering all proposals and evidence presented during the hearing process, the AW will issue a draft decision. When the CPUC acts on this application, It may adopt all or part of PG&E's request, amend or modify it, or deny the application. The CPUC's final decision may be different from PG&E's application. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION To request a copy of the application and exhibits or for more details, call PG&E at 1 -800 -PGE -5000. Para mos detalles Ilame al 1-800.660-6789 1$00-893-9555 For TDDrrTY(speec h -hearing impalmd),call 1-800-652-4712. You may request a copy of the application and exhibits by writing to: Pacific Gas and Electric Company Summer 2010 Rate Relief Application P.O. Box 7442 San Francisco, CA 94120 You may contact the CPUC's Public Advisor with comments or questions as follows: Public Advisor's Office 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 2103 San Francisco, CA 94102 1-415-703-2074 or 1-6664MM90 (toll free) TTY 1-415-703.6= or 1-866.836-7825 (toll free) E-mail to oublic.advisor(ftpumca.aov If you are writing a letter to the Public Advisor's Office, please include the name of the application to which you are referring. All comments will be circulated to the Commissioners, the assigned Administrative Law Judge and the Energy Division staff. A copy of PG&Ps Slimmer 2010 Rate Relief and exhibits are also available for review at the California Public Utilities Con vnission, 505 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, Monday -Friday, 8 a.m.- noon. RECEIVEDEp MAR 0 5 21-3110 SLO CITY CLFR eb 5 jN tr1Nl6L i Notification of Pacific Gas and Electric Company's 2010 Rate Design Window Application Filing On February 26.2010, Pectic Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) filed its 2010 Rase Design NMdow Appfiation Win Ore CaRfibmia Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). The apOicdion complies with Ccmmisslon Decision 0303026, which directed PG&E to design this We of Program. What is the Peak Time Robina (PTR) program? PG&E would Mw to Udomh our customers about proposed new lime -based electric rates thatWill be available to msiderdial awriamers on a staged basis during the. shiners of 2011 and 2012. This proposed rate is called Oie Peak Time Rebato (PTR) program. It is altered in response to a CPUC regulremed that PG&E offer residential electric rates that will provide benefits to customers who conserve anergy during critical peak periods. PG&E is proposing she design of Ods program in its 2010 Rate Design Window proceeding. The PTR program will autornoficely, apply to'approcmretely 4.5 million PG&E residential electric nutomers when rollout is complete. To be eligible to particlpats, customers must have SmartMeterar technology and be billed using hourly data. For most customers, PTR will appy starling in May 2012.. In soma limited geographic areas. PTR will be available in May 2011. in a few other, areas. PTR maty not be available until after May 2012 depending on the progress of SmarlMetsr" deployment and hourly billing rollout PTR will not apply to non-residential business or agricultural electric customers. Certain residential ousimners will also be ineligible for PTR, inducing Direct Access, Community Choice Aggregation, solar not metering and master metered customers, as well as customers with service on separately mooed charging outlets for alternative fuel vehicles. Under PG&E's Proposal, the PTR program Wig provide residential customers NO credits for certain reduced electric usage on PTR event days. PG&E's proposal would give a credit of $0.75 for each know d -hour (kWh) reduction below a customers savings threshold usage level. The savings threshold usage level is based on usage from days that precede the PTR event day. Customers participating In PG&E's SmarlAC^ air conditioner(AC) Prim could receive additional credit savings by enmll'ing to have their system participate in PTR event days. Those mstom m w*Wd fawive a bra cmdd of $1.25 for each kWh reduction below the savings threshold Iovel. PG&E proposes to trigger the PTR program on only 9 in 15 days Per year. from 290 pm to 7V) pm based on temperature conditions or system constraints. Customers wig be notified of a FTR event day by 290 pm on the preceetllrg day. PTR and other dynandc Pricing and demand response Programs we designed to ordure demand at critical Onna& PG&E does not benelit from e This Cost of edricity, as well as the cost of natural gas fud�is a pass4h electricity gWholesale s. h cost far our t Will rates increase as a result of this application? This application requests Whowiy to recover in rates approximately $32.7 million for the Incremental costs associated with implemedug PTR in 2010 through 2013. If the CPUC approves PG8E's full reghw4, tie cost of Implementing the program will be recovered from all astomes who receive transmission and dieributon service from PG&E, including bundled .antornhers Mose wAho receive electric generation, as well ss transmission and distribution service from PG&E) and direct access cu5omers Mose who purchase electricityVora a holy -PG&E suppler). The average tnessa in bundled electric rates would be 0.10 percent, and 0.16 percwdfor direct access custarroom THE CPUC PROCESS en. The DRA is en The CPUC's Division of Ratepayer Advocates review this application. es (ORA) trhdependent amt of the CPUC, created by the Legislature to represent me trn. The of all silly custanlers throughout this state and obtain the lowest possible rate for service consisted With reliable and arta service levels The DRA has a mvib disciplinary staff With wq ertlse In econornics, finance, accounting and engineering. The DRA's views do not necessarty refect gorse of the CPUC. Other parties of record Will also paNdpate. The CPUC may hold evidentiary hearings where partes of record present their Proposals In tes mony and are subject to aosypmrttlrvNon before an Admimsbatloe Law Judge (ALJ). Theta hearings are opens the during bud only hearings. w 0 e of th �canPatend. but not participate N. these Witnesses QnWng evidentary hearings After consldedng all proposals and evidence presented during the hearing Pracess, the ALJ Will Issue a drat dedsian YMwTh the CPUC acts on this application. t may adopt an or pad of PG6E'6 request amend or nodty it or deny the application. The CPU Vs final decision mfr he different from PG&E's app8atlon. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION For more details all PG&E a11400-PGE4000 For TDOM (speech -hosing Impaired) call 1400452-4712 Para mats rfetages Mame 140D.6604 89 90 %1 14004934555 You may request a copy of the application and exhibits by wrttrig to: Park Gas and Elec4se Company 2010 Rate Design Window Appiicaton P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, CA 94120. You may also contact the CPUC's PublicAcMsorwlth conmems or questions as follows: Public Advisors Office 5D5 Van Ness Avows, Room 2103 San Francisco. CA94102 1d1&703 -W74 or 1at6884841390 (tog flee) TTV 1d1&7034284. TTy 186683&7825 (til free) E -mall to pub8dadvleor Puaee.gov or you are writing a later to the Public Advisers Office. PlCNIe include the name of clue appgeaticn to Which you are referring. All comments will be circulated to the Commlb'ioanrrs, the assigned Administrative, Law Judge and the Energy Division staff. licallon arid 1119 8150 review at the Caflarrda Public Ut fibs C of PG&E's 2010 Rate DoninissnWindow +Ion. 505 Vein Ness Aveom�SanF nuhdsco.�102rMonday- Fdtlay 8 am. -noon. March 1, 2010 TO: STATE, COUNTY AND CITY OFFICIALS NOTICE OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANYS APPLICATION FOR 2009 ENERGY RESOURCE RECOVERY ACCOUNT COMPLIANCE REVIEW AND FOR RECOVERY OF COSTS OF THE MARKET REDESIGN AND TECHNOLOGY UPGRADE INITIATIVE On February 12, 2010, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) filed an application with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) requesting changes to Its electric rates effective January 1, 2011. Each year, PG&E is required to file an Energy Resource Recovery Account (ERRA) Compliance Review application demonstrating that certain electric procurement activity from the previous year complles with the standards and obectives detailed In PG&E's Long -Tenn Procurement Plan (LTPP} Typically, the ERRA Compliance Review applications do not affect customer rates unless there is an adverse finding made during the CPUC's review process. However, In this year's 2009 ERRA Compliance Review application, PG&E is including a request that will affect customer rates The inclusion of the rate recovery request was provided by CPUC Decision 09-12-021. Specifically, the request seeks to recover in rates the costs PG&E has incurred to comply with the mandated Market Redesign and Technology Upgrade (MRTU) initiative. The MRTU Initiative, which was developed by the California Independent System Operator and approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, was launched on March 31, 2009. The MRTl1 changed the manner in which electricity is procured and sold by participants in newly redesigned markets in California Costs presented in this application represent actual costs to implement MRTU that were incurred by PG&E through December 31, 2009. The total electric revenue (the total amount PG&E collects in rates from all customers) requirement request is $18.3 million. PG&E requests that electric rates designed to recover this amount become effective on January 1, 2011. Will rates Increase as a result of this application? Yes, approval of this application will increase eLKMc rates for bundled service customers (those who receive electric generation as well as transmission and distribution service from PG&E) and for customers who purchase electridtyfrom other suppliers (e.g., direct access and community choice aggregation) by less than one percent. The 2011 revenue requirementof $18.3 million will increase PG&E's bundled system average rates, relative to anent rates, by 0.15 percent in 2011. THE CPUC PROCESS The CPUC's Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) will review this application The DRA is an Independent arm of the CPUC, created by the Legislatrrre to represent the interests of all utility customers throughout the state and obtain the lowest possible rate for service cvnststem with reliable and safe service levels. The DRA has a mutiElsciplinary stat with expertise in economics, finance, accounting and engineering. The DRA's views do not necessarily reflect those of the CPUC. Other parties of record will also participate. The CPUC may hold evidentiary hearings where parties of record present their proposals in testimony and are subject to cross-examination before an Administratve Law Judge (AW). These hearings are open to the public, but only those who are parties of record can present evidence or cross-examine witnesses during evidentiary hearings. Members of the public may attend, but not participate in, these hearings. After considering all proposals and evidence presented during the hearing process, the AW will issue a draft decision. When the CPUC ads on this appiicatbn, it may adopt all or part of PG&Es request amend or modify it or deny the application. The CPUCs final decision may be different from PG&E's application. . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION To request a copy of the apprration and exhibits orfor more details, call PG&E at 1.800.PGES000. For TDDFrMspeedh-heartng impaired), call 1400.652-4712 Para mass detalles Herne 18008608789 SIRQ 1800$93 9555 You may request a copy of the application and exhibits by writing to: Pacific Gas and 5ectric Company MRTU Application P.O. Box 7442 San FmncL=, CA 9x120. You may also contact the CPUCs Public Adviswwith comments or questions Public Advisor's Office 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 2103 San Francisco, CA 94102 U415.703-2074 or 1.966849.8390 (toll free) TTY 1-4157035282, TTY 1.866836.7825 (toll free) Email to PubUcadvLsor@CpL&c.ca.gov f you are writing a letter to the Public Advisols Office, please include the name of the application to Mich you are referring. 411 comments will be circulated to the Commissoners, the assigned Administrative Law Judge and the Energy Divis on gaff. 4 copy of PG&E's 2009 ERRA Compliance MRTU application and exhibits are also available for review at the California public Utilities Commission, 505 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, Monday -Friday, 8 a.m.{hoon. February 17,2010 TO: STATE, COUNTY AND CITY OFFICIALS RECEIVE® FEB 2 3 2010 SLO CITY CLERK CG: a� NOTIFICATION OF APPLICATION FILING BY PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (PG&E) TO RECOVER COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH RENEWAL OF THE DIABLO CANYON POWER PLANT OPERATING LICENSES On January 29, 2010, PG&E fled an application with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) requesting that the CPUC find 1 is cost-effective and in fie best interest of PG&E's customers to preserve the option to operate Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) for an additional 20 years beyond the expiration of its current operating licenses in 2024 and 2025 for Units 1 and 2, respectively. As part of this application, PG&E requests authority to recover in rates a total of $85 million in costs associated with obtaining the federal and state approvals required to seek the 20 -year license renewal for DCPP. In addition, PG&E is requesting authority to establish a Diablo Canyon License Renewal Environmental Mitigation Balancing Account This account will enable PG&E to recover the actual costs of mitigating environmental impacts that may be imposed by the state and local agencies asserting authority over license renewal. Badrground to the fling of this applicadohi In PG&Es 2067 General Rate Case (A05-12-002), the CPUC approved funding in Decision (D.) 07-03-044 for PG&E to perform a license renewal feasibility study (t.RFS), the results of which would guide PG&E's decision as to whret>er to file a license renewal application with the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Decision D.07- 03-044 also required PG&E to file an application by June 30, 2011, submitting the LRFS to the CPUC and addressing whether Diablo Canyon license renewal is cost-effective and in the best interest of ratepayers. The LRFS was completed in 2009. The cdncluspn reached by the study was that there are no engineering or environmental impediments to proceeding with license renewal, and there is an economic benefit to continue operating DCPP for an additional 20 years beyond the expiration of its existing licenses. This application meets the filing requirement set forth in D.07-03-044. Will rates increase as a result of this application? Yes, approval of this application will increase electric rates for bundled service customers (those who receive electric generation as well as Hanshin== and distribution service from PG&E) by less than one percent Using the 2015 (f oest single yam) revenue requirement of $21.6 million, the bundled system average rate will increase 0.17 percent, relative to current rates, in 2015 and would not have a significant impact on individual customers' rates. Reewery of the costs associated with this application are not expected to begin until January 1, 2015. THE CPUC PROCESS The CPUCS Division of RatepayerAdvocates (DRA) win review this application. The DRA is an independent arts of the CPUC, created by the Legislature to represent the interest of all utility customers throughout the state and obtain the lowest possible rate for service consistent with reliable and safe service levels. The DRA has a multi disciplinary staff with expertise in economics, finance, accounting and engineering. The DRA's views do not necessarily reflex those of the CPUC. Other partes of record will also participate. The CPUC may hold evidentiary hearings where partes of record present their proposals in testimony and are subject to cross-examination before an Admin6tative LawJudge (AW). These hearings are open to the pubic, but only those who are parties of record can present evidence or cross-examine witnesses Memthe Members of public may attend, but not participate in, these hearings. during evidentiary hearings. Atter considering all proposals and evidence presented during the hearing process, the ALJ will issue a draft decision. When the CPUC acs on this application, it may adopt all or part of PG&E's request, amend or modify R or deny the application. The CPUC's final decision may be different from PG&E's proposed application filing. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION For more details call PG&E at 1.800 -PGE -6000 Para mss detalles IIl�l.atrrm�re al 1-800.660.6-!89 � i*�Y'JCQ 14IM411193-9555 For TDWrTy(sPeedt-hearing unpaired) call 1400.604712 You may request a copy of the application and exhib t by writing to: 'acific Gas and Elecrric Company hablo Canyon License Renewal Application '.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, CA 94120. fou may also contact the CPUC's Pubic Advisor with comments or questions as follows: 'ublic Advisor's Office M Van Ness Avenue, Room 2103 ;an Francisco, CA 94102 415703-2074 or 143668494= (toil free) TY 1 4 1 57113 4 21i[, TTY 18668367825 (toll free) :-anal to pugj ��cj ' you are writing a letter to the Public Advisors Office, please include the name of the application to which you are :tering. All comments will be circulated to tie Commissioners, the assigned Administrative Law Judge and the nergy Division staff. copy of PG&E's Diablo Canyon License Renewal application and exhibits are also available for review at the alifomia Pubic Utilities Commission, 505 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102, Monday — Friday 8 am. — oon. February 1, 2010 TO: STATE, COUNTY AND CITY OFFICIALS RECEIVED FFR 0 R 2010 SLO CITY CLERK February 1, MID TO: STATE, COUNTY AND CITY OFFICIALS PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (PG&E) APPLICATION TO RECOVER THE COST OF SEISMIC STUDIES RECOMMENDED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION On January 15, 2010, PG&E filed an Application with the CPUC, requesting authority from the Cal'l- fomla Pubilc Utilities Commission (CPUC) to approve a mechanism to allow PG&E to recover costs associated with perforrning seismic studies at and around Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) as recommen0ed by the California Energy Commission (CEC) in their Commission Report, 'An As- sessment of California's Nuclear Power Plants: AS 1632 Report' The CEC recommendations propose to update the seismic studios at and around DCPP using three-dimensional geophysical seismic reflection mapping and other advanced techniques. This Application asks for CPUC approval to establish a Diablo Canyon Seismic Study Balancing Account (DCSSBA) to record for future recovery all costs resulting from PG&E's efforts to perform the seismic studies. Costs will be recorded to the DCSSBA as they are incurred. Costs to be re- corded to the DCSSBA include: (1) survey design: (2) marine 3-D seismic surveys; (3) on -shore 2- D saismic surveys: (4) ocean bottom seismometer deployment; and (5) project management sup- port. The recovery of costs in rates is expected to begin on January 1, 2011. Will rates Increase as a result of this application? The Application requests that amounts recorded in the DCSSBA be included in rates after review and approval by the CPUC. However. while requesting approval of the mechanism. this application does not request increases in current rates. THE CPUC PROCESS The CPUC's Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) will review this Application. ORA Is an inde- pendent arrh of the CPUC, created by the Legislature to represent the interests of all utility Custom- ers ustomers throughout the state and obtain the lowest possible rate for service consistent with reliable and safe service levels. DRA has a multi-dIscipllnary staff with expertise in economics, finance, account - Ing and engineering. DRA's views do not necessarily reflect those of the CPUC. Other parties of record will also participate. The CPUC may hold evidentiary hearings where parties of record present their proposals In testi- mony and are subject to ccs"). amination before an Administrative Law Judge (AU es ). These hear - Inge are open to the pubbut only those who are parties of record can present evidence or cross- examine witnesses during evidentiary hearings. Members of the public may attend, but are not allowed to participate In, these hearings. After considering all proposals and evidence presented during the hearing process. the ALJ will issue a draft derision. When the CPUC ads on this application, it may adopt all or part of PG&E's request amend or modify it or deny the application. The CPUC's final decision may be different from PG&E's proposed application filing. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION For more details call PG&E at 1-at10-PGE-5000 Para rt as de1119 l' a�iyg'la 14 0 80 4fiame at 7555 For TDDI TY(speedr4maring Impaired) call 14004524712 If you have questions regarding the proposed project, you may contact PG&E at the phone num- bers noted above. If you would file a copy of the application and exhibits, you can write to PG&E at the address fisted below: Pacific Gas and Electric Company Diablo Canyon Seismic Studies Balancing Account Application P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco. CA 94120. You may contact the CPUC's Public Advisor with comments or questions es follows: Public Advho/s Office 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 2103 San Francisco, CA 94102 1.415703,2074 or 18684494390 (toll free) TTY 14157034282. TTY 1866436.7925 (toll free) . E-mail to bubllc.advisoraC�t- puc.ca aav if you are writing a letter to the Public Advisor's Office, please include the name of the application to which you are referring. An comments will be circulated to the Commissioners, the assigned Admin- istrative Law Judge and the Energy Division staff. A copy of PG&E's Seismic Studies application and exhibits are also available for review at the Cali- fomia Public Utfirdes Commission, 505 Van Ness Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102. ........................................................................................................................ NOT \TION OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY'S 2 ?NERAL RATE CASE (GRQ APPLICATION FILING WHAT IS AGRCt GRC stands for General Rate Case Every three or foto years, ineestorov4ned ulibbes such as Pacific Gas and Becht Company (PG&E) are required to file a GRC in which the California Pudic tltlGties Conrnlssion (CPUC) sets annual revenue levels. Annual revenue is the total amount of money a utility collects through rates in a gven yearforspea?hcpurposes. On December 21, 2009. PG&E filed an application aslmhg the CPUC to increase the reventre that PG&E uses to : distribute gas and electiaty and to generate electricity. While the GRC will determine the total amount or money PG&E can odes in rates, the design of the actual rates themselves (that is, the level of prices charged to arstoo- ers) x411 be deenmBhed in separate proceedings to be filed n the future with the CPUC. As pad Of ns GRC, PG&E ls also POPC ing changes to the operating hours for certain of its customer service mates at its local offices. Specifialy. PG&E requests that the CPUC authorize PG&E to standardize business hours at all 75 local offices, such that all would open at &30 a.m. and close at 5:00 p.m (m=iay trough Fdday) . PG&E REQUESTS A TOTAL INCREASE OF 51.101 BILLION FOR GAS AND B ECTRIC Samm BTM TTVE JANUARY 1, 2011 PG&E is reques l a total revenue increase of $1.101 billion over the Currently authorized revenues for electric : cstributm and generation and gas dshbAm for 2011. with such Increase to be effective an January 1, 2011. This norease camsts of the fca wing: Aniht>rasein deo' mym sd$MBmimgerttewnB*au 01mdL%v for2(N1. Thisnoeasesnacet4d :. tnodemer k (1)ftcost ofd*.0 V decrldlyt PGBE'saslaners (5557 rruionk and (2) the cost ofopeaft MWS Pow lDieft =1nZYml This inVIB ecloesnotInch memsdeletblatyprocredbrPGBd:'sawn. as. as suchmss ansmoovered na seperatepnoceedrg :. Ani a in gas reverusdS213 moon Overthearrerdyauthnmsdhecel for2011. Tfhls Fhvease doesncltiudur@ thoacetdgas POOredforPGM as mm. as sick cossareaso swooned h a seprarate pmasral6 PG&E s also nequst'ug 2WOval for atl7mcrial reveuo in 2012 and 2013 to Cover increasing doss due to plant nvesmient and rMcn- PG&E esg=m that these naeases Ad total $275 rtuition in 2012 and $343 million in 201% UtOd to aryusmont dm-Wn fees and laces paid by PG&E increase or decrease in these years HEY REASONS WHY PG&E IS ASIONG FOR INCREASES ARE :. To mntl ue tDiwest n and i anon the system of powerplants, poles, whes. pipes and equipment needed to ' ddo"0bctridyand Ods Io PGAE's Cushorners; and TO mai tan the s47pMsrhrAxe necessaryto keep PG&E operariM and to provide FG&es Customers with safe. reliable and respar.Fm astmeserNOO. .. Ouring the ptoaedings, updated information may be introduced that could change the amounts PG&E has re - Washed What the CPUC adlptsmaydiferfromwhat PG&E has regnsted . ESTIMATED IMPACTOFTHIS REQUESTON ELECTRIC AND GAS RATES The actual dstrixtim of the ramose to each Customer class depends on how the CPUC ultimately decides all issues n the GRC. as wellas in the separate eleNk rate design proceeding enc osced to be filed wilh the CPUC in :.. March 2010. PG&E will provide an 0trstratve Veakdown of rate upacs by cataria class for electric and gas c strners in a :. b0 Insert tat will be mated diredy m customers in January 2010. Below is what PGBE estimates Wit be the ho- pad an the tells oftypical bunded electric Custdi ere (those who receive electric generation as well as transnrA n and distribution services from PG&E) and typist bundled gas customers (those who reotive gas dsalbIDon and vowecamsavicesRomPGBEJ . tithe CPUC approves PG&Es mgium Bran electric rate increase, the biY far a typfal bmclad msiderhral customer using 550 kWh per month xuWd Increase $237.032 perces, from $74.13 to $7850. The bill for a tial residen- fal customer tsng 850 kVM per month would increase by $17A4, 010.6 percent from $166.15 to $18138. Indi- md1 al ms ornerfs9s may ddf0. Rates wmM become effective on Jantery 1, 2011. Ifthe CPUC approves PG&Es MVW f3ra gas rate increase, the bill fora typical bahcft residential Customer Wing 40 terms permonth would Increase $3.15, or W permM from MM to $5853. Inivirkal Customer bill may differ Ramwaddbecome ego" on January 1.2011. Public ParBcgatlan m I=h 0%hs) The CPUC welcomes the p,btrds peptVatron. Before acne on PG&E's apptatiM the CPUC will holt PPFls to M)YM ==mem wdh an OppaU* to elmr® their views before a CPUC Ach mustrafive taw Judge (ALJ) NOhllratOn Of these hearings will be sem to you either by a separate maing, or Olt as a bill insert The notice wh idenryat duo Wates that the PPFs are being held f0 your convenience and Planning. Those MMOmes who moot attend a hadng may su bmtt written sonmnets tore CPUC W the address listed below. All such COMOVOmderoe o the CPUC should no"a reference to PG&Es 2011 GRC appitation. THE CPUC PROCESS The CPLICs Divsim of RaWpayarAdvoates PRA) will review this application. DRA is an trltlependent arts of the CPUC• created 130 18 Legs"M to represent the interests dal mutiy astmets tildllOWnt the state and obtain the tdwest possible rate forsents consistent with reliable and safe service levee. DRA has a mull dscipliarysaB With egletise In economics, fnarM aclmurhtng and engleering DR4's views do not necessarily MW Lose Of to CPUC. Other parties of record will also participate, In acldtion to public participation hearings, One CPUC will hold evidehtley hearings far the GRC apptaton r ZOtO whose Pales d record Pasant than prdpocals n testi many and wv'm4act to crdsstrarnNramn t>d�i an AU. These hwvrgs are Wen ho ft public, Wonly thosewho am partes d nedotd an posed evidence or cross- Iwitnesses Bring ewdmaarY thaerhgs• Members d the pLd* may BWA but rot participate in, use After co aider g all proposals aro evidence presented drNg the heamg Process. the ALJ will issue a draft clad. stn. When tho CPUC aids on rtfs application, it may adopt all 0 part of PG E's request amend or modify I or deny the application. The CPIJC's Ma decision may be dderer from FG8 F3 spPfirrtlah. If you would Sea 10 participate in the evttlentary hearings as a party of record, passe contact the CPl1C's Public AWsdrat to address betty. The Public Advisor Cdbrda Puck Utilities Commm sW 5D5 Van N=A:vern^ Roan 2103 San Franco. CA 941P1 4157032174 1�66849•;$♦91p ilofi nolo) m415aa3,= Try 8WZ36-7825 (tit Rae) : E -rat¢ puhlcadvhorQcyucca.0ov If you are writing a lemar o Cho P bic Advsor's Office. pease ndhnde oto ramie Of this application to vRrdh you are referring. At comments w8 be circulated to the Com msstners. the assigned AU and the Energy avmm staff FOR FURTHER INFORMATION For moredeafs call PG&E at 14100pGE•50D0 Paramasclefall �Il llameal14004608799 — 1410003415$ FbrT TTMIsPeach-+earosaroa;aolall1450N z-4712 If you have questidrs regarding the GRC appiatim, Please donaa PG&E at the phone numbers noted above. it You would linea COPY dthe application and Whb'is, pease wale to PG&E at the adoess fisted below. Padte GasandR I "Carrpeq 2011 Genadl Rabe Case applimtlm P.O. Sac 7442 San Francisco, CA 94120 . A rzpy of PGWs 2011 GRC apptatOn and e#fsis am also available for review at the California Public Utilities CommitsuR 505 Van Nets Ave. San Frandsm O4 94102 . ........... ..... ...... _ December 23, 2009 TO:STATE, COUNTY AND CITY OFFICIALS Decicuiber 8, 2009 TO: STATE, COUNTY AND CITY OFFICIALS .........................................................................., ... ............. ............................................................ NOTIFICATION OF APPLICATION FILING BY PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY: THE MANZANA WIND PROJECT What is the Manana Wind Project? RECEIVED Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) is seeking approval from the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to construct, own and operate the Manzana Wind Project (Project), a proposed wind generation facility to be con- structed in eastern Kem County, in the Tehachapi region of southern Csfifomia. The Project will range in size from 169 DEC 15 2009 Megawatts (MW) to 246 MW, and is forecast to be operational by December 31, 2011. The project is intended to help meet California's renewable energy goals and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. � SLO CITY 1v CLERK Information about PG&E's Application: On December 3, 2009, PG&E filed an application with CPUC, in which PG&E requests authority to collect in electric generation rates the costs associated with purchasing the Project development rights and constructing, owning and operating the Project. If the CPUC approves PG&E's Application, recovery of costs in electric rales will begin in 2012. Nil Electric Rates Increase as a result of this project? C� . ✓ I �' L��Z Yes. PG&E is requesting an increase in electric rates for the costs associated with the Project. If Ne CPUC approves �M A ��LU PG&E's Application, rates for existing bundled customers (Nose who receive electric generation as well as transmis- ,'/ sion and distribution services from PG&E) will increase by $131.8 million, or 1.1 percent, in 2012 (relative to current / ( rates), which is when the project is expected to be operational. PG&E proposes to recover in rates the cost of the L{ /Q tiTL/L facility over its expected thirty year life. The rates for the first year of recovery will decline each year thereafter as the project costs are depreciated. In general, rates for existing direct access customers (those who purchase their elecbia ity from non -PG&E suppliers) will not be subject to change. Fnally, customers who depart PG&E's bundled service in the future may be responsible for a portion of Nese costs via a non -bypassable charge. If the CPUC approves PG&E's Application, the average monthly bill for a typical bundled residential customer using 550 kilowatt-hours per month will change from $74.13 to $74.38, an increase of $025 per month. The average monthly lxU for a bundled residential customer using 850 kilov2tt-hours par month, which is about twice the baseline allowance, will change from $164.15 to $166.04, an increase of $1.8.9 per month. Individual customers' bills may differ. . PG&E will provide a table illustrating the allocation of the potential rate increases by customer class in this proposal, in a bill insert to be mailed directly to customers beginning in mid-December. THE CPUC PROCESS The CPUC's Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) will review this Application. DRA is an Independent arm of the CPUC, created by the Legislature to represent the interests of all utility customers throughout the state and obtain the lowest possible rate for service consistent with reliable and safe service levels. ORA has a multi -disciplinary staff with expertise in economics, finance, accounting and engineering. DRA's views do not necessarily reflect Nose of the CPUC. Other parties of record will also participate.. The CPUC may hold evidentiary hearings where parties of record present their proposals in testimony and are subject to cross-examination before an Administrative Law Judge (AU). These hearings are open to the public, but only those who are parties of record can present evidence or cross-examine witnesses during evidentiary hearings. Members of the public may attend, but not participate, in these meetings. After considering all proposals and evidence presented during the hearing process, the AU will Issue a draft decision. When the CPUC ads on this Application, it may adopt all or part of PG&E's request, amend or modify it or deny the Application. The CPUC's final decision may be different from PG&E's proposed Application filing. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION For more details call PG&E at 1400 -PGE -000 Para mbs detalles Ilame at 1-BOD4604M �fkjo�k �� 100.893.9555 For TDDI TY(speerh-hearing mpahed)call 1400-M-4712 If you have questions regarding the proposed project, you may contact PG&E at the phone numbers noted above. If you would like a copy of the application and exhibits, you can write to PG&E at the address listed below. Pacific Gas and Electric Company Marta Wind Project Application P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, CA 94120. You may contact the CPUCs Public Advisor with comments: Public Advisors Office 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 2103 San Francisco, CA 94102 1.415709.2074 or 14664494M (toll free) TTY 1.415703-M, TTY 1.666-036.7625 (tog free) E-mail to pubiicadvisor@cpuc.ca.gov If you are writing a letter to the Public Advisors Office, please Include the name of the Application to which you are referring: Manna Wind Protect. All comments will be circulated to the Commissioners, the assigned Administrative Law Judge and the Energy Division staff. .......................................................e............................................. ............. October 19, 2009 TO: STATE, COUNTY AND CIT) OFFICIALS i NOTIFICATION OF APPLICATION FILING OF , ,/ PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (PG&E): FOR CG • N(,� r EXPEDITED AUTHORIZATION TO CHANGE RESIDENTIAL ELECTRIC RATES M FI71 ` EFFECTNE JANUARY 1, 2010, AS PERMITTED BY NEWLY ENACTED PUBLIC I UTILITIES CODE SECTION 739.9 WA(,f6fz-- DETAILED INFORMATION ABOUT THIS APPLICATION On October 14, 2009, PG&E filed an Application for expedited Commission authorization to change resi- dential electric rates effective January 1, 2010. The requested rate change is permitted by newly enacted Public (Jtilifies Code Section 739.9, which allows the Commission to approve increases in rates for residerti tial Tiers 1 and 2 (low monthly usage) in accordance with specific formulas. Specifically, PG&E proposes to increase Tier 1 and Tier 2 rates on rate schedule E-1 by 5.0 percent and to decrease Tier 3, 4, and 5 rates commensurately. PG&E proposes no change in rates for customers in the California Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE) program. The relief PG&E requests in this Application will not change PG&E's author- ized overall electric revenue requirement or the revenue assigned to the residential class. To implement this rate change on January 1, 2010, PG&E is proposing an expedited procedural schedule. Will rates increase? Non -CARE residential electric rates an schedule E-1 will increase by 5.0 percent for Tiers 1 and 2 and will decrease commensurately for Tiers 3, 4,.and 5.. Whether a residential customees.bill will increase or de- . . crease will depend on the customer's electricity usage. Other rates will not be affected. If the Comrnission approves the Application, rate changes are limited to the residential class. Charges for bundled residential customers will change. The change to charges for direct acoess residential Customers (those who purchase their electricity from non -PG&E suppliers) is minimal. A typical bundled residential customer (a customer who receives electric is generation as well as transmission and distribution services from PG&E) using 550 kilowatt-hours per month will see the average monthly bill change from $74.13 to $76.63, an increase of $250 per month or 3.4 percent A bundled residential cus- tomer using 850 Mowatt -hours per month, which is about twice the baseline allowance, will see the average monthly bill change from. $164.15 to $163.46, a decrease of $0.69 per month or 0.4 percent. A bundled resi- dential customer using 1500 kilowatt-hours per month will see the average monthly bill change from $434.98 to $419.66, a decrease of $15.32 or 3.5 percent Individual bills may differ. THE CPUC PROCESS The CPUC's Division of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) will review this Application. ORA is an independent arts of the CPUC, created by the Legislature to represent the interests of all utility customers throughout the state and obtain the lowest possible rate for service consistent with reliable and safe service levels. DRA has a multi -disciplinary staff with expertise in economics, finance, accounting and engineering. ORA's views do not necessarily reflect those of the CPUC. Other parties of record will also participate. The CPUC may hold evidentiary hearings where parties of record present their proposals in testimony and are subject to cross-examination before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). These hearings are open to the public, but only those who are parties of record can present evidence or cross-examine witnesses during evidentiary hearings. Members of the public may attend these hearings, but are not allowed to participate. After considering all proposals and evidence presented during the hearing process, the AW will issue a draft decision. When the CPUC acts on this application, it may adopt all or part of PG&E's request amend or modify it or deny the application. The CPUC's final decision may be different from PG&E's proposed application filing. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION For more details call PG&E at 1$00?GES000 Para mbs detalles flame al 1-800$60.6799 B�(���(gl�ooa93.es55 ^^^1..t IIIIII��� a t, �._. , ..., For TOO =I(Speech-hearing impaired) call 1.800-6524712 e. I l r 5 �� You may request a copy of the application and exhibits by writing to: 1 ` v E Pacific Gas and Electric Company Residential Electric Rates Change Application OCT 2 d 2009 P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, CA 94120. You may contact the CPUC's Public Advisor with comments or questions as follows: SLO CITY CLERK Public Advisor's Office 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 2103 San Francisco, CA 94102 1415.703,2074 or 1.866.849 390 (ton free) TTY 141670326$ Try 1.8666367825 (toll free) E-mail to Public.advisorAcouc.ca.gov, If you are writing a letter to the Public Advisor's Office, please include the name of the application to which you are referring. All comments will be circulated to the Commissioners, the assigned Administrative Law Judge and the Energy Division staff. )ctober 5, 2009 NOTIFICATION OF APPLICATION FILING BY PACIFIC GAS TO: STATE, COUNTY AND AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (PG&E): TO RECOVER IN RATES CITY OFFICIALS COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH AGREEMENT FROM ITS 2008 LONG TERM REQUEST FOR OFFERS What is the 2008 Long Term Request For Offers (LTRFO) �� The 2008 LT-RFO is a competitive solicitation process that was used by Pacific Gas and Electric Company G C ("PG&E") to acquire or contract for generation resources to ensure reliable electrical supply in PG&E's service area. The need for these new resources was determined by the California Public Utilities Commis; cion (CPUC) in Decision No. 07-12-052. On September 30, 2009, PG&E filed an Application in which PG&E requested the CPUC to approve the �iAv�L terms and conditions, including cost recovery, of an agreement for PG&E to purchase from a third party developer a new 586 MW electrical generating facility (Contra Costa Generating Station) to be constructed in Oakley, California. The facility is forecasted to be operational in mid -2014, at which point it would be transferred by the developer to PG&E. Detailed information about PG&E's Application: PG&E's Application requests authorization to recover in electric rates the costs associated with the acquisi- tion and initial operation of the Contra Costa Generating Station in order to improve PG&E's ability to pro- vide a reliable supply of electricity. Will electric rates Increase? Yes. PG&E is requesting an increase in electric rates for the cost of the new utility owned generation. If the Application is approved by the CPUC, rates for existing bundled customers (those who receive electric generation as well as transmission and distribution services from PG&E) will increase by $227 million, or 1.8%, in 2015 (relative to current rates), which is the first and highest single year of recovery. In general, rates for existing direct access customers (those who purchase their electricity from. non -PG&E suppliers) will not be subject to change. Finally, customers who depart PG&E's bundled service in the future may be responsible for a portion of these casts via a non -bypassable charge. If the Commission approves the Application, a typical bundled residential customer using 550 kilowatt- hours per month will see the average monthly bill change from $74.07 to $74.50, an increase of $0.43 per month. A residential customer using 850 kilowatt-hours per month, which is about twice the baseline allow- ance, will see the average monthly bill change from $163.68 to $166.93, an increase of $3.25 per month. Individual bills may differ. PG&E will provide an illustrative table of rate changes by customer class in a bill insert to be mailed directly to customers in October. THE CPUC PROCESS The CPUC's Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) will review this Application. DRA is an independent arm of the CPUC, created by the Legislature to represent the interests of all utility customers throughout the state and obtain the lowest possible rate for service consistent with reliable and safe service levels. DRA has a multi -disciplinary staff with expertise in economics, finance, accounting and engineering. DRA's views do not necessarily reflect those of the CPUC. Other parties of record will also participate. The CPUC may hold evidentiary hearings where parties of record present their proposals in testimony and are subject to cross-examination before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). These headngs are open to the pub- lic, but only those who are parties of record can present evidence or cross-examine witnesses during eviden- tiary hearings -Members of the public may attend these hearings, but are not allowed to participate, only listen. After considering all proposals and evidence presented during the hearing process, the ALJ will issue a draft decision. When the CPUC acts on this application, it may adopt all or part of PG&E's request, amend or modify it or deny the application. The CPUC's final decision may be different from PG&E's proposed application filing. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION To request a copy of the application and exhibits or for more details, call PG&E at 1 -800 -PGE -5000 Para mos detalles Ilame al 1-800-660-6789 og- � 36J5Jq1R1-800-8938555 For TDDIM(speech-hearing impaired) call 1-800-652.4712 You may request a copy of the application and exhibits by writing to: Pacific Gas and Electric Company LTRFO Application P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, CA 94120. You may contact the CPUC's Public Advisor with comments or questions as follows: Public Advisor's Office 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 2103 San Francisco, CA 94102 1-415.703-2074 or 1.866-649-8390 (toll free) TTY 1.415.7035282, TTY 1.866-836-7825 (toll free) E-mail to public.advisorrcpuc.ca.00v If you are writing a letter to the Public Advisor's Office, please include the name of the application to which you are referring. All comments will be circulated to the Commissioners, the assigned Administrative Law Judge and the Energy Division staff. Reviewed by the Califomia Public Utilities Commission f ECC OCT 13 2009 SLO CITY CLE_FR September 30, 2009 TO: STATE, COUNTY AND CITY OFFICIALS NOTIFICATION OF TWO APPLICATION FILINGS BY PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (PG&E): TO RECOVER COSTS FOR SMART GRID PROJECTS UNDER THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND INVESTMENT ACT OF 2009 (SMART GRID APPLICATIONS) ) What are the Smart Grid Applications? PG&E applied for 542.5 million and $25 million, respectively, in fedwal funds tram the US Department of Energy (DOE) for two separate projecle reload to the development and Implementation of Seat Grid technology. In these two epplicaltons, I PG&E is requesting the authority to recover in rales PG&Es matching funds to support the funds that may be awarded b) I the DOE. DETAILED INFORMATION ABOUT THE SMART GRm APPLICATIONS Smart Grid Application (Customer Energy Management programs) Detailed Information j On August 5, 2009 PG&E Ned an application with the DOE under the Smart Grid Investment Grant progem end American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), requesting that DOE award PG&E UZ5 million in federal funds in order to expand and enhance PG&es customer energy management Programs (including in-home devices that enable the customer to view and control energy usage), customer cervices, and gid infrastructure and monitoring. I On September 25, 2008 PG&E fried in application with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) request. ing authority to Increase rates to recover PG&E's share of the 142.5 ml0on N matching funds for this award starting in 2010. in as application, PG&E Is supported by the following stakeholders in the customer energy management prs- grams Project: the Cily W San Jose, California Independent Syetomn Operator, the California Energy Cammlesion, Stanford University Precourt Energy ENicianey Center, IBM, Claes Systema, Ina., ABB, Inc., and Utility Integration i Solutions, Inc. This Smart Grid project will analyze the use of dynamic rates and innovative user interfaces with demand response, distrib. used generation, energy efficiency, and energy ranservatan. The project wlll improve gid performance by usurp PGSFc advanced metering infrastructure with Home Area Network (HAN) devices and sensors to monitor and oontrW this opera - thin W elastic distribution chub. This application requests recovery W PG&E's share (823.5 milllon) of this project cost over the 2010 through 2013 period tivuugh a memorandum account The estimated revenues required from customers range tom $1.3 million in 2010 to $8 millions In 2013. i Smart Grid Application (Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES)) Detailed Information On August 26, 2009. PG&E applied to DOE for a Smart Grid Demonstration gent under ARRA for a CAES project. Phase 1 of the project which will require S25 million in ratepayer funding to match the $25 million In DOE funding, will design and study the feasibility of using off-peak energy, such as intermittent wind energy, to inject compacted air Into an i underground formation and using that compressed at to generate elwctrtWty at peak periods when tlw roawwhble energy might not be available. On September 25, 2009 PG&E filed an application with the CPUC requesting authority to Inensse rates to recover S25 million In matching funds for this award over the 2010 through 2014 period through a memorandum account. The aaUmated revenues required from customers range from $0.5 million In 2015 to 112.1 million In 2010. i In Its proposal, PGM is supported by the following stakeholders in the CAES project Electric Power Research Institute, the California Independent System Operator, the Cslitomia Energy Commission, Energy Storga and Polar, IBM, Blade & Vosteh, and PayZone. If the project is successful, It could enable more widespread use of renewable energy to replace fossil energy during times i of peak demand. Will electric rates increase? Yes, this request will result N o alight Increase to Weebfe rates for bundled Samoa euatmrmw (Boge using also - We generation, transmission acrd distribution service from PG&E) and for direct access and community choice aggregation customore (those Purchasing electricity from non -PG&E suppliers). Approval of one or both of these Application will lemass bundled rates by loss than one percent. Using the 2010 (highest single year)earnhined ' cost of 113.55 million, the bundled system average rate Increase will be 0.1 percent over current Taloa. THE CPUC PROCESS The CPUCa Division W Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) will review these Applicatiae. DRA is an independent arm of the CPUC, created by the Legislature to represent the interests of all utility customers Uvoughout toe stats and obtain he Is Sat possible rate far service consistent with reliable and safe service levels. DRA haso multidisciplinary staff with I, expertise In economlca, finance. scounting and engineering. DRA's views do not nemxunrily relied those W ma CPUC. Omer parties of record will also participate. The CPUC may hold evidentlary hearings where parties W record present thew proposals In testimony and are subject to cross-examination before an Administrative Lea Judge (AU). These hearings are open to the pubic, but only those who I are partes of record can present evidence or croscexami ne witnesses during evidentiary hearings. Members W tho pubfic may alland Obese hearings, but era not allmd to participate, only i ston. After considering M Proposals and evidence presented during the hearing process, the AU will issue a draft decision. When the CPUC act; on these applicallons, it may adopt all or part of PG&E's mqueA amend or modify Nem or deny the applications. The CPUC's final decisions may be different from PG&E's proposed application filings. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION To request a copy of one or both applications or far more detals call PG&E at 1 00-0GE5W0 Pare mils datalles flame 1.800.8606789 I r iffl IRM 1.800.599.9555 For TDDITTY(speech-hearing impaired) cell 1.80NW-4712 You may inquest a copy of one or both of the applications and exhibits by writing to Palk Goa and Elastic Company art seed Appltoatiuns P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, CA 94120. You may contact One CPUC's Public Advisor with comments ar questions as follows i Public Advisors Office i 505 Van Now Avenue, Room 2103 i Sen Francisco, CA 94102 , 1.415.7012074 or 1-ar"Milia (tall tee) TTY 1.41570545282, TTY 1.85SM6.7W (toil free) E-mail to public advicaracpuc cn cov If you am writing a letter to the Public Advisors ONce, please include the name W the appiI lion te whirl, you ere mfor- ring. All comments will be circulated to the Commissioners, tha assigned Administrative Lew Judi and the Energy Divi cion sten. Reviewed by the California Pubs: UOfrees Commission m5��Ulz- 41AO ?, hjXrinlG �y JTIFICATION OF APPLICATION FILING BY PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (PG&E4- TO RECOVER IN RATES COSTS INVOLVED WITH 2011 GAS TRANSMISSION AND STORAGE (GUS 2011) September 22, 2009 TO: STATE, COUNTY AND CIT OFFICIALS The 'Gas Accord' market structure, approved by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC ) in 1998 by Decision (D.) 97-08-055, set the rates, terms and conditions of service for Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E)'a natural gas transmission and storage services.. The currently effective rates were approved by. the CPUC in September 2007, for a three-year term (2008-2010), under a previous all -party settlement known as -Gas Accord IV- (D. 07-09-045). Thus, the rates have been In effect since 2008. On September 18, 2009, PG&E filed an Application with the CPUC requesting changes to.fts Gas Tranmmitbeion and Storage (GUS) rates affective January 1, 2011. This application Is known as the 2011 GT&S Rate Case Application (Application). In this Application. PG&E proposes a four-year adjustment to rates for 2011 through 2014. PG&E also presents Its forecasts of expected demand and system usage for 2011 through 2014, as well as how the costs to operate Its transmission and storage business will be assigned to each customer class. This Application does not address distribution (gas lines handling reduced pressure) rates or the commodity costa of gas. Rates for PG&E's gas distribution services, and the rates PG&E charges for natural gas itself, are set in separate CPUC proceedings. Will Oft hates Increase? Yes, if approved, gas rates and bills will Increase. Rates for bundled residential gas customers, (customers who receive gas distribution and natural gas procurement services from PG&E), will increase by 1.4 percent, and bundled small and targe commercial gas rates will Increase by 1.9 percent and 1.7 percent, respectively. For 2011, PG&E is seeking to collect a total of $529.1 million, an Increase of $67.3 million, or less than one percent compared to the 2010 total company projected revenues', in gas transmission and storage revenue requirements from all of PG&E's gas customers. PG&E also requests gas transmission and storage revenue requirements for 2012, 2013 and 2014 of $561.5 million, $592.2 million and $614.8 million. respectively. This money will be used to operate PG&E's gas transmission and storage assets in a safe, reliable manner, comply wlfb govemmera regulations and provide e reasonable. aturn to investors If the CPUC approves PO&E'e request, a typical residential customer using 37 therms per month would we an average monthly gas bill Increase of *0.74, from WAS to $52.00. A typical small business customer using 289 therms per month would see an average monthly gas bill Increase of $5.60, from $341.15 to 111M.95. Individual customers' We may differ. PG&E will provide a more Illustrative allocation of the potential rate Increases among customer classes under this proposal, in a bill Insert to be mailed directly to customers In October. THE CPUC PROCESS The CPUC's Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) will review this Application. DRA is an independent arm of the CPUC, created by the Legislature to represent the Interests of all utility customers throughout the stale and obtain the lowest possible rete for service consistent with reliable and safe servlce levels. DRA has a muW-dlsoipsnary staff with expertise In economics, finance, accounting and engineering. DRA's views do not necessarily reflect those of the CPUC. Other parties of record will also participate. The CPUC may hold evidemlary hearings where parties of record present their proposals In testimony and are subject to croas-xamination before an Administrative Law Judge (AU). These hearings are open to the public, but only those who are parties of record can present evidence or cross-examine witnesses during evidentlary hearings. Members of the public may attend these hearings, but are not allowed to participate, only Ilsten. Atter considering all proposals and evidence presented during the hearing process, the ALJ will issue a draft decision. When the CPUC acts on this application, It may adopt all or part of PG&E's request. amend or modify It or deny the application. The CPUC's final decision may be different from PG&E's proposed applicatlern filing. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION For more details cell PG&E at 1 -800 -PGE -SM Para mile detalles hams 1400.880.8799 ( Wfl1MM )1-600-193.9955. For TDDIRY(speech-hearing Impaired) call 1.888-M-4712 You may request a Copy Of the application and exhibits by wring to Pacific Gas and Electric Company. (Gas Transmisslon and Storage 2011 Application) Application P.O. Box 7442, San French=*, CA 94720. You may *coact the CPUC's Public Adviser with comments or questions as follows: Public Advisors Office 505 Van Ness Avenue. Room 2103 Sen Francisco, CA 94102 1-415-703-2074 or 1. MM4349-8980 (to8 free) Try 1-415.783-6282. TTY 1-886-898-7825 (toll free) E-mail to pubiie.advisormepuc.ea.gov If you are writing a letter to the Public Advisor's Office, please include the name of the application to which you ere referring. All comments will be circulated to the Commisslonars, the assigned Administrative Law Judge and the Energy Division staff. Reviewed by the California Public Utilities Commission. 1. Ra Is a bCmlow trim curb m de mean �ffl of mm" untWw% 0" in ,stn tw aro gn xWA= M" MWM CIC ; ,7rR'TLC-2 /1'1R'111�/G'L y IJ�T�iL RECE'\- L L_; SEP 2 8 Hq'i SLO CITY CLERK RECEIVED SEP 0 R 2009 CITY CLERK OF APPLICATION FILING BY .eptember 2, 2009 TO: STATE COUNTY AND CITY OFFICIALS PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (PG&E): WILDFIRE CLAIMS COST RECOVERY On August 31, 2009, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), Southern California Edison Company, San Diego Gas and Electric Company, and Southern California Gas Company (the Utilities), jointly filed an Application requesting authority from the California Public Utilities Commission to approve a mechanism to allow the Utilities to recover uninsured cdsts associated with wildfires. In the face of a potential insurance crisis that may limit the Utilities' ability to obtain insurance coverage, the Application asks for CPUC approval for each Utility to establish a Wildfire Expense Balancing Account (WEBA) to record for future recovery all costs of third -parry claims resulting from wildfires that would have been covered by insurance, as well as costs that would not have been incurred if insurance were available, including: (1) payments to satisfy wildfire claims, including any deductibles, co-insurance and other insurance expenses paid by the Utilities, but excluding costs that have already been authorized in the Utilities' General Rate Cases; (2) outside legal costs incurred in the defense of wildfire claims; (3) premium costs not in rates; and (4) the cost of financing these amounts. Insurance proceeds, as well as any payments received from third parties, will be credited to the WEBA as they are received. The Application requests that amounts recorded in the WEBA be included in rates after review and approval by the Commission. However, while requesting approval of the mechanism, the Application does not request increases in current rates. THE CPUC PROCESS The CPUC's Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) will review this Application. DRA is an independent arm of the CPUC, created by the Legislature to represent the interests of all utility customers throughout the state and obtain the lowest possible rate for service consistent with reliable and safe service levels. DRA has a multi -disciplinary staff with expertise in economics, finance, accounting and engineering. DRA's views do not necessarily reflect those of the CPUC. Other parties of record will also participate. The CPUC may hold evidentiary hearings where parties of record present their proposals in testimony and are subject to cross-examination before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). These hearings are open to the public, but only those who are parties of record can present evidence or cross-examine witnesses during evidentiary hearings. Members of the public may attend these hearings, but are not allowed to participate, only listen. After considering all proposals and evidence presented during the hearing process, the ALJ will issue a draft decision. When the CPUC acts on this application, it may adopt all or part of PG&E's request, amend or modify it or deny the application. The CPUC's final decision may be different from PG&E's proposed application filing. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION For more details call PG&E at 1 -800 -PGE -5000 • Para mas detalles [lame 1-800-660-6789 681 ft72 1-800-893-9555 • For TDD/TTY(speech-hearing impaired) call 1-800-652-4712 You may request a copy of the application and exhibits by writing to: Pacific Gas and Electric Company Wildfire Claims Cost Recovery Application P.O. Box 7442 San Francisco, CA 94120. You may contact the CPUC's Public Advisor with comments or questions as follows: Public Advisor's Office 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 2103 San Francisco, CA 94102 1-415-703-2074 or 1-866-849-8390 (toll-free) TTY 1-415-703-5282, TTY 1-866-836-7825 (toll-free) E-mail to public.advisor®cpuc.ca.gov If you are writing a letter to the Public Advisor's Office, please include the name of the application to which you are referring. All comments will be circulated to the Commissioners, the assigned Administrative Law Judge and the Energy Division staff. Reviewed by the California Public Utilities Commission nd r11416 4- Y RECEIVED JUN 2 21009 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY NOTIFICATION OF FILING OF THE GAS COST INCENTIVE N&AQVI)�iRLERK APPLICATION NO. A.09-06-014 On June 15, 2009, Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas®) filed an application (A.09-06- 014) with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to collect on an approved incentive as stipulated by the Gas Cost Incentive Mechanism (GCIM). The GCIM is a CPUC - authorized ratemaking mechanism that SoCalGas uses to purchase natural gas on behalf of its core customers. Under the GCIM program, the CPUC approves a "competitive benchmark" (based on market price) that SoCalGas strives to beat when purchasing natural gas on the open market for its customers. If SoCalGas purchases gas above the competitive benchmark within a certain tolerance band, then the utility is penalized. If SoCalGas purchases gas below the competitive benchmark within a certain tolerance band, the utility is rewarded. SoCalGas has been operating under this program for 15 years. During GCIM year 15 SoCalGas, was able to purchase natural gas at $75.6 million below the competitive benchmark during the program year extending from April 1, 2008 to March 31, 2009. This effort helped mitigate price spikes, providing customers a net benefit of $63.6 million in lower gas costs. The June 15, 2009 tiling requests that SoCalGas collect from customers $12 million for its shareholders as incentive for purchasing gas below the -competitive benchmark price. If the Commission approves SoCalGas' application, the proposed impact to each customer class would be allocated as follows: Resid CC ential $9.4 5rkA)WyC,C Commercial/Industrial Customer Class $ (million) %increase Other Core "W aca. 3.2% Total* $12.0** 0.9% Sr"Z - 1tG�o eg-To X.) "The actual number approved by the CPUC will include fees paid to cities and local governments. "The total amount of $12 million does not include franchise fees and uncollectibles. If the CPUC approves this request, a residential customer's monthly summer bill for 32 therms of gas would increase by '12 cents, from $41.34 to $41.46. Based on a 12 -month period, a residential customer's average monthly bill would increase by 17 cents. The impact on each customer and customer class will vary depending on individual usage and the CPUC's final decision. THE CPUC MAY HOLD EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS The CPUC may hold Evidentiary Hearings (EHs) whereby parties of record present their proposals in testimony and are subject to cross-examination before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The EHs are open to the public, but only those who are formal parties of record can present evidence or cross-examine witnesses during the EHs. Members of the public are welcome to attend the EHs, but they are only allowed to listen. After considering all evidence ential $9.4 0.8% Commercial/Industrial $2.6 1.3% Other Core $0.06 3.2% Total* $12.0** 0.9% 1tG�o eg-To X.) "The actual number approved by the CPUC will include fees paid to cities and local governments. "The total amount of $12 million does not include franchise fees and uncollectibles. If the CPUC approves this request, a residential customer's monthly summer bill for 32 therms of gas would increase by '12 cents, from $41.34 to $41.46. Based on a 12 -month period, a residential customer's average monthly bill would increase by 17 cents. The impact on each customer and customer class will vary depending on individual usage and the CPUC's final decision. THE CPUC MAY HOLD EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS The CPUC may hold Evidentiary Hearings (EHs) whereby parties of record present their proposals in testimony and are subject to cross-examination before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The EHs are open to the public, but only those who are formal parties of record can present evidence or cross-examine witnesses during the EHs. Members of the public are welcome to attend the EHs, but they are only allowed to listen. After considering all evidence presented during this process, the ALJ will issue a draft decision. The CPUC may approve the draft decision; it may adopt all or partof the draft; or the assigned Commissioner may issue an alternate decision. The final decision adopted may be different from what SoCalGas proposes in the application filing. CPUC PROCESS If you would like additional information on the CPUC process or would like to attend these hearings and need assistance, you can contact the Public Advisor's Office (PAO). You may also send your comments to the PAO at the address Public Advisor's Office, 320 West 41' St., Ste. 500., Los Angeles, CA 90013 or send an e-mail to: public.advisor.la n.cpuc.ca.Qov. Any letters received from you will be circulated to each Commissioner and will become part of the formal correspondence file in this application. In your letter, state that your comments are regarding Application No. A.09-06-014. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION You may request additional information or obtain a copy of the application and related exhibits by writing to: Greg Healy, Southern California Gas Company, 555 W. Fifth St., GT14D6, Los Angeles, CA 90013-1011. SoCalGas' application and attachments may also be inspected at the CPUC office located at 505 Van Ness Ave., San Francisco, CA 94102. Copies of this application will be available for viewing and printing on the SoCalGas Web site at: www.socalpas.com/regulatory/cpue.shtmi. Copies of this insert will be available for viewing and printing on the SoCalGas Web site at www. socal gas. com/re gulatory. NOTIFICATION Or PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (PG&E) APPLICATION FOR RECOVERY OF CATASTROPHIC EVENT COSTS (CEMA) IN ELECTRIC RATES On February 27,200% Pacific pas & Electric Company (PG&E) filed the above reierei application with the California Public Utilities Commission, in which PG&E asks for authority to recover catastrophic event costs associated with the 2008 Wildland Fires. PG&E estimates that electric revenues to cover these costs will increase by 56.56 million over a 1 -year period beginning January 1, 2010. What Is CEMA and What Does It Dol CEMA stands for Catastrophic Event Memorandum Account. State law and the CPUC allow public utilities to recover the Incremental costs of. (1) restoring utility service to its customers; (2) repairing, replacing or restoring damaged utility facilities; and (3) complying with government agency orders resulting from declared disasters, as a result of catastrophic events. The CPUC also authorizes utilities to record capital -related costs such as depreciation and return on capitalized plant additions resulting from the restoration activities. The CPUC requires that costs recorded in a utility's CEMA °may be recovered in rates only after a request by the affected utility, a showing of their reasonableness, and approval by the CPUC.' Background to the filing of thisApplicetiore From May 22, 2008 through October 2008, wild land fires caused significant damage to potions of PG&E's Infrastructure and operations. Because of these tires Governor Schwarcenegger issued State of Emergency Proclamations for 10 counties in PG&E's service territory. Then -President Bush, acting under authority of the Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Ad. also issued declarations of emergency in several of these same counties. PG&E seeks to recover the costs of restoring service and repairing its electric distribution system in these counties. Whet Impact will this Application filing have on rates? This request vall result in a slight increase to electric rates for bundled service customers (customers who receive electrfc generation as well as transmission and distribution service from PG&E) and for customers who purchase electricity from other suppliers (direct - access and community -choice aggregation}. If the CPUC approves PG&E's full request the system average bundled electric rate will increase 0.06 percent on January 1, 2010. NOTIFICATION OF APPLICATION FILING BY PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (PG8tp: 2009 RATE DESIGN WINDOW On February 27, 2009, PG&E filed its 2009 Rate Design Window Application with the CPUC. The Application complies with Decision 08-07-045, which ordered PG&E to propose certain time -differentiated electric rates called dynamic pricing, and to request recovery of the costs of implementation. What Is Dynamic Pricing? Dynamic pricing is designed to reflect variations In the actual cost of energy at different times of day and on different types of days. Dynamic pricing creates economic Incentives for customers to actively manage their energy costs by shifting electricity use from when it costs more to when It costs less. For example, when given a notice a day in advance that electricity prices will be extremely high for a short period the following day, customer: can arrange to use less electricity at that time and/or shift use to other times. This type of tate is also Woven as Critical Peak Pricing, a type of dynamic pricing that has been available to customers in the past While dynamic pricing will remain voluntary for residential customers, Decision 08-07-045 specifies that most iron -residential Customers must be assigned by default to new dynamic pricing rate schedules. The effective implementation of dynamic pricing can lower customer costs and Increase electricity system reliability by stabilbdng demand over time, reducing demand when supply Is low, and setting rates that better reflect the marginal cost of providing electricity, What Impact will this Application Filling have on Rates? This Application requests authority to recover in rates approximately $33.1 million for the costs associated with implementing dynamic pricing through 2010. If the CPUC approves Paws full request, the cost will be recovered from all customers who receive transmission and distribution sarvfces from PG&E including bundled and direct access custarners. The average increase In bundled electric rates would be 022 percent The CPUC Process The CPUC's Independent Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) will review each Application. DRA is an Independent arm of the CPUC, created by the Legislature to represent the interests of as utility customers throughout the state and obtain the lowest possible rate for service consistent with reliable and safe -service levels. DRA has a multi -disciplinary staff with expertise in economics, finance, accounting and engineering. DRA's views do not necessarily reflect those of the CPUC. Other parties of record will also participate. The CPUC may hold evidentiary hearings where parties of record present their proposals in testimony and are subject to cross-examination before an Administrative Law Judge (AW). These hearings are open to the public, but only those who are parties of record can present evidence or cross-examine witnesses during evidentiary hearings Members of the public may attend these hearings, but may not participate, only listen. Atter considering all proposals and evidence presented during the hearing process, the AW will issue a draft decision foreachapplication. WhentheCPUCacts oneach application, Itmayadoptall orpartofPG&E's request, mend or modify it or derry the application. The CPUC's final decision maybe different from PG&E's proposed application fling. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION For more demity, call PG&E at 600.74331D11 • Para m&s dealles lame 8004110.6788 E#fC MRQ 800 -t193 -11M • For MaTN (speed"eadng hicaft", Call 8008524712 You may contact the CP(JC's Public Advisor with comments or questions as follows Public Advisors Office 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 2103 San Francisco, CA 9410? 415-703-2074 or 0564MS4 aeo (toll-free) TTY 475-7094282. TTY 866.895-7825 iloafree) E -mall to PubIftAdvi*orG4cpuc4&gov If you are writing a letter to the Public Advisor's Office, Please Lr cUde the name(e) of the applimtbn(e) to which you are refentno. A I continents will be circulated to the Commlmbnom, the assigned AW and the Energy Division staff. Reviewed by the Carftmia Ptbric Utilities Cmrm =m March 2, 2009 TO:STATE, COUNTY AND CTT OFFICIALS RECEIVED MAR - 9 9009 SLO CITY CLERK lac I- MI. March 2, 2009 TO:STATE, COUNTY AND CITY OFFICIALS NOTIFICATION OF APPLICATION FILING BY PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (PG&E): PHOTOVOLTAIC (PV) PROGRAM What is the PV Program? The PV Program is a five-year program which demonstrates PG&E's commitment to environmental leadership. PG&E proposes to develop, construct, own and operate up to 250 Megawatts (MW) of clean solar photovoltaic facilities and acquire an additional 250 MW to be built and owned by Independent developers. When all projects are up and running by 2015, they are expected to deliver power equal to the annual consumption of about 150,000 average homes each year. Prior to developing these facilities, PG&E intends to move forward with a pilot program developing up to 2 MW in order to establish sound processes and procedures for the larger program. PG&E will seek to pursue land options in order to secure land for the development of its program; however, whenever possible, projects developed and owned by PG&E will be built on land already owned by the utility or near its substations to minimize the cost and delays of interconnecting them to the power grid. On February 24, 2009, PG&E toed the above referenced application with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), in which PG&E requests authority to collect in electric generation rates the cost of owning and operating facilities associated with the PV Program. The annual revenue requirement Increases each year from an increase relative to current rates of $16.5 million in 2010 to the highest Increase relative to current rates of $170.4 million in 2014. Does this mean rates will Increase? Yes, utility charges will increase as a result of this program. If the application Is approved by the CPUC, electric generation rates will increase as early as January 1, 2011. If the CPUC approves PG&E's application, the bill for a typical bundled customer (customers who receive electric generation, transmission and distribution service from PG&E) using 550 kWh per month in 2014 (the year of the highest revenue increase) would increase $0.32 from $73.32 to $73.64. The bill for a typical bundled c customer using approximately twice the average baseline allowance, or 850 kWh per month, would increase $2.44 from $157.99 to $160.43. Individual customers' bills may differ. The proposed rate changes by customer class associated with this appfleatlon will be provided in detail In a bill Insert to be mailed deecUy to customers beginning In March. The CPUC Process The CPUC's Independent Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) will review this Application. DRA is an Independent arm of the CPUC, created by the Legislature to represent the interests of all utility customers throughout the state and obtain the lowest possible rate for service consistent with reliable and safe -service levels. DRA has a multi -disciplinary staff with expertise in economics, finance, accounting and engineering. DRA's views do not necessarily reflect those of the CPUC. Other parties of record will also participate. The CPUC may hold evidentiary hearings where parties of record present their proposals in testimony and are subject to cross-examination before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). These hearings are open to the public, but only those who are parties of record can present evidence or cross-examine witnesses during evidentlary hearings. Members of the public may attend these hearings, but are not allowed to participate. only listen. After considering all proposals and evidence presented during the hearing process, the ALJ will issue a draft decision. When the CPUC acts on this application, it may adopt all or part of PG&E's request, amend or modify it or deny the application. The CPUC's final decision may be different from PG&E's proposed application filing. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION For more details, call PG&E at 800-749-5000 • Para m8s detalles name 800-860-6789 pitgWIa Boo -e93-6555 • For MD/TTY (speech -hearing impaired), call 8004152-4712 You may contact the CPUC's Public Advisor with comments or questions as follows: Public Advisor's Office 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 2103 San Francisco, CA 94102 415-703-2074 or 966-949.8390 (toll -tree) TTY 415-703-6?82, TTY 886-836-7825 (toll -tree) E-mail to p,blic,advisor®apuc.ca.gov If you are writing a letter to the Public Advisor's Otfice, please include the name of the application to which you are referring. AO comments will be circulated to the Commissioners, the assigned Administrative law Judge and the Energy Division staff. Reviewed by the California Public Utilities Commission NOTIFICATION OF APPLICATION FILING BY PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (PG&E) TO RECOVER IN RATES THE COST TO COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TESLA GENERATING STATION WHAT IS THE TESLA GENERA TING STATION? The Tesla Generating Station TG Station) is a proppsed 560 -megawatt, natwai gas-fired combined- cycie electrical power generating facility that is local== -d in eastern Alarneda County. The TG Station Was licensed by the State of California Enemy Resources Conservation aid Development Commission (CEC) in 2004 aper or. envirgnmemal review. PG&E is now seeking approvai from ane California %biic Utilities Commission (CPUC) to build the CEC-approved facility. if its app!ication is approved. PG&E will be the sole owner and operator of the facility. PG&E is abcing this facility to improve its ability to prowce a reliable electric suoply for its customers in the future. INFORMATION ABOUT THIS FILING On July 1 B, 2005, PG&E filed an app!icatior. wish the CPUC, requesting authorization to recover in rates an estimated 5850 million in costs for construction and operation of the proposed facility. excluding fuel casts. Tnis request assumes est the facility will begin Operation by the fall of 201'. The recovery of these construction and operation costs in rates would not begin until 2011. HOW DOES THIS FILING AFFECT RATES? Utility charges on your bill will increase as a result of this project. PG&E's request will increase tota; electric generation rates by $175.9 million per year. If the application is approved by the CPUC, rates for bundled customers (those who receive electric generation, transmission, and distribution service from PG&E) will increase by 1.6 percent on average, compared to current rtes. In general. rates for direct access customers (those who purchase their electricity from a non-utility supplier) will not be subject to chance. In addition, PG&E expects that rates to departing load customers (who receive electric generation, from a non-utility supplier, as well as transmission and distribution service from a publicly -owned utility) will be unchanged. The rate changes by customer class associated solely with this application will be provided by PG&E in a bill insert that will be mailed directly to customers In August. If the CPUC approves PG&E's application, the bill for a typical bundled customer using 550 kWh Per .month would increase 50.34 from 572.13 to $72.47. The average usage for customers using about twice their 'baseline allowance is about 1150 kWh. The bill for this average bundled customer would increase $2.64 from $146.44 to $151.08 per month. Individual customers' bills may differ. THE CPUC PROCESS The CPUC's Independent Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) will review this Application. DRA is an independent arts of the CPUC, created by the Legislature to represent the interests of all utility customers throughout the state and obtain the lowest possible rate for service consistent with reliable and safe service levels. DRA has a multi -disciplinary staff with expertise in economics, finance, accounting and engineering. DRA's views do not necessarily reflect those of the CPUC. Other parties of record will also participate. The CPUC may hold evidentiary hearings where parties of record present their proposals In testimony and are subject to cross-examination before an Administrative Law Judge (AW). These hearings are open to the public, but only those who are parties of record can present evidence or cross-examine witnesses during evidentiary hearings. t -.amber, of, the public may attend :hese hoarinca, but are n,,, allowed to participate, only listen. . After considering all proposals and evidence presented during the hearing process, the AW will issue a tlmft decision. When the CPUC acts on this application, it may adopt all or pan of PG&E's request, amend or modify it, or deny the application. The CPUC's -.trial decision may be different from PG&E's proposed application filing. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION For more details call PG&E at 1-800-PGE-SDDD • Para rias detalles Ilame 1-800-66D-6789 j5j%Og$i$ 1-800-893-9555 • For TDDTTY(speech-hearing impaired) call 1-800-652-4712 You may contact the CPUC's Public Advisor with, comments or questions as follows: Public Advisor's Office 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 2103 San Francisco, CA 94102 1-415-703-2074 or 1-866-849-8390 (toll free) TTY 1-415.703-5282, TTY 1 -BSB -836-7825 (toll free) E-mail to publicadvisor®cpuc.ca.gov If ,you are writing a letter to the Public Advisor's Office, please include the :tape of the application to which you are referring. All comments will be circulated to the Commissioners, the assigned Administrative Law Judge and the Energy Division staff. P.eviewed by the California Public Utilities Commission Jul} 'a, 2008 TO: STATE, COL'N'TY AND CITY OFFIMLS RECEIVED JUL 31 2008 SLO CITY CLERK �oweU- �-/a,1�-/er Nen-t�e�savl. 3n}v 24, 2008 TO: STATE. COL�ITY AND CITY OFFICULS NOTIFICATION OF APPLICATION FILING OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (PG&E) FOR APPROVAL OF THE 2DO9.2 1 ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS AND BUDGETS Per Decison 07.10-C91 the Caldom:a Public Utilities Commission (CPUCI authormed PGB--- to file an Application on July 21, 2D06 requesting approval of its 2009-2011 Energy Efficiency Programs and Budges (Application). h this Application filing. PG&E proposes a budget for the design, administration,, implementation ant: evaluation d as proposed energy effteiency, programs for years 2009-2611. Energy ef`c.ancy prug:a-q are awned all Prbmotir:; Me use o' high efficiency prod=s, applonces. equipment, services, and practices to reduce eneroy usage while maintaining a comparable levei of service. Energy efficiency activde, typically require permanent replacement of energy-usmg aculpnem with more efficient models. Some eaemplas of Mese fyon of ucuipment include refrigerators, light 's energy efficiency programs provide incentives or, eouipment {nttures and cooling equipmerh: PG&E and information to residential, commercial, agricultural, and ndLetrial customers to increase energy dficlency m homes and woA: places to reduce Eneriy dsr,.arti. Through Mese cAnsen2ipr: anc enargy Efficiency measures. PG&E customers minime,, the need for new generation, reduce carbon emissions and other oo0saarus, in energy miiab0lry, and contribute to price stability. PG&=,s programs work ir, tanoern with time of the other in er=r -owned utiiivas in California to acF.ieve the CPUC's statewide energy efficiency savings goals. PG&E's Programs also play a key role in the CPUC s statewide Energy Efficiency Strategic Plah, which amines fond tam goals and processes tar achieving greater energy efficiency in Calffoma wer the next several decades. To ar'two its sawn goals, PG&E levemges the support of local goverrm ants. community organizations, statewide orgartt ttyrd and other third -part' pamrerstliPs. In ordc to maximize customer energy savings and convenience, PG&E has created an :megaYted offering C all of its Energy effic,ehcy, demand response. low-income and solar programs PG&FS cunartfly mrinanzed energy efficiency funding for 2006-2006 is $909 million. PG&Es proposed anergy efficiency funding fm 2ODS-2011 is about S1.9 billoh This increase is required to meat Ma aggressive Energy savings tsgets Mat have peen esablished by the CPUC, and wmufo asp apply to 2010 mitt 20'. 1. HOW WILL THIS IMPACT RATES7 Approval of PG&Es proposed Energy Efficiency progm, budget iw years 2009-2011 will result in an increase in ga, and electric public purpose program charges. The annual electric increase will result in an Incresse in public purpose program dmrgas paid by all electric cusmmers including bundled. direct access and departing two c u•-mmers who are required to pay public Purpose pmgmm charges. The annual gas increase will result in set increase in the 2009-2011 gas public purpose program surcharges paid by residential, commercial and 'industrial customers. PG&E expects Mat the rate Changes associated with this Applicaten will be consolidated with eharnges in Char CPUC proceedings, so the eventual net change in rates fort individual customers is ddlcult to predict. PG&E w9 pn de En di -eel m egocetce, m the eicoic and gas rate'vcreeset Wong cuslmhn cierves sotey assoeiabd with this Application, h a big 0 130t to be mailed directly m customers to August F the CNC approves PG&Fs application, the bill for a typical bundled customer using 550 kWh Per month would increase 50.86 them $7213 to 572.51 The average usage for customers using about twice their baseline allowance is about 650 kWh. The bill for this average bundled customer would increase 52.99 from $146.44 to 5151.43 per month. A residential customer using 40 therms C gas per month would see an average monthly gas bill anceass of $0.73 or 1.9%, boil S54.74 to 555.47. Individual customers' bills may differ. THE CPUC PROCESS The CPUC's IrdepandWf Division of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) will review Mrs Application. DRA is an edepenoam am of tts CNC. aeo:ad by 7m Lbgsbabaa to rah—cent Me n:e:ess C ai! :miry crstwnere thmughmn the state and obtain the lowest possible rate for service co leite—I with reliable and safe service levels. ORA has a mute-disciplbrey staff with expertise in economics. fmartS, accounting mid Engineering. ORA's views do not necessarily reflect those of the CPUC. Other parties of record will also participate. The CPUC may hold evidentiary hearings where Parties of record present their proposals in testimony and are subject to suss.txatrnirultiW before an Admmmarmbe Law Judge (ALJ). These hearings are open to ME public, but only these who are Parties of record can present evidence or cross-examine will as during evidentiary hearings. Mehbers C the public may attend these hearings, but am nol allowed to PehcrPate, any listen. After cersloerhg all proposals and evidence presented during the hearing process. the AW will issue a draft decision. When the CPUC acs or. this application, it may adopt all or pat C PG&es request, amend or modify h or deny the application. The CPUC's final decision may be di tem., from PG&E's proposed applmaboh filing. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION For more deft'= Call PG&E at 1 -800 -PGE -5000 • Pam rens calages Items 1.800.660-6769 r�Me14la{ 14=4=93- 5 t For MaDrT!Y(speech-hearing impaired) call l-BDD-652-4712 you may contact the CPUC's Public Advisor wdh comments or questions as follows: Public Advisars Office 505 Van Nass Avenue, Rimm 2109 San Francisco, CA 94102 1.4/6703-2874 w 1468-649-6390 Roll heel ._- .... .. .. . �...... TTY 1.016703-52132 TTY 1-963-108-7625 Vol] tree) E -mall to purbfrcadvlsor®epoape.gw 6 you are wrhbsg a letter to the Pubic Advisor's Office. please include Me name d She application to which you are referring. An comments will be ciicuFned to he Commissioner, Me assigned Atl . inisbatwe Law .fudge and the Energy Division sur"L RevlEwed by drc Cegfomie Public Ulfncs Commission June 17, 2008 TO: STATE, COUNTY AND CITY OFFICIALS F LUEIUE® JUN 2 4 2008 SLO CITY CLERK 1_l A_io? )Lo ta. (l ,5—/4.4/e v 1-n 0-S '- C/ G NOTIFICATION OF APPLICATIONS BY PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY TO RECOVER INCREASED PROCUREMENT COSTS FOR THE REMAINDER OF 2008 AND FORECAST 2009 Each year. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) is required to forecast how much 0 will spend the following you to ensure adequate electricity supplies for Its customers, and this forecast is rerviamed and approved by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). In addition, under CaBomia law, if PG&E's power procurement costs ghat is. the costs of purchasing electricity for PG&Vs customers) exceed the CPUC-authorzed revenues by 5% or more. PG&E must file an application for expedited recovery of such costs. PG&E recovers these costs dollar -for -dollar through rates charged to customers, with no profit margin. On June 10. 2D08, PG&E submitted two seperete applications with the CPUC to recover its power pmcumment costs. The first application (A.08-06-010) forecasts that by December 31, 2008, PG&E's power procurement costs will exceed its CPUC-oulhorized revenues by 5482 million. This inwease in procurement tests is due to higher -then -expected natural gas end electricity pricft lower -Nen -expected precipitation, and higher-thenexpectad electricity sales. PG&E requests that this Increase in power procurement costs be collected from customers over a 15 -month period beginning October 1, 2008. The second application (X08 -o6-011) requests that the CPUC approve PG&E's forecast of its power, procurement costs far 2009. PGBE's expected costs of electricity needed to serve its customers is $4.924 million. PG&E requests that the electric rates designed to recover this amount become effective on or after January 1, 2008. Does this mean electricity Will cost me more?' . Yes, PG&E's requests in the two applications will Increase rales. However, the Increase N mde3 is directly ahrbutoble to the higher costs that PG&E must pay to pmvlde electricity to as customers; PG&E doss not receive a profit margin from these increased rates or costs. What Impact will A._08-06-010 have on my electric bills? PG&Fs request in A.08.08-010 will increase total electric procurement miss by $482 million, to be collected from customers over 15 months beginning October 1, 2008. It the application is approved by the CPUC. rates for bundled customers (those who receive electric generation, transmission, and distribution service from PG&E) will increase by $482 million, or 4.5 percent on average, compared to current notes. In general, rates for direct access customers (those who purchase their electricity from e non-utllly supplier) will not be subject to change. In addition, PG&E expem that rates to departing Mad customers (who receive electric generation ham a non-utiliy, supplier, as well as tmnsmisslon and distribution service from a publicly-ovmed ulllity) will be unchanged. The rate changes by customer class for bundled customers and direct access cusmmera associated with A.08-0"10 will be provided in a bill insert to be sent directly to alatOlnere it July. If the Commission approves PG&Fs application. a typical resioemJal customer using 550 kilowatt-hours per month will see the monthly bill change hots $72.13 to $73.08; an ilcirrim of $0.95 per month. A residential customer using 8.50 klMtvalt-hours per month, which is about twice the baseline aRawance, will see the mcffd* bill change from $148.44 to $155.07. an Increase of $729 per month. Individual bills may differ. What impact will A.08.05-011 have on my electric bids? PG&E's request In X06-06-011 proposes a total electric procurement forecast of $4,924 million, to be ca0octed from custumens over the 12 months of 2009. ff the application is approved by the CPUC, rates for bundled customers will increase by $6681 million, or 6.1 percent on average, and rates for direct access customers will decrease by $0.2 million, a -0.1 percent on average compared to currera rates. In addition, PG&E expects to decrease miss to departing load customers by epproxinstely $1 million. The rate changes by customer class for bundled customers and direct access customers associated with X08.06-011 will be provided in a bill insert to be sent dimly to customers in July. Please nae that, due to CPUC requiremenn, the rate changes discussed "below we compared to cument rates, not the rates that will actually be N effect an December, 31, 200& In other wads, if PG&E's request in X08-08-010 (described above) Is granted, the percentage rate change an January 1, 2009, from A.0"6.011 may be lower then forecast. If the Commissimeapproves PG&E's application, a typical residential customer using 550 kilowatt-hours per month will ate the monthly bill change from $72.13. to $73.43, an increase of $1.30 per month. A residential customer using 850 kilowatt-hours per month, which is about twice the baseline allowance, will see the monthly bill change from $148.44 to $156.33, an increase of $9.89 per month. Individual bills may differ. THE CPUC PROCESS The CPUC's Independent Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) will review those applications, analyze the proposals, and present an Independent analysis and recommandatiots for the CPUC's consideration. Other parties will also participate. The CPUC may hold evidentiary, hearings where parties of record present their proposals in testimony and are subject to cross-examination before an Administrative law Judge (Ali). These hearings are open to the public, but only those who aro parties of record we allowed to present evidence or crossexomine witnesses during evidentiary herrings. Aha considering all proposals and evidence presented during the hearing process, the CPUC will Issue e draft decision for each of the applications. When the CPUC acts on these applications, it may adopt a9 or part of PG&E's requests, emend or mod4y Nem, or deny the applications. The CPUVs final decisions may be different from PG&E's proposes. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION Fo more deals tall PG&E at BOO -743-5000 Para mils detslles (lame 800.660.8789 p1mmazt 800.893-9555 For TDD/TTY(speech-hearing impaired) call 800-M-4712 You may contact the CPUC -s Public Advisor with am. ments or questions as follows Public Advisor's Office 505 Van Ness Avenue. Room 2103 San Francisco, CA 94102 415-703-2074 or 866-8-19-8390 Roll tree) TTY 415.703-5282, TTY 866-836.7825 (toll Ines) E-mail to public.advisw0cpuc.ca.gov If you are writing a latter to the Public Advisors Office, please include the number of the application (OS -06-010 or 08-06-011) to which you ere referring. All comments will be efreulated to the Commissioners, the assigned Administrative Law Judge and the Energy Division staff. . June 12, 2008 To: STATE, COUNTY AND CITY OFFICIALS NOTiRCATION OF FILING OF PACERC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY (PGB APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF ITS 2009-2011 DEMAND RESPONSE PROGRAMS AND BUDGET The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), requires PG&E to file an application for approval of its Demand Response Programs and Budget. PG&E filed an application on June 2, 2008, requesting said approval ('Applicatioril. What am Demand Response Programs? Demand response programs increase electric reliability and reduce PG&E's total power purchase costs by motivating electric customers to reduce electric usage during hig"emand, or peak usage, periods and/or shift electric usage to other periods when electric demand is lower. PG&E's Application proposes a total [1] demand response related revenue [2] requirement of $148.4 million ($48.9 million in 2009; $49.5 million in 2010; and $50.0 million in 2011). PG&.E proposes to recover these costs In electric distribution rates from both bundled and direct access customers. The annual revenue requirement increase (as compared to 2008 revenue requirement) is approximately $10.1 million. Bundled customers are customers who receive electric generation as well as transmission and distribution service from PG&E. Direct Access customers are customers who receive transmisslon and distribution service from PG&E, but purchase electric generation service from third -party energy service providers. Will Electric Ratas Increase if the Application is Approved? Yes. Approval of PG&E's proposed 2009-2011 demand response program revenue requirement will increase electric distribution rates paid by all electric bundled and direct access customers. PG&E expects any rate changes associated with its Application will be consolidated with electric rate changes in other CPUC proceedings. The eventual net change in rates is difficult to predicL Absent other electric rate changes, PG&E's revenue requirement request resulting from this Application would increase average bundled electric rates less than approximately 0.1 percent and would not have a significant impact on individual customers' rates. THE CPUC PROCESS The CPUC's independent Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) will review this Application, analyze the proposal, and present an independent analysis and recommendations for the CPUC's consideration. Other parties of record will also participate. The CPUC may hold evidentiary hearings where parties of record present their proposals in testimony and are subject to cross-examination before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). These hearings are open to the public, but only those who are parties of record are allowed to present evidence or cross-examine witnesses during evidentiary hearings. After considering all proposals and evidence presented during the hearing process, the AW will issue a draft decision. When the CPUC acts on this Application, it may adopt all or part of PG&E's request, amend or modify it, or deny the Application. The CPUC's final decision may be different from PG&E's proposed Application filing. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION For more details, call PG&E at 1$00 -PGE -5000. Para m9s detalles llama 1-800.660-6789. UIt MIRE31-800-893-9555 For TDO/rTY(speech-hearing impaired), call 1-800-652-4712. You may contact the CPUC's Public Advisor with comments or questions as follows: Public Advisor's Office 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 211)3 San Francisco, CA 94102 1-415-703-2074 or 1-866-849-8390 (toll free) TTY 1-415-703-5282, TTY 1-866-836-7825 (toll free) E-mail to public.advisor®cpuc.ca.gov, If you are writing a lener to the Public Advisor's Office, please Include the name of the application to which you are referring. All comments will be circulated to the Commissioners, the assigned AW and the CPUC's Energy Division staff. [t] The revenue requirement total includes charges for franchise fees (fees that PG&E pays to cities and counties for the right to use or occupy public streets, roads and ways) and uncollectibles (billed revenues that are unpaid by customers). [2] Revenue is a technical tens used to describe the total amount of money customers pay in rates for the electric and gas service they receive. RECEIVED JUN 181008 SLO CITY CLERK 02 or.ln GATE, COUNTY AND CITY OFFICIALS NOTIFICATION OF PACIFIC GAS S ELECTRIC (aPG&E') April 1, 2008 APPLICATION FOR RECOVERY OF CATASTROPHIC EVENT COSTS (CEMA) IN ELECTRIC RATES What Is MINA and What Does It Do? CEMA stands for Catastrophic Event Memorandum Account. State law and the California Public UtIDties Commission ('CPUC') allow, public utilities to recover the incremental costs of (1) restoring utility service to its customers; (2) repairing, replacing or restoring damaged utility facilities; and (3)I \ / C C complying with government agency orders resulting from declared d�/isastare as a result of catastrophic events The CPUC also authorized utilities to record capital-related costa such as depreciation and return on capitalized plant additions resulting from the restoration activities. The A P R 0 7 Z008 Commission provided that costs recorded In a utility's CEMA "may be recovered in rates only after a request by the affected utility, a showing of their reasonableness, and approval by the CPUC.° SLO CITY CLERK On March 26, 2008, PG&E filed the above referenced application with the CPUC, In which PG&E asks for authority to recover catastrophic event costs Incurred in connection with a series of Intense winter storms beginning January 3, 2008, and continuing through January 6, 2008. PG&E estimates that its electric revenues to cover these costs will Increase by $19.24 million over a 2 year period beginning January 1, 2009. The largest potion of this increase will be collected In 2009 and Is approximately $16.88 million, or about 00.15 percent. Backgiototd to the Bing of this Application: Beginning on January 3 and continuing through January P. 2008, Northern California experienced a series of Intense winter stones that caused significant damage to portions of PG&E's infrastructure and operations in 43 counties throughout its service territory. The January 2008 storms were the largest catastrophic event to affect PG&E's electric distribution system since December 1995 and required PG&E to incur more than $74 million to repair and replace utility facilities and restore service. As a result of the January 2008 storms, Govemor Schwarzenegger issued State of Emergent' Proclamations (Emergency Proclamation) on January 5, 7, 9 and 14 for 13 counties and two cites within PG&E's service territory. PG&E seeks to recover costs Incurred in restoring service and repairing PG&E's electric distribution system, as well as providing increased call center support in response to the January 2008 storms. How does this affect rates? If this application is approved, it would result in an increase of less than one percent of PG&E's total annual revenue. The increase in rates resulting from this application will not appear in rates until January 1, 2009, and will be collected in rates over two years. As stated above, the largest portion of this Increase will be collected in 2009 and is approximately $16.88 million or about 0.15 percent The CPUC Process The CPUC s independent Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) will review this application, analyze the proposal and present an Independent analysis and recommendations for the CPUC's consideration. Other parties of record may also participate. The CPUC may hold evidentiary hearings where parties of record present their proposals in testimony and are subject to cross-examination before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). These hearings are open to the pubfiG but only those who are parties of record are allowed to presets evidence or cross-examine witnesses during evidentiary hearings. After considering all proposals and evidence presented during the hearing process, the AW will issue a draft decision. When the CPUC acts on this application, it may adopt all or part of PG&E's request, amend or modify it or deny the application. The CPUC's final decision may be different from PG&E's proposed application filing. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION For mora details, call PG&E at 800.7434000 • Para res detalles game WD -680.61M 9111IRRIZ WD493-8553 • For MDATY (speech -hearing impaired), call 800.652-4712 You may contact the CPUC's Public Advisor with comments or questions as follows: Public Advwes Office 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 2103 Sen FrarmeLsm, CA 94102 415.703-2D74 or 8664494WO (toll free) TTY 415.703.5?82, TTY 888.838-7825 (toll free) E-mail to publIcAdvisciftpucA agw B you are writing a letter to the Public Advisor's Office, please include the name of the application to which you are referring. Allcomments will be circulated to the Commissioners, the assigned ALJ and the CPUC's M 7�riC Energy Division staff. NOTIFICATION OF APPLICATION FILING BY PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (PG&E) FOR APPROVAL TO RECOVER IN RATES THE COST OF THE SMARTMETER PROGRAM UPGRADE What is the SmartMeter Program Upgrade? The SmartMeter Program Upgrade is a proposed upgrade to Pacific Gas & Electric Company's (PG&E) Advanced Metering Infrastructure (otherwise known as "SmartMeter') program. PG&E believes that the upgrade will provide benefits to our customers and further the State's energy conservation policies. In Decision 06-07-027, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) approved PG&E's current SmartMeter Program, which is installing advanced meter technology to allow PG&E to remotely read customer meters and to record hourly electricity use and daily gas use. PG&E believes a few upgrades to its current SmartMeter Program are appropriate and timely. These recommended upgrades are consistent with the CPUC's desire to use advanced technology to enhance customer involvement in energy demand management and improve energy conservation throughout the state of California. What is this Application Filing about? On December 12, 2007, PG&E filed an application with the CPUC, requesting authority to recover approximately $623 million in electric rates to upgrade PG&E's SmartMeter Program. The upgrades consist of: • an integrated load limiting connect/disconnect switch; • a Home Area Network (HAN) gateway device to enable two-way communication of electricity data and prices with customer appliances and other devices; and • installing solid state meters that would support the previously -mentioned functionality PG&ES request is for future rate recovery through electric distribution rates, beginning January 1, 2009, and continuing for 15 years. In this application PG&E is requesting cost recovery for the full cost of the SmartMeter Upgrade Project from customers. Does this mean rates will increase? Yes. Electric distribution rates will increase as eady as January 1, 2009, for the SmartMeter Upgrade Project. The increase to electric distribution rates will increase charges for both bundled electric customers (customers who receive electric generation as well as transmission and distribution service from PG&E) and for customers that purchase electricity from other suppliers (e.g., direct access customers). If the CPUC approves PG&E's request, bills for bundled electric customers who use less than 130% of their baseline allowance would not increase. The bill for a typical bundled customer using 550 kWh per month would increase $0.26 from $71.92 to $72.18. The bill for a typical bundled customer using approximately twice the average baseline allowance, or 850 kWh per month, would increase $1.87 from $149.03 to $150.90 per month. Individual customers' bills may differ. PG&E will provide an illustrative allocation table of the increases among customer classes in its proposal in a bill insert to be mailed directly to customers beginning in January, 2008. THE CPUC PROCESS The CPUC's independent Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) will review this application filing, analyze the proposal and present an independent analysis and recommendations for the CPUC's consideration. Other parties may also participate. The CPUC may hold evidentiary hearings where the parties of record present their proposals in testimony and are subject to cross-examination before an Administrative Law Judge. These hearings are open to the public, but only those who are parties of record can present evidence or cross- examine witnesses during evidentiary hearings. After considering all proposals and evidence presented during the hearing process, the CPUC will issue a draft decision. When the CPUC acts on this application, it may adopt all or part of PG&E's request, amend or modify it, or deny the application. The CPUC's final decision may be different from PG&E's proposed application filing. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION For more details call PG&E at 1-800-743-5000 • Para mos detalles Ilame 1-800-660-6789 41'.11-YRII 1-800-893-9555 • For TDD/TTY(speech-hearing impaired) call 1-800-652-4712 You may contact the CPUC's Public Advisor with comments or questions as follows: Public Advisor's Office 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 2103 San Francisco, CA 94102 1-415-703-2074 or 1-866-849-8390 (toll free) TTY 1-415-703-52x2 or TTY 1-866-836-7825 (toll free) E-mail to public.advisor@cpuc.ca.gov If you are writing a letter to the Public Advisor's Office, please include the name and filing data of the application to which you are referring. All comments will be circulated to the Commissioners, the assigned Administrative taw Judge and the Energy Division staff. TO: STATE, COUNTY AND CITY OFFICIALS December 18, 2007 aEc 19100 SLO CITY CLERK NOTIFICATION OF JOINT APPLICATION FILING BY PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (PG&E), SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY AND SAN DIEGO GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (THE UTILITIES). COLLECTIVELY THIS FILING IS FOR APPROVAL OF COST ALLOCATION PROPOSAL FOR STATE -MANDATED GAS SOCIAL PROGRAMS. On December 11, 2007, Pacific Gas & Electric Company ("PG&E") together with Southern Califomia Gas Company and San Diego Gas and Electric Company ("the Utilities') filed a joint application with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) requesting that the CPUC approve a proposal to change the method used to allocate costs for state -mandated gas social programs What are stato-mandated gas social programs? State -mandated gas social programs are pubfic benefit programs where a substantial portion of the benefits of the program accrues to society rather than to a particular class of gas customers. The underlying pmmse is that Caltomia as a whole benefits from these programs ensuring that all of the state's residents have access to affordable energy through energy efficiency and environmentally friendly energy sources. The programs in this category include: • California Alternative Rates for Energy (CARE); • Law Income Energy Efficiency NEE); • Energy Efficiency (EE); • Research Development and Demonstration FOM; • Board of Equalization (BOE): • Self Generation Incentive Program (SGIP); and • California Solar Water Heating Efficiency Act of 2007. Why are the Utilities filing this application? The Utilities are filing this application to propose a method to more fairly allocate the costs of these programs to gas customer classes. Policymakers in California, including the Legislature, continue to use utility rates as a channel for funding a growing variety of social programs. Since the energy crisis of 2001, these programs have been one of the fastest growing components of utility rates. The new allocation method proposed by the Utilities in this application has the following benefits: • It improves the business environment in Califomia • it allocates program costs fairly and • it is straightforward to implement What Impact does this have on rates? If the CPUC approves the proposal, the change in costs of existing and future slate -mandated gas social programs will be allocated to PG&Fs gas customers differently. t the CPUC approves the proposal, a typical bundled residential PG&E gas customer (a customer who receives gas distribution and procurement services from PG&E) using 45 therms per month would see an increase in their average monthly bill of 0.4 percent or $0.22, from $62.77 to $62.99 per month. Individual customers' bills may differ. PG&E will provide an Ulustralm tahle of the changes in program cost allocation among customer classes, in its proposal in a bill insert to be mailed directly to its customers beginning in January, 2006. THE CPUC PROCESS The CPUC's independent Division of Ratopayer Advocates (D" will review this application filing, analyze the proposal and present an Independent analysis and recommendations for the CPUC's consideration Other parties may also participate. . The CPUC may hold evidentiary hearings where the parties of record present their proposals In testimony and are subject to cross-examination before an Administrative Law Judge. These hearings are open to the public, but only those who are parties of record can present evidence or cross-examine witnesses during evidentiary hearings. After considering all proposals and evidence presented during the hearing process, the CPUC will issue a draft decision. When the CPUC acts on this application, it may adopt all or part of PG&E's request, amend or modify it or deny the application. The CPUC's final decision may be different from PG&E's proposed application filing. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION For more details call PG&E at 1 -BOO -PGE -5000 • Para mos detalles (lame 1-600-660-6789 1.800-893-8555 • For TOOn TY(speech-hearing impaired) call 1-600-652.4712 You may also contact the CPUC's Public Advisor with comments or questions as follows: Public Advisor's Office 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 2103 San Francisco, CA 94102 1-415-703-2074 or 1-866-849-8390 (toll Ire@) TTY 1-415-703.5282. TTY 1-866-836-7525 (toll tree) E-mail to public.advisoHpepumca.gov It you are writing a letter to the Public Advisor's Office, please include the name and the filing date of the application to which you are referring. All comments will be circulated to the Commissioners, the assigned Administrative Law Judge and the Energy Division staff. TO: STATE, COUNTY AND CITY OFFICIALS December 18, 2001 , TO: STATE, COUNTY AND CITY OFFICIALS ' March, 21, 2007 PACIFIC GAS &.ELECTRIC COMPANY'S (PG&E) NOTIFICATION OF FILING OF APPLICATION REQUESTING APPROVAL OF GAS ACCORD IV SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Background of this filing: Since 1998, the "Gas Accord" market structure, approved by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), has set the rates, terms and conditions of service for PG&E's natural gas transmission and storage services. PG&E is scheduled to file a new rate case to reset Its gas transportation and storage rates effective January 1, 2008. The rates currently in effect were approved by the CPUC in December 2004, for a three-year term (2005-2007), under a previous all -party settlement known as "Gas Accord III." On March 1, 2007, PG&E and interested parties representing all segments of the natural gas industry in California (including the CPUC s independent Division of Ratepayer Advocates ORA)) reached an all -party settlement to be known as "Gas Accord IV." This new settlement, 't approved by the CPUC, will extend the Gas Accord III rates, with some modifications,for an additional three-year term from 2008-2010. Some rates will decline slightly, some will stay the same, and some will increase slightly. The impact of these changes on retail gas bills will be minimal, and is discussed further below. If approved by the CPUC, Gas Accord IV will continue to provide rate certainty and stability for PG&E's gas transmission and storage system. On March 15, 2007 PG&E.filed an Application requesting approval of the "Gas Accord IV" Settlement Agreement with the CPUC in PG&E's 2008 Gas Transmission and Storage Rate Case. Does this mean gas rates will increase? If approved, the Impacts to rates and bills will be minimal—rates for bundled residential gas customers, (customers who receive gas distribution and procurement services from PG&E), will Increase by. only 0.5 percent, and bundled small and large commercial gas rates will increase by only 0.6 percent A typical residential customer using 45 therms per month would see an average monthly gas bill increase of $0.33, from $61.89 to $62.22. For the largest industrial and electric generation customers, the Gas Accord IV rate changes are less than one cent per decatherm, reflecting less than a one-tenth of one percent change in their total gas cost. THE CPUC PROCESS The CPUC s independent Division of Ratepayer Advocates PRA) will review this application filing, analyze the proposal, and present an independent analysis and recommendations for the CPUC s consideration. Other parties may also participate. The CPUC may hold evidentiary hearings where the parties of record present their proposals in testimorry and are subject to cross-examination before an Administrative Law Judge. These hearings are open to the public, but only those who are parties of record can present evidence or cross-examine witnesses during evidentiary hearings. After considering all proposals and evidence presented during the hearing process, the CPUC will Issue a draft decision. When the CPUC acts on this application, ft. may adopt all or part of PG&E's request, amend or modify it, or deny. the application. The CPUC§ final decision may be different from PG&E's proposed application filing. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION For more details call PG&E at 800.743.5000 Para mes detalles Ilame 800.660.6789 " WI'MMa6'd 800.893.9555 For TDD/1TY(speech-hearing impaired) call 860.652.4712 You may also contact the CPUC's Public Advisor with comments or questions as follows: Public Advisor's Office 415.703.2074 or 866.849.8390 (toll free) 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 2103 TTY 415.703.5262, TTY 866.836.7825 (toll free) San Francisco, CA 94102 E-mail to public.advisor@cpuc.ea.gov If you are writing a letter to the Public Advisor's Office, please include the name of the application to which you are referring. All comments will be circulated to the Commissioners, the assigned Administrative Law Judge and the Energy Division staff. RECEIVED MAR 3 0 2001 SLO CITY CLERK TO: STATE, COUNTY AND CITY OFFICIALS RECEIVED May 11, 2007 18 2007 NOTIFICATION OF APPLICATION FILING BY SLO C C c". PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (PG&E) T' CLFRK FOR APPROVAL OF COST OF CAPITAL PROPOSAL (COC) . On May 0% 2007, PG&E filed an .application with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), in which PG&E asks for authority to increase its authorized COC for its electric and gas utility operations for test year 2008. If approved by the CPUC, PG&E's electric COC revenues would r increase bundled customer (a customer who receives electric generation as well as transmission and distribution services) rates by $32.4 million or 0.3 percent, and its gas COC revenues' would increase by $7.1 million, or 0.2 percent. In addition, PG&E proposes that the CPUC adopt an automatic adjustment mechanism called an Annual Cost of Capital Adjustment Mechanism (ACCAM). New to this proceeding, ACCAM would provide an adjustment mechanism (formula) for PG&E's authorized cost of capital based on changes in benchmark (standard) interest rates, in lieu of an annual COC proceeding for the period 2009 to 2013. This proposal is the result of a COC workshop where attendees that included CPUC staff, an Administrative Law Judge and a Commissioner, expressed interest in considering an alternative to filing a COC application each year. Cost of Capital is a financial term defining how much a corporation is allowed In rates as a return on its invested capital. In this proceeding, the Commission will determine PGB.E's reasonable costs of long-term debt, preferred stock and common stock that are part of the authorized COC. The authorized COC adopted in this application will be applied to capital investment authorized for PG&E. Summary of PG&E's Key Reasons for Its Cost of Capital Request • PG&E believes that approval of this request is necessary to attract capital to meet its obligations to serve its customers safely and efficiently. • PG&E believes that approval of PG&E's cost of capital proposals will assist the company in maintaining an investment-grade credit rating, thereby reducing overall financing costs and contributing to PG&E's ability to perform its traditional role of procuring power for its customers. • PG&E's authorized cost of capital determines the compensation foi those who invest in PG&E. • The ACCAM will remove the costs and burdens associated with an annual COC proceeding. Now Our Cost of Capital Request May Affect Revenues Collected as Rates from Customers If the CPUC approves PG&E's electric proposal, atypical bundled residential electric customer using 550 kWh per month would see an increase in their average monthly bili of 0.1 percent or $0.09, from $71.99 to $72.08 per month. A customer using 850 kWh per month (roughly twice baseline) would receive an increase of 0.4 percent or $0.61, from $149.55 to $150.16 per month. If the CPUC approves PG&E's proposal, the bill for a typical residential gas Customer using 45 therms per month would increase $0.11, or 0.2 percent, from $62.24 to $62.35.. Individual bills may differ. PG&E will provide an illustrative allocation of the proposed electric and gas 2008 rate increases among customer classes in a bill insert to be mailed to customers in May and early June. The CPUC Process The CPUC's independent Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRI) will review this application filing, analyze the proposal and present an independent analysis and recommendations for the CPUC's consideration. OtfiW.parties may also participate. The CPUC may hold• evidentiey hearings where the parties of record present their proposals in testimony and are subject to cross-examination before an Administrative Law Judge. These hearings are open to the public, but only those who are parties of record can present evidence or cross-examine witnesses during evidentiary hearings. After considering all proposals and evidence presented during the hearing process, the CPUC will issue a draft decision. When the CPUC acts on this application, It may adopt all or part of PG&E's request, amend or modify it or deny the application. The CPUC's final decision may be different from PG&E's proposed application filing. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION For more details tall PG&E at 800.7435000 Para mos detalles (lame 800.660.6789 • d$WAREFS 800.893.9555 For TDXM(speech-hearing impaired) call 800.652.4712 You may contact the CPUC's Public Advisor with comments or questions as follows: Public Advisor's Office 415-703-2074 or 866-849-8390 (toll free) 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 2103 TTY 415-703-5282 or TTY 866-836-7825 (toll free) San Francisco, CA 94102 E-mail to pubiic.advisor@cpuc.ca.gov If you are writing a letter to the Public Advisor's Office, please include the name of the application to which you are referring. All comments will be circulated to the Commissioners, the assigned Administrative Law Judge and the Energy Division staff. ' Revenue is the technical term used to describe the total amount of money customers pay In rates for the gas and electric service they receive. TO: STATE, COUNTY AND OFFICIALS CITY.. NOTIFICATION OF APPLICATION BY PG&E FOR ITS FORECAST 2008 ELECTRIC PROCUREMENT COSTS Each year, Pacific Gas and. Electric Company (PG&E) is required to file an application that forecasts in detail how much it will spend the following year to ensure adequate electricity supplies for its customers. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) carefully reviews the utility's forecast to ensure that customers are not charged more than it costs PG&E to provide electricity. The forecast costs approved by the CPUC are included in rates the following year. During that year the actual costs and revenues are tracked, and any difference is flowed to PG&E customers later. RECEIVED On June 1, 2007, PG&E submitted an application requesting that the CPUC adopt Its electric procurement cost forecast for 2008. PG&E's total forecast (that is, the expected costs of electricity JUN 1 1 1007 needed to serve its customers) is $3,500.1 million. PG&E requests that electric rates designed to recover this amount become effective on or after January 1, 2008. SLO CITY CLERK Does this mean electricity will cost me more? PG&E's request in this proceeding will increase rates. The total electric procurement forecast of $3,500.1 million for 2008 is $541.5 million higher than 2008 revenues would be at present rates. To recover the increase, rates for bundled customers (that is, customers who receive electric generation, as well as transmission and distribution, service from PG&E) will increase by il n ,: approximately $537.8 million, or 5.0 percent on average, and rates for direct access customers l l✓ (customers who purchase their electricity from a non-utility supplier) will increase by $1.2 million, or an average of 0.5 percent. In addition, PG&E expects to increase rates to departing load customers s (customers who receive electric generation from a non-utility supplier, as well as transmission and p g distribution service from a publicly -owned utility or municipality) by approximately $2.5 million. If the Commission approves PG&E's application, a typical residential customer using 560 kilowatt- hours per month will see the average monthly bill change from $74.26 to $75.46, an increase of $1.20 per month. A residential customer using approximately 850 kilowatt-hours per month, which is twice the baseline allowance, will see the average monthly bill change from $149.55 to $156.86, an increase of $7.31 per month. Individual bills may differ. PG&E expects that the rate changes associated with PG&E's 2008 electric procurement forecast will be consolidated with changes in other CPUC proceedings and incorporated into rates on or after January 1, 2008, so the eventual net change in rates for individual customers is difficult to predict. Detailed Information About PG&E's Application PG&E's total 2008 electric procurement cost forecast of $3,500.1 million consists of two types of costs. The first type is the costs of fuels used in producing electricity at PG&E's own power plants and the cost of buying electricity from non -PG&E generators at or below market rates, and these costs are recorded in an account approved by the CPUC called the Energy Resource Recovery Account. PG&E's forecast for this type of cost is $3,163.5 million. The second type is power procured under pre-existing contracts at prices that are now higher than market rates. This type of cost, tracked separately, is called an ongoing Competition Transition Charge and is allowed by the Electric Utility Industry Restructuring Act (Assembly Bill 1896). PG&E's forecast for this type of cost is $359.7 million. A related downward adjustment of $23.1 million brings the net total to $3,500.1 million. The CPUC Process The CPUC's independent Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) will review this application, analyze the proposal, and present an independent analysis and recommendations for the CPUC's consideration. Other parties will also participate. The CPUC may hold evidentiary hearings where parties of record present their proposals in testimony and are subject to cross-examination before an administrative law judge. These hearings are open to the public, but only those who are parties of record are allowed to present evidence or cross-examine witnesses during evidentiary hearings. After considering all proposals and evidence presented during the hearing process, the CPUC will issue a draft decision. When the CPUC acts on this application, it may adopt all or part of PG&E's request, amend or modify it, or deny the application. The CPUC's final decision may be different from PG&E's proposed application filing. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION For more details call PG&E ai 800.743.5000 Para mos detalles Ilame 800.660.6789 • WISA1I.4'M 800.893.9555 For TDD/TTY(speech-hearing impaired) call 800.652.4712 You may contact the CPUC's Public Advisor with comments or questions as follows: Public Advisor's Office 415-703-2074 or 866-849-8390 (toll free) 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 2103 TTY 415-703-5282 or TTY 866-836-7825 (toll free) San Francisco, CA 94102 E-mail to public.advisor®cpuc.ca.gov If you are writing a letter to the Public Advisor's Office, please include the name of the application to which you are referring. All comments will be circulated to the Commissioners, the assigned Administrative taw Judge and the Energy Division staff. TO: STATE, Cf" INTY AND CITY OFFICIALS , APRIL 12,200 RECENED NOTIFICATION OF APPLICATION FILING BY I PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY (PG&E) FOR I APPROVAL OF A 2008-2020 AIR CONDITIONING APR 1 g 2p�1 DIRECT LOAD CONTROL PROGRAM (THE SmartAC PROGRAM) Sip CITY CLLKI On April 6, 2007 PG&E filed an application with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), requesting approval of a 2008-2020 Air Conditioning Direct Load Control program (the SmartAC program}. The SmartAC program will reduce summer peak demands in PG&E's service territory by adjusting participating customers' air conditioning use during critical system conditions. Under SmartAC, participating customers with central air conditioning units will allow PG&E to install either a programmable communicating thermostat or air conditioning switch at their homes or offices. During system emergencies, PG&E will remotely signal the devices to reduce peak electrical demand. The CPUC previously approved a smaller air conditioning program for PG&E's service territory for summer 2007. In.this application, PG&E proposes to expand upon the 2007 air conditioning program eventually enlisting approximately 380,000 PG&E customers. This program will help PG&E reduce electrical demand when most needed and increase grid reliability without constructing new power plants or operating less efficient plants that already exist. This application requests approval to collect $362 million in rates over the life of the program from 2008-2020. This program will provide the following benefits to all PG&E electric distribution customers: • increased system reliability • insurance against outages during summer peak months • automatic load reductions for customers participating in the SmartRate program (The SmartRate program is the critical peak pricing program available to customers with an AMI meter currently being rolled out). • reduced air pollution Dees this mean electric rates will increase?Yes, there will be slight Increases for all customer classes. If the CPUC approves PG&E's proposal, a typical bundled residential electric customer (a customer who receives electric generation as well as transmission and distribution services) using 550 kWh per month would see an increase in their average monthly bill of 0.2 percent or $0.18, from $71.99 to $72.17 per month. Individual customers' bills may differ. PG&E will provide an illustrative allocation table of the increases among customer classes under its proposal in a bill insert to be mailed directly to its customers beginning in late April, early May. t ��•i14•IJ:i•Z•L�-'Z9 The CPUC's independent Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) will review this application filing, analyze the proposal, and present an independent analysis and recommendations for the CPUC's consideration: Other parties may also participate. The CPUC may hold evidentiary hearings where the parties of record present their proposals in testimony and are subject to cross-examination before an Administrative Law Judge. These hearings are open to the public, but only those who are parties of record can present evidence or cross examine witnesses during evidentiary hearings. After considering all proposals and evidence presented during the hearing process, the CPUC will issue a draft decision. When the CPUC acts on this application, it may adopt all or part of PG&E's request, amend or modify it, or deny the application. The CPUC's final decision may be different from PG&E's proposed application filing. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION For more details call PG&E at 600.743.5000 Para mos detalles Ilame 800.660.6789 • ar'I A1YY2Z 800.893.9555 For TDD/TTY(speech-hearing impaired) call 800.652.4712 You may also contact the CPUC's Public Advisor with comments or questions as follows: Public Advisor's Office 415.703.2074 or 866.849.8390 (toll free) 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 2103 TTY 415.7035282, TTY 866.836.7825 (toll free) San Francisco, CA 94102 E-mail to pubiic.advisor@cpuc.ca.gov If you are writing a letter.to the Public Advisor's Office, please include the name of the application to which you are referring. All comments will be circulated to the Commissioners, the assigned Administrative Law Judge and the Energy Division staff. <<^,TO: STATE, COUNTY, AND I d1 CITY OFFICIALS January 23, 2007 NOTICE OF APPLICATION FILING FOR APPROVAL FOR RECOVERY IN RATES OF COSTS FOR PG&E'S PROPOSED PILOT PROGRAM FOR WATER RELATED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MEASURES (A.07-01-026) In Compliance to an Assigned Commissioner Ruling (ACR) by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), PG&E has filed an Application for recovery in rates of costs for PG&E's proposed pilot program for water related energy efficiency measures. The Water Related Embedded Enemy Savings Pilot Program This filing is made in compliance with an Assigned Commissioner Ruling described in further detail below. The Application seeks approval of a one-year water -related embedded energy savings pilot program (pilot) that will target commercial, industrial and Institutional customers, and large facilities serving low income customers. The pilot will offer water related efficiency measures and determine which methods best quantity the energy saved as a result of the water efficiency. On January 16, 2107, Pacific Gas & Electric Company ("PG&E") filed the above referenced application with the CPUC. PG&E proposes to partner with Fast Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), and Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) to implement the pilot. The Application seeks approval of a $4.4 million budget for the one-year pilot. Background to the Filing of This Application On October 16, 2006, an Assigned Commissioner's Ruling (ACR) by the CPUC was approved in the ongoing Energy Efficiency Rulemaking (R.06-04-010). This ACR ordered PG&E to file an Application seeking approval of a one-year pilot program related to the embedded energy savings attainable through water efficiency. The ACR ordered that the California Investor Owned Utilities partner with water providers to design and implement the water -related embedded energy savings pilot program. The ACR directed that the Applications seeking approval of the pilot proposal be filed on January 15, 2007. Does this mean rates will increase? Yes. Rates will. increase a small amount beginning January 1, 2008 as a result of Commission approval of this program. Approximately $3.8 million will be added to electric rates, amounting to an average increase in electric rates of about 0.04 percent. Approximately $0.6 million of costs will be added to the Gas Public Purpose Program Surcharge, amounting to an increase in the average residential customer rate of 0.02 percent. The electric bill for a typical residential customer using 550 kWh per month would increase by one cent per month as a result of this request The electric bill for a customer using 750 kWh per month would increase by about four cents per month. Individual customers' bills may differ. THE CPUC PROCESS The CPUC's independent Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) will review this application filing, analyze the proposal, and present an independent analysis and recommendations for the CPUC's consideration. Other parties may also participate. The CPUC may hold evidentiary hearings where the parties of record present their proposals in testimony and are subject to cross-examination before an Administrative Law Judge. These hearings are open to the public, but only those who are parties of record can present evidence or cross-examine witnesses during evidentiary hearings. After considering all proposals and evidence presented during the hearing process, the CPUC will issue a draft decision. When the CPUC acts on this application, it may adopt all or part of PG&E's request, amend or modify it, or deny the application. The CPUC's final decision may be different from PG&E's proposed application filing. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION For more details call PG&E at 800.743.5000 Para mos detalles flame 800.660.6789 • &$'Ifa04RE 800.893.9555 For TDD/M(speech-hearing impaired) call 800.652.4712 You may also contact the CPUC's Public Advisor with comments or questions as follows: Public Advisor's Office 415.703.2074 or 866.849.8390 (toll free) 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 2103 TTY 415.703.5282, TTY 866.836.7825 (toll free) San Francisco, CA 94102 E-mail to public.advisordcpuc.ca.gov If you are writing a letter to the Public Advisor's Office, please include the application number (A. 07-01-026). All comments will be circulated to the Commissioners, the assigned Administrative Law Judge and the Energy Division staff. RECEIVED JAN 2 9 2007 SLO CITY CLERK TO: STATE, COUNTY, AND W `• l (— l CITY OFFICIALS RECEIVED August 21,2006 AUL, 2 8 2006 L0 `CITY CLERK NOTICE OF APPLICATION TO RECOVER COSTS INCURRED TO STUDY THE FEASIBILITY OF OBTAINING ELECTRIC POWER FROM BRITISH COLUMBIA GENERATED FROM RENEWABLE SOURCES OF POWER Under California law, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) is to procure a significant percentage of the electric power that it provides to its customers from renewable energy sources. PG&E is aggressively pursuing the procurement of renewables to meet this obligation. As part of this effort, PG&E is pursuing renewable projects from outside of California in addition to those within the state. One of the most promising sources of renewable power is from British Columbia, which has abundant renewable resources that are potentially available at reasonable cost. Therefore, PG&E has initiated a study of the feasibility of obtaining electric power generated from renewable sources of power in British Columbia. Detailed intonation about PG&E's Application: On August 9, 2006, PG&E filed an Application with the CPUC, requesting authorization to recover in electric rates up to $14 million in external consulting costs PG&E spends in studying the feasibility of obtaining electric power generated from renewable sources of power in British Columbia. How does this affect rates? PG&E requests authority to collect these costs in electric rates at a future time. If the CPUC approves PG&E's request, and PG&E spends $14 million in external consultant costs for this study, the average rate for a full-service PG&E customer will go up less than less than 2 tenths of one percent (0.02%), and would not pose a significant impact on rates. The CPUC Process: The CPUC's independent Division of Ratepayer Advocates. (DRA) will review this application, analyze the proposal, and present an independent analysis and recommendations for the CPUC's consideration. Other parties will also participate. PG&E has requested that the CPUC process PG&E's application without conducting hearings, based on the application and any responses to it submitted by others. However, the CPUC may hold evidentiary hearings where parties present their proposals in testimony and are subject to cross-examination before an Administrative Law Judge. These hearings are open to the public, but only those who are parties of record can present evidence or cross-examine witnesses during evidentiary hearings. After considering all proposals and evidence presented during the proceeding, the CPUC will issue a draft decision. When the CPUC acts on this application, it may adopt all or part of PG&E's request, amend or modify it, or deny the application. The CPUC's final decision may be different from PG&E's proposed application filing. IFOR FURTHER INFORMATION: You may contact the CPUC's Public Advisor with any comments you may have by writing to the CPUC or by sending an e-mail to the Public Advisors Office. Public Advisor's Office 415-703-2074 or 866-849-8390 (toll free) 505 Van Ness Avenue. Room 2103 TTY 415-703-5282, TTY 866-836-7825 (toll free) San Francisco, CA 94102 E-mail to public.advisor0cpuc.ca.gov If you are writing a letter to the Public Advisor's Office, please include the application number you are referring to. All comments will be circulated to the Commissioners, the assigned Administrative Law Judge and. the Energy Division staff, and the Division of Ratepayer Advocates for review. They will also become part of the.record in these proceedings. For more details call PG&E at 800.743.5000 Para mos information 600.660.6789 • P ME.VIR 800.298.8438 For MDT Y(speech-hearing impaired) call 800.552A712 TO: STATE, COUNTY AND CITY OFFICIALS August 7, 2006 RECEIVED AU6 14 2006 SLO CITY CLERK - - ", iit I VA , I r� NOTICE OF TWO APPLICATION FILINGS BY PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY: THE FIRST APPLICATION (06-08-004) FILING IS FOR APPROVAL FOR THE RECOVERY IN RATES OF ITS UNREVIEWED COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PLANNED DIVESTITURE OF ITS GENERATION ASSETS THE SECOND APPLICATION (06-06-034) FILING IS FOR APPROVAL OF PROGRAMS AND BUDGETS FOR 2007 AND 2008 CALIFORNIA LOW INCOME ENERGY EFFICIENCY (LIEE) AND CALIFORNIA ALTERNATE RATES FOR ENERGY (CARE) Legislation passed In 1987 required the Califamla Public Utilities Commission ('CPUC'to cmlaclste the value of all utillty-owned electric generation plants as part of the deregulation of the electricity market and the possible sale of utility electric plants to independent generators. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) incurred costa to assist the CPUC in making the calculations. Some of the costs were reviewed by the CPUC and approved in earlier proceedings. After the energy crisis of 2000.2001, the Legislature passed mother law that prevented utilities from selling any more generation plants until after 2005. Although PG&E no longer intends to sell any of its remaining electric generation plants, some of the costs that it incurred as part of the valuation process have not yet been reviewed or approved for recovery by the CPUC. The fest application filing noted above requests review and approval of thane remaining cesm Detailed InfonTnation about PG&E's Application On August 1, 2006. PG&E filed an Application with the CPUC, requesting review of and mrthadsatim to recover in rates $2.6 million in costs PG&E spent asasting fire CPUC in valuing PG&E§ elecMc generation plants. Most of.me costs requested here were spent on environmental assessments of PG&E's hydroelectric generation plants, Humboldt Bay Pourer Plant. and land associated with the Pit River hydroelectric plants. and the blearing of land rights for the sets of the Potrero Power Plant In San Francisco. How does this affect rates? PG&E requests review of the costs and authority to collect those costs In electric rates at a future time. 8 the CPUC approves POWs full request, plus interest from June 30, 2006 until the casts ore recovered, the average rate for a full-service PG&E customer will go up two ane -hundredths of one percent (0.02%), and would not pose a significant Impact on rates. NOTICE OF FILING OF APPLICATION 06-06-034 PG&E APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF PROGRAMS AND BUDGETS FOR 2007 AND 2008 CALIFORNIA LOW INCOME ENERGY EFFICIENCY (LIEE) AND CALIFORNIA ALTERNATE RATES FOR ENERGY (CARE) The CPUC ordered PG&E to file an AppBratim proposing programs and budgets for PO&Es 2007 arid 2068 low-br�rrue assistance programs -Le.. Cstf osis Alternate Raton fm Energy (CARE) and Lw Income Energy Efficiency (LIEE). On June 30, 2W6, PG&E Bled Application of Pacific Gas and Electric Comparry for Approval or the 2007 and 2008 California Alternate Rates for Energy and Low llama Energy Efficiency Pmgrans and Budget ('Application'). The LIEE program alters free weadiertrWm services, werg y efficient applimnoss and energy educ llm to qualifying low -i ncorrie customers The CME program provides a 20 percent discount on the PG&E bib of qualifying low-income customers. The Applicmion requests m annual LIEE budget of $80.7 million for 2007 and 2008. Forthe CARE gogrmq the Application requests an annual administrative budge of $7.7 million for 2007 and 2008. How does this affect rates? If this application Is approved, it would result In lose than one percent of PG&E's total annual revenue. The average Increase in electric rates would be 0.13 percent and the average incense in gas nates would be 0.10 percent The CPUC Process The CPUC's Independent Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) will review these applications. mayce the proposals, and present an independant analysis and remmmmdmiom for the CPUC's consideration. Ober posies will also participate. The CPUC may told evidentiary hearings where parties present their proposals in testimony and are subject to cross-examination before an Administrative Law Judge. These hearings are open to the public, but only thaw who are ponies of record can present evidence or cross-examine witnesses during evidentiary hearings. Atter considering all proposals and evidence presented during the hearing process, the CPUC will issue a draft decision fa each application. When the CPUC acts an these applications it may adopt all or part of PG&E's requests, amend or modify them, or deny the applications. The CPUC's final decls on for each application may be different from PG&E's proposed application filing. For further information You may contact the CPUC's Public Advisor with my comments you my have by writing to the CPUC or by sending an email to the Public Advisors office. Public Advisors Daae . 805 Van Now Avenue, Room 2103 San Francisco, CA 94102 415-703-2074 or 888-649.8390 (tog free) TTY 415-703-6262, TTY 9864696-7928 (tog free) E -mall to pu6lic.advlomOgmr-ca.gov If you bre writing a letter to the Public Advisor's Office, please include one application numbers you are referring to. Ali comments will be circulated to the Commissioners, the assigned Administrative Law Judge, the Energy Division staff, and the Division of Ratepayer Advocates for review. They will also become pan of the record in these Proceedings. For more details call PG&F sl 800.743.5000 Para mal Informlld-an 800.660.6789 • 18tRNNIII:800MILM8 For MI)r Y(speedMeadng impaired) call 800.562A712 TO: STATE, COUNTY, AND 4 CITY OFFICIALS November 179 2006 RECEIVED NOV 2 7 1006 SLO CITY CLERK i PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY NOTIFICATION OF APPLICATION FILING FOR RECOVERY OF CATASTROPHIC EVENT COSTS (CEMA) IN ELECTRIC RATES (A. 06=11-0055) What is CEMA and What Does It Dol CEMA stands for Catastrophic Event Memorandum Account. State law and the California Public Utilities Commission ("CPUC") allow public utilities to recover the incremental costs of: (1) restoring utility service to its customers; (2) repairing, replacing or restoring damaged utility facilities; and (3) complying with government agency orders resulting from declared disasters, as a result of catastrophic events. The CPUC also authorized utilities to record capital -related costs such as depreciation and return on capitalized plant additions resulting from the restoration activities. The CPUC provided that costs recorded in a utility's CEMA 'may be recovered in rates only after a request by the affected utility, a showing of their reasonableness, and approval by the CPUC." On November 13, 2006, Pacific Gas & Electric Company ("PG&E") filed the above referenced application with the CPUC, in which PG&E asks for authority to recover catastrophic event costs incurred in connection with two declared disasters, the 2005-2006 New Year's Storms and July 2006 Heat Storm. PG&E estimates that its electric revenues to cover these costs will increase by $44.58 million over a 3 year period beginning January 1, 2008. The largest portion of this increase will be collected in 2008 and is approximately $31.32 million, or about 0.3 percent. Background to the filing. of this Application: From late December 2005 through early January 2006, northern California was affected by a series of severe winter storms. The New Year's Storms and flooding damaged electric distribution facilities in most of PG&E's service divisions. In addition, hydroelectric facilities were severely damaged on five watersheds. From July 21 to 26, 2006, PG&E's service territory experienced extremely high temperatures throughout the days and evenings, driving high energy use by PG&E customers and causing a record high peak load in California history. A large number of PG&E distribution transformers failed in various locations of PG&E's service territory due the persistent high heat. In this application, PG&E seeks recovery of the CEMA-eligible costs associated with the 2005-2006 New Year's Storms and July. 2006 Heat Storm. Does this mean rates will increase? Yes. However, the increase in rates resulting from this application will not appear in rates until January 1, 2008, and will be collected in rates over three years. As stated above, the largest portion of this increase will be collected in 2008 and is approximately $31.32 million or about 0.3 percent. The CPUC Process The CPUC's independent Division of Ratepayer Advocates PRA) will review this application filing, analyze the proposal, and present an Independent analysis and recommendations for the CPUC's consideration. Other parties may also participate. The CPUC may hold evidentiary hearings where the parties of record present their proposals in testimony and are subject to cross-examination before an Administrative Law Judge. These hearings are open to the public, but only those who are parties of record can present evidence or cross-examine witnesses, during evidentiary hearings. After considering all proposals and evidence presented during the hearing process, the CPUC will issue a draft decision. When the CPUC acts on this application, it may adopt all or part of PG&E's request, amend or modify it, or deny the application. The CPUC's final decision may be different from PG&E's proposed application filing. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION For more details call PG&E at 800.743.5000 Para mos detalles [lame 800.660.6789 • 3I:'IIIIIR2 800.298.8438 For TDDITTY(speech-hearing impaired) call 800.552A712 You may also contact the CPUC's Public Advisor with comments or questions as follows: Public Advisor's Office 415-703-2074 or 866-849-8390 (toll free) 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 2103 TTY 415-703-5282, TTY 866-836.7825 (toll free) San Francisco, CA 94102 E-mail to public.advisor@cpue.ca.gov If you are writing a letter to the Public Adviser's' Office, please include the application number (A.06-11-005). All comments will be circulated to the Commissioners; the assigned Administrative Law Judge and the Energy Division staff. June 5, 2006 r. RECEIVED TO: STATE, COUNTY AND CITY OFFICIALS Zo h JUNE 1. 2 igh NOTICE OF APPLICATION FILING: L SLO CITY CLERK PG&E'S 2007 ENERGY RESOURCE RECOVERY ACCOUNT (ERRA) AND ONGOING COMPETITION TRANSITION CHARGE (CTC) FORECAST REVENUE REQUIREMENTS Each year, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) is required to file an application that forecasts in detail how much it will spend the following year to ensure adequate electricity supplies for its customers. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) carefully reviews the utility's forecast to ensure that customers ore not charged more than it costs PG&E to provide electricity. On June 1, 2006, PG&E submitted an application requesting that the CPUC adopt Its forecast of fuel and electricity purchase costs for 2007. PG&E's total electric procurement forecast (that is, the expected costs of electricity needed to some Its customers) is $3.157 billion. This forecast consists o1 $2.888 billion of power procurement costs (coat of fuel and electricity at or below market miss) and 5265 million of'unemnomic' power costs (such as power purchases under pre-existing contracts at prices that are now higher than market rates). These uneconomic power costs are recovered as an ongoing Competition Transition Charge (CTC) as allowed by the Electric Utility Industry Restructuring Act (Assembly Bill 1890). In Its application. PG&E also proposes that expected overcollections of electric procurement costs in 2006 be refunded to customers by reducing rates in 2007. Does this mean electricity will cwt me more? Even thcugn overall revenues from bundled customers (that is, customers who receive electric generation, as well as transmission and distribution, service from PG&E) will increase by approximately $218 million, some customers' bills will increase and others will decrease. This is because the reduction is allocated among customer Gasses differently. PG&E expects that the rate changes associated with PG&E's 2007 electric procurement forecast, as well as any accrued under or over -collection in related balancing accounts (an account established 10 record, for recovery through rates, certain authorized amounts and to ensure revenues match those amounts), will be consolidated with changes in other CPUC proceedings and incorporated into rates on January 1, 2007, so the eventual net change In rates for individual customers is difficult to predict. Detailed Irdorma0on About PG&E's Application In December 2002, the CPUC ordered PG&E to establish the Energy Resource Recovery Account (ERR4 In this account, PG&E is to record the cost of fuels used in producing electricity at its own power plants and the cost of buying electricity from non -PG&E generators. Each year the trtllity submits a forecast of upcoming costs and reports an the previous months' activities. In its 2007 ERRA application, PG&E proposes a 2007 ERRA revenue requirement for bundled customers of $2,888 million and an ongoing Competition Transition Charge revenue requirement for bundled, direct access (customers who purchase their electricity from.o non-utility supplier), and departing load customers (customers who receive electric generation, as well as transmission and distribution, service from a publicly -owned utility or municipality) of $269 million. This increases bundled ERRA revenue collection by approximately $291 million and reduces bundled, direct access, and departing load ongoing CTC revenue collection by approximately $85 million relative to present ERRA and ongoing CTC rates. PG&E is seeking to change total electric charges for bundled service customers. In addition, customers who purchase energy from non -PG&E suppliers (.e., direct access customers) will also am a change (a reduction) to their bill due to the reduction of the CTC rata (The reduction in CTC revenues across all direct access customers (approximately 511 million) Is currently largely offset by a corresponding Increase in the California Department of Water Resources (DWFg power portion of the Direct Access Cost Responsibility Surcharge, but may be affected by issues being addressed in separate proceedings before the Commission). Departing load customers will see a decrease to the CTC rate. If the Commission approves PG&E's application, a typical residential customer using 540 kWh per month will see the average monthly bill change from $69.31 to $69.68, an increase of $0.37 per month. A residential customer using twice their baseline allowance, approximately 840 kWh per month, will see the average monthly bill change from $143.10 to $146.03, an increase of $2.93 per month. Individual bills may differ. PG&E will provide a more illustrative allocation of the potential rate increases among customer classes under Its ERRA proposal in a bill insert to be mulled directly to customers later this month. The CPUC Process The CPUC's Independent Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA) will review this application, analyze the proposal and present an independent analysis and recommendations for the CPUC's consideration. Other parties will also participate. The CPUC may hold evidentiary hearings where parties present their proposals in testimony and are subject to cross-examination before an administrative law judge. These hearings are open to the Purls, but only those who are parties of record can present evidence or cross-examine witnesses dunng evidentiary hearings. Atter considering all proposals and evidence presented during the hearing process, the CPUC will issue a draft decision. When the CPUC acts on this application, it may adapt all or part of PG&E's request, amend or modify it, or deny the application. The CPUC's final decision may be different from PG&E's proposed application filing. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION You may contact the CPUC a Public Advisor with comments or questions as follows: Public Advisor a Office 415.703-2074 or 966-849-8390 (toll free) 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 2103 TTY 415.701-5292, TTY 868439-7825 (tali hoe) San Francisco, CA 94102 E-mail to publle.advisor®epue.ca.gov If you are wdWrg a letmrto the Public Advisors Office, please Include the name oldie opplpaorr. PG&.E'S 2007 Energy Resource Recovery Account (ERRA). All comments will be Circulated to the Commissioners, the assigned Administrative Law Judge and the Energy Division staff. For more details call PG&E at 800.743.5000 Para mss detalles Ilene 800.660.6789 • EI:IAAA428 800.298.8436 For TDDIITY(speech-hearing impaired) WI 800.552.4712 TO: STATE, COUNTY, AND CITY OFFICIALS April 14, 2006 R��E ED Q�K v. 11 t.Uilb CT� CLE NOTICE OF FILING OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELN^?RIC COMPANY'S (PG&E) APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL FOR RECOV . , ..:V RATES OF ITS COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH ITS LONG TERM REQUE ` :. iR OFFERS (LT RFO) AND NOTICE OF PG&E'S APPLICATION REQUESTING A BUDGET AUGMENTATION IN ITS CALIFORNIA ALTERNATE RATES FOR ENERGY (CARE) AND low INCOME ENERGY EFFICIENCY (LIEE) PROGRAMS What Is the LT RFO? The LT RFO Is a competitive solicitation process used by PG&E to acquire new generation resources to ensure reliable generation supply in Northam California. PG&E is requesting that the California Public Utilities Commission rci, ) approve the terms and conditions, including cost recovery, under which PG&E will commit to contracts for the construction of 2,250 Megawatts (MW) of new electrical generating facilities in Northern California. The contracts are comprised of 820 MW of utility owned generation, which includes a 163 MW electrical generating facility at Humboldt Bay, and 1,430 MW or power purchase agmemerds (PPAIC). If this application is approved, these cantracts will provide PG&E with the capability to some customers in PG&E's service territory. Detailed Information about PG&E's Application: On April 11, 2006, PG&E filed an Application with the CPUC, requesting authorization to recover in rates the revenue[i I niqu'eement associated with the pricurement of the 620 MW of new utility owned generation(21. This new utility owned generation will improve PG&ES ability to provide a reliable supply of electricity. This request assumes the facilities will be in operation by 201 D and excludes fuel costs. The recovery of costs in rates is expected to begin in 2010. How does this affect rates? PG&E requests an increase in electric rates for the cost of new utility owned generation. PG&E's proposal In this pmeoding would also allocate the costs and benefits of new utility owned generation to all customers that benefit from PG&E's investment(3I. Accordingly, bundled (customers who receive electric generation ne well w transmission and distribution service's) and direct access (customers who purchase energy from non -PG&E suppliers) charges would increase. Other custamers(41 may also be obligated to pay a portion of these costs. PG&E estimates that the requested $179 million increase in eimb revenues(5) associated with the 820 MW of new utility generation would be distributed in the merrier illsstrated in a bill insert to be mailed to customers later this month. The actual distribution of the increase to each customer class depends on how the CPUC ultimately decides all issues in this proceeding. By current law, rates for bundled electric customers who use less than 130% a1 their baseline allowance will not increase. If the CPUC approves PG&E's request for an electric rate increase. the bill for a typical residential bundled customer using 540kWh par month would inoeose $0.26 from $68.02 to $68.28. The average usage for customers using roughly twice their baseline allowance is 940 kWh. The bill for this typical bundled customer would Increase $2.60 from $140.98 to $143.58 per month. Individual customers' bilis may differ. PG&E'S NOTICE OF APPLICATION REQUESTING A BUDGET AUGMENTATION IN ITS CARE AND LIEE PROGRAMS In response to the anticipated high gas prices for the winter of 2005-2006. PG&E worked aggressively to provide energy cost savings to Its customers. Expanded programs were authorized by the California Public Utilities Commission In October 2005 in the Wiener Initiatives Decision (D.05-10-044). PG&E's budget for low Income programs in 2006 was authorized In December (D.05-12-026). In that decision, the CPUC recognized that the expended programs directed in the Winter Initiatives decision would have increased costs for utilities and ordered PG&E to file a budget augmentation request with the CPUC in April. On or about April 14, 2006, PG&E filed a budget augmentation request for approximately $21 million In 2006 ($21 million Is less than two-tenths of a percent of PG&E's total annual revenues, and would have a negligible erect on renes). What if 1 want more information about this application or have comments or conceme? In addition to the detailed explanation below, you may contact the CPUC's Public Advisor as follows: All comments will be circulated to the Commissioners, the assigned administrative law judge and Energy Division staff and will become part of the formal co ispandencia eocwd for this proceeding. Please mention the name of the application about which you are inquiring. THE CPUC PROCESS The CPUC's Independent Division of Ratepayer Advoratos (DRA) will review these applications, analyze the pmposals, and present an Independent analysis and recommendations for the CPUC's considemtion. Otho parties will also participate. The CPUC may told evidentiary hearings where parties present their Proposals in testimony and are subject to cross-examination before an administrative law judge. These hearings off open to the public, but only those wishing to present evidence or cross-examine witnesses may participate. After considering all proposals andmvidence presented during the hearing process, the CPUC will issue a decision in each application. When the CPUC acts an these appllcations, it may adopt all w part at PG&E's requests, amend or modify them, or deny the applications. The CPUC's final decision In each application may be different from PG&E's proposals. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION To obtain information from PG&E, write to: Pacific Gat and Electric Company, 20D6 Lang Tenn Request For Offers or CARE/UEE Programs budget applications, P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, CA 94120. Customers may review a copy of any of PG&E's applications at its corporate headquarters (77 Beale Street, Room 3120, San Francisco, CA 94105), any of its division off Ices, or at the San Francisco office of the CPUC (505 Van Ness, San Francisco, CA 94102). Mention the name of the application about which you are inquiring. Pere infmnmd6n an Espeflol sobm este soficitudt par laves, ascribe a Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 2006 Long Term Request for ONers/CAREMEE Applications, P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, CA 94720. III rWwhwu the admits arm used to describe the tow amaunl of mMey Cuabmea pay h nm lar Ne MM, aer,M, IleyrarJha. pl Ther awllcatlon abs mqueala appmvw Mee Lasa Mw at Power Purchue Apmmenu (PPAR. PG&E wa naueal wouwy in ram M Ile cseta aseadaed with to CPUC appmvea PPM in a CH arms proceeding eMlaaa PGAE'o Energy Reentrant Recovery MiouM (FARM Pomedug. PI wait mepacl m IM 1.490 MW of PPM. PG&Eb elorstian at costo and bere0u of pu chase power agrsemeMa to all aoWnhwa MCI beree tram these Iona Iwm ca,nfton e. P nuaM to its Pmpoeal. will its noticed In P E% Energy Rnoueee Recovery Account (EARA) Pmceemng. Ise ober coslomm IncWde colmmuMy Cannot As~" (CCA) Cwtarws, cuworner Gwerawn aeperty Loed fccnoW, MuNeiptl 0eparting Loud atOU ware m. dry Area Rapid Tones MARr). and oMM wM an boated Or Cattle within Ih deelhuelon service termor, Of an Imseler Morena inti, IOU bel Cab Mroce ham a local Manor owned Maly (as defined In Public Utatm Cdde Section gg"d) Iebsequenl to Its con mnbnent Mte b new gernnum 131 TM pmlectw nw.snu t Inuaue nauhnea a fu e t gas prm, and b subject to Change as an obis dmlge. Aero. Na IMing Of m W=r b depmaent M when Cansinx non le Complete and IM new utility owned pnvwon he aperetbner. 415.7032074 The Public Advisor 1.666.849.6390 Doll Ime) California Public Utilities Commission TW 415.703.5282 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 2103 TYY toll free 1.666.836.7825 San Francisco, CA 94102 Public.advisor®cpuc.ca.gm All comments will be circulated to the Commissioners, the assigned administrative law judge and Energy Division staff and will become part of the formal co ispandencia eocwd for this proceeding. Please mention the name of the application about which you are inquiring. THE CPUC PROCESS The CPUC's Independent Division of Ratepayer Advoratos (DRA) will review these applications, analyze the pmposals, and present an Independent analysis and recommendations for the CPUC's considemtion. Otho parties will also participate. The CPUC may told evidentiary hearings where parties present their Proposals in testimony and are subject to cross-examination before an administrative law judge. These hearings off open to the public, but only those wishing to present evidence or cross-examine witnesses may participate. After considering all proposals andmvidence presented during the hearing process, the CPUC will issue a decision in each application. When the CPUC acts an these appllcations, it may adopt all w part at PG&E's requests, amend or modify them, or deny the applications. The CPUC's final decision In each application may be different from PG&E's proposals. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION To obtain information from PG&E, write to: Pacific Gat and Electric Company, 20D6 Lang Tenn Request For Offers or CARE/UEE Programs budget applications, P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, CA 94120. Customers may review a copy of any of PG&E's applications at its corporate headquarters (77 Beale Street, Room 3120, San Francisco, CA 94105), any of its division off Ices, or at the San Francisco office of the CPUC (505 Van Ness, San Francisco, CA 94102). Mention the name of the application about which you are inquiring. Pere infmnmd6n an Espeflol sobm este soficitudt par laves, ascribe a Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 2006 Long Term Request for ONers/CAREMEE Applications, P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, CA 94720. III rWwhwu the admits arm used to describe the tow amaunl of mMey Cuabmea pay h nm lar Ne MM, aer,M, IleyrarJha. pl Ther awllcatlon abs mqueala appmvw Mee Lasa Mw at Power Purchue Apmmenu (PPAR. PG&E wa naueal wouwy in ram M Ile cseta aseadaed with to CPUC appmvea PPM in a CH arms proceeding eMlaaa PGAE'o Energy Reentrant Recovery MiouM (FARM Pomedug. PI wait mepacl m IM 1.490 MW of PPM. PG&Eb elorstian at costo and bere0u of pu chase power agrsemeMa to all aoWnhwa MCI beree tram these Iona Iwm ca,nfton e. P nuaM to its Pmpoeal. will its noticed In P E% Energy Rnoueee Recovery Account (EARA) Pmceemng. Ise ober coslomm IncWde colmmuMy Cannot As~" (CCA) Cwtarws, cuworner Gwerawn aeperty Loed fccnoW, MuNeiptl 0eparting Loud atOU ware m. dry Area Rapid Tones MARr). and oMM wM an boated Or Cattle within Ih deelhuelon service termor, Of an Imseler Morena inti, IOU bel Cab Mroce ham a local Manor owned Maly (as defined In Public Utatm Cdde Section gg"d) Iebsequenl to Its con mnbnent Mte b new gernnum 131 TM pmlectw nw.snu t Inuaue nauhnea a fu e t gas prm, and b subject to Change as an obis dmlge. Aero. Na IMing Of m W=r b depmaent M when Cansinx non le Complete and IM new utility owned pnvwon he aperetbner. MARCH 9, 2006 TO: STATE, COUNTY AND CITY OFFICIALS NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION HEARINGS REGARDING PHASE I AND PHASE II OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY'S (PG&E) 2007 GENERAL RATE CASE AND NOTIFICATION OF FILING OF PHASE 11 OF PG&E'S 2007 GENERAL RATE CASE on December 2, 2005, Pack Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) filed Phase I of its 2007 General Rate Case (GRC), Application 05-12-002. with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). In the Phase I Application, PG&E is asking the CPUC to increase the revenues PG&E is allowed to collect tram ratepayers to provide gas and electric smite. On Mardi 2, 2006, PG&E filed Phase II of its 2007 GRC, Application No. 08-03-005. In the Phase II Application, PG&E is asking the CPUC to allocate (set apart) its authorized revenue among different customer classes and to design electric rates for these classes. (Gas rate design will be the subject of a separate filing.) ELECTRIC RATES COULD CHANGE As described in an earlier customer bill insert for the Phase I Application, PG&E is requesting a total annual revenue increase of S849 million for 2007, or 6.3 percent over the levels authorized for 2005. This consists of an increase tri rates for electric service of $699 million, or 7.0 percent, and an increase in rates for gas service of $150 million, or 4.4 percent. PG&E is also requesting increases of $153 million in 2008 and 5209 million in 2009 for electric smite and at 533 million in 2008 and $34 million in 2009 for gas service. These amounts may change, and what the CPUC decides may differ tram PG&E's request. PG&E is also requesting approval for :he following proposals: - • performance standards relating :o customer service, which could result in revenue increases or decreases of up to S60 million, depending an PG&E's performance: • a mechanism that shares with customers a portion of PG&E's earnings that exceed or fall short of authorized earning levels by a significant amount: and • closure of all of PG&E's 84 company -operated payment centers in June 2007. Under the GRC the CPUC is reviewing PG&E's costs, and necessary revenues for providing gas and electric smite, as well as how the casts and revenues will be allocated among various customer classes. The CPUC will also consider a major portion of PG&E's costs such as operation and maintenance expenses (excluding PG&E's cost of buying fuel !or its power plants and to buy electrcfty an behalf of its customers), as well as depreciation expenses, taxes and realm on invested capital. ESTIMATED IMPACT OF PG&E'S PHASE 11 REQUEST ON ELECTRIC RATES In the Phase II Application, PG&E is seeking CPUC authority to change electric rates for all customer classes. PG&E makes :his request to better align current electric rotes with the current costs of seting its various customer claves. PG&E proposes decreases for some customers and increases for other customers, with such rate changes to take effect by mid -2007. The actual distribution of increase or decrease to each customer class depends on how the CPUC ultimately decides all the issues in Phase II. PG&E's Phase II Application also proposes to streamline rates as much as possible to make them easier to understand. By law, rates for bundled electric residential customers who use less than 130 percent of thew baseline allowance will not increase. If the CPUC approves PG&E's request in as Phase II application. the bill far a typical bundled residential customer using 543 kWh per month (or approximately 170 kWh above the baseline allowance) would increase $1.84, from 567.02 to $69.46. The bill for a typical bundled service residential customer using approximately twice the average baseline allowance, or 840 kWh per month, would increase 59.52, from $137.39 to $146.91. Individual customers' bills may differ. PG&E will provide a more illustrative allocation of the potential rate increases among customer classes under Its GRC Phase II proposal in a bill insert to be mailed directly to customers later this month. Stat of the CPUC's Public Advumes Office will be at all hearings to assist you. If you would like more advice on how to participate at Mese hearings, or if you would like to submit written comments about PG&E's 2007 GRC Phase I and Phase II applications, please call or write to: The Public Advisor 415.7072074 California Public Utilities C OMMISSIM May 4, 2006 505 Van Ness Avenue Room 2103 1.866449.3390 (toll tree) San Francisco, CA 94102 T 4117033282 Or via a mail to: public.advisorCepuc.cagov Try "f toll tree 1.511141.836.7825 You cart obtain more information about these applications from PG&E by writing to: Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 2007 General Rate Case Application, P.O. Box 7442. San Francisco, CA 94120. You may review a copy of PG&E's GRC applications at PG&E's corporate headquarters (77 Beale Street, Room 3120. San Francisco, CA 94105. any of PG&E division offices, or at the San Francisco office of the CPUC (505 Van Ness Avenue. San Francisco, CA 94102). Mention the GRC Phase I Application No. 05-12-002 and Phase II Applicatian No. 06-03-005. In addition, you may get electronic access to GRC documents an PG&E's web site at httpz//www.pgo.com, than click 'Rates and Regulations" button on the top right of the page, then *CPUC and FERC Regulatory Cases' below. Pam informacdn an Espadal sabre esm selicitud, par favor, escriba a PG&E info: Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 2007 General Rate Case Application, All. Box 7442, San Francisca, CA 94120 'Attention: 2007 General Rare Case.' PUBLIC PARTICIPATION HEARINGS The CPUC will be holding a series of Public Participation Hearings (PPHs) commencing in April 26, 2006 at various locations within PG&Es service territory. The dates, locations and times Of the PPHs are listed below. Consumer services representatives from PG&E and Consumer Affairs Representatives from the CPUC will be present at each site to assist with individual customer billing and smite totems. These hearings will also be your opportunity to express your views to the CPUC on both Phases I and II of PG&E's 2007 GRC. Additionally, the CPUC would like to hoar from consumers regarding PG&E's proposed request to close all 84 of their company-ooemted payment center. in June 2007. Customers provided comments on the proposed closure of the payment centers to PG&E and the CPUC Public Advisor's Office from September 1 to October 15, 2005. Customers may continue to address their concerns and comments at the PPHs or by contacting the Public Advisor's office by calling, sending letters or e-mails as part of this GRC proceeding. The PPHs will be facilitated by the assigned Administrative Law Judge with oral comments acceptod from the public. Public comments taken from the PPHs will be considered by the CPUC and included as part of the formal record in the GRC proceeding. The following locations are all accessible to those in wheelchairs. If you need to have interpreters for language or for the hard of hearing, please contact the CPUC's Public Advisor's Office at the address below at least 5 days in advance of the hearing date. BAY AREA SAN LUIS OBISPO April 26, 2006 May 4, 2006 2:00 p.m. & 7:00 p.m. 2:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. Localtoro Elihu Harris Stats. Location: San Luis Obispo Building Auditorium Veterans Bldg., Veterans Mahn 1515 Clay Street, 1st Floor Hall, Right Wing Oakland. CA 94612 801 Grand Ave.. Santa Rasa, CA 954M San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 UKIAH May 17, 2006 April 27, 2006 MODESTO 2:00 P.M. May 9, 2006 Location: Ukiah Valley 2:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. Conference Center, Loeatiom Modesto Centre Room Cabernet 1 Plaza, Pistache Room 200 South School Street 1010 10th Street Ukiah. CA 95482 Modesto, CA 95354 SANTA ROSA FRESNO April 27, 2006 May 10, 2006 7:30 p.m. 2:00 p.m, and 7:00 p.m. . Location: Steele Lane Location: Fresno City Hall, Community Center, Council Chambers DeMeo Room 2600 Fresno Street 415 Steele Lane Fresno, CA 93721 Santa Rasa, CA 954M WOODLAND KING CITY May 17, 2006 May 3, 2006 2:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. 2:00 p.m. Location: Woodland Location: King City Branch Public Library, Library, Meeting Room Leake Community Room 402 Broadway Street 250 First Street King City, CA 93930 Woodland. CA 95695 SALINAS CHICO May 3, 2006 May 18, 2006 7:30 p.m. 2:00 p.m, and 7:00 p.m. Location: Laurel Inn & Location: University of Conference Center Phoenix. Roam 106 801 West Laurel Drive 500 Orient Saeet Salinas, CA 93906 Chico, CA 95928 TO: STATE,COUNTY, AND CITY OFFICIALS January 30, 2006 7RECEIV-ED 1006 CLERK %CIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY'S (P NOTICE OF FILING OF OPTIONAL CLIMATE PROTECTIL. . ROGRAM What Is The Optional Climate Protection Program Appficatton? This application is a request to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to approve a new, optional Climate Protection program. This Innovative three-year demonstration pmgmm Is voluntary and provides an option for PG&E customers to help fund erMmnrnentel projects designed to remove greenhouse gas emissions. Customers who choose to participate would add a separate monthly premium to their gas and electric rates to fund this program. Those premiums would then be used to support independent projects that remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. Because carbon dioxide (CO2) is a common greenhouse gas, and trees naturally remove these harmful emissions from the air, the customers' funds would be initially invested in forest conservation and maturation projects. The program is designed to expand in the future to support additional types of greenhouse gas reduction projects, beyond forest conservation and restoration, as well. This application was filed on January 24, 2006. Although the energy delivered by PG&E is already among the cleanest of any large utility in the nation, PG&E is proposing this Climate Protection Program to give its customers the opportunity to help address global climate change. The Climate Protection Program supplements PG&E's existing climate change efforts, including increasing renewable power sources and expanding energy efficiency. All of the Climate Protection program premiums contributed by participating customers will be spend entirely an greenhouse gas reduction projects in California. The program projects, which will initially focus on forest restoration and conservation, will benefit everyone in our state by restoring California's forests, streams, rivers and the natural habitats that animals and birds need to live in - in addition to sealing greenhouse gas reductions to address climate change. The Climate Protection program's environmental projects will be selected through competitive bidding, using stringent evaluation criteria developed by and performed through an Independent, non-profd organizatton—the legislativery-created California Climate Action Registry. An Extemal Advisory Group consisting of knowledgeable representatives from a wide range of community groups, businesses, and non-profit conservation agencies among others will guide this PG&E program to help ensure its success. Not only will Climate Protection program accounts be carefully reviewed by independent auditors, PG&E will rogufady report program results to the CPUC, the External Advisory Group, and all enrolled Climate Protection program customers Based on an anticipated overall four to five percent customer onmilment over the three -yaw demonstration Pmject, the Climate Protection program Is expected to raise approximately $20 million to fund projects that will result in the cumulative reduction of approximately two ntillion tons of CO2. This is the equivalent to taking at least 350,000 cera off the road for an entire yam. Optional Climate Protection Program Premium and Costs Participation In the Climate Protection program will be entirely voluntary for PG&E's residential and nonyesidemial electric and natural gas customers. The typical residential customer using bah gas and electricity who chooses to enroll would pay a premium Of approximately $4.31 a month, adding only about 3.0 Percent to the average gas and electric bill. The actual residential customer premium will be charged based on the amount of energy you use, at approximately $0.00254 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) for electricity and $0.06528 per therm for natural gas The premium is based on the greenhouse gas content of PG&E's electric power mix and of the delivery and use of natural got It is also hosed on a forecast of the cost of greenhouse gas emission reduction projects for 2007 through 2009. Request for Funis for Climate Protection Program's Admin shrottve and Mo. ketng Costs In this application, PG&E also requests authority to collect In gas and electric distribution rates the Climate Protection program's administrative and marketing casts totaling $16.4 million over four years - the initial startup yew and the three-year demonstration period. If the CPUC approves PG&E's request, bilis for residential bundled electric customars who use less than 130% of their baseline allowance would not increase. The bili for a typical residential electric customer using 540kWh (kilowatt hours) per month would Increase $0.01, or 0.01 percent, from $67.64 to $67.65. A residential gas customer using 45 themes of gas par month will see an average monthly gas bill increase of $0.03, or 0.04%, from $76.04 to $76.07. While Individual bills may differ, the $0.04 combined bill Increase represents a 0.03 percent increase In the average gas and electric customers' combined monthly bill. Actual gas Procurement costs change monthly and reflect the current market price for gas. What If I ward more Information about tids application or have comments or concerns? In addition to the detailed explanation below, you may contact the CPUC's Public Advisor with comments or questions as follows: The Public Advisor 415.703.2074 California Public Utilities CommisJon 1.883.849.839C (toll fres) 505 Van Nee Avenue, Room 2103 TYY 415.703.5262 Ser' Francisco. CA 84102 TYY loll free 1.866.836.7825 Public-adVisor0cpuc.ca.gov Please refer to PG&E's Climate Protection Program application. All commerce will be circulated to the Commissioners, the assigned Administrative Low Judge and Energy Division staff and will become Pan of the formal correspondence record for the proceeding. THE CPUC PROCESS The CP=B Independent Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRO) will review this application, analyze the proposal, and present an independent analysis and recommendations for the CPUC's consideration. Other parties will also participate. The CPUC may hold evidentiary hearings where parties present their own proposes In testimony and are subject to cross-examination before an Administrative Law Judge. These hearings are open to the public, but only those wishing to present evidence or cross-examine witnesses may participate. Attar considering all proposals and evidence presented during the hearing process, the CPUC will issue a decision. When the CPUC acts on this application, It may adopt all or part of PG&E's request, amend or modify I% or deny the application. The CPUC's final decision may be different from PG&E's proposal. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION To obtain information from PG&E, write to. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Climate Protection Program, P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, CA 94120. Customers may review a copy of any of PG&E's applications at Its corporate headquarters (77 Beale Street, Room 3120, San Francisca, CA 94105), any of its division offices, or at the San Froncisco office of the CPUC (505 Van Ness, San Francisco, CA 94102). Mention the name Of the application about which you we inquiring. Pam informeel6n an Espanol sobm Asta solicited, por favor, ascribe a Pacific Gas and Electric Company, timate Protection Program, P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, CA 94120 December 22, 2005 TO: STATE, COUNTY AND CITY OFFICIALS RECEIVED DEC 7 2005 SLO CITY CLERK f" 1,)�c I - 0 �)- NOTICE OF FILING OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY'S (PG&E) PENSION CONTRIBUTION APPLICATION Why is PG&E filing this Application? On December 20, 2005, PG&E filed an application asking the California Public Utilities Commission to increase the revenue for PG&E to distribute gas and electricity and to generate electricity. The increased revenue will be used to make a contribution to PG&E's Retirement Plan trust, commonly referred to as a pension contribution. As a result of Decision No. 05-12-046, this increase will be collected in rates beginning January 1, 2006, subject to refund depending on the outcome of this application. Pension contributions in 2007 and later are being addressed in PG&E's 2007 General Rate Case, Application No. 05-12-002. PG&E is requesting an increase of $155 million In this application, PG&E is requesting a total revenue increase in 2006 of $155 million, or 1.2 percent, over the 2005 authorized level of $13.46 billion. This total consists of (1) an increase for electric service of $111.7 million, or 1.1 percent, over the 2005 authorized level of $10.02 billion, and (2) an increase for gas service of $43.3 million, or 1.3 percent, over the 2005 authorized level of $3.44 billion. According to PG&E, the funded status of PG&E's Retirement Plan trust has slipped below 100 percent and is moving lower. The reason why PG&E is asking for the total increase of $155 million in 2006 is to take the first step toward bringing the funded status back up to 100 percent. PG&E projects that if the same contributions are approved and made in the years 2007 through 2009, then the funded status will be 100 percent at the beginning 2010. By law, rates for bundled electric residential customers who use less than 130% of their baseline allowance will not increase. If the CPUC approves PG&E's request for an electric increase, the bill for a typical bundled service residential customer using 540 kWh per month in 2006 would increase $0.20 from $66.17 to $66.37, based on 2005 rates currently in effect. The bill for a typical bundled service residential customer using approximately twice the average baseline allowance, 840 kWh per month, would increase $1.93 from $122.63 to $124.56. Individual customer bills may differ. If the CPUC approves PG&E's request for a gas rate increase, the bill for a typical residential customer using 45 therms per month would increase $0.67, from $51.01 to $51.68. Individual customer bills may differ. PG&E will provide a more illustrative allocation of the potential rate increases among customer classes under its proposal in a bill insert to be mailed directly to customers in January 2006. What if 1 want more information about this application or have comments or concerns? In addition to the detailed explanation below, you may contact the CPUC's Public Advisor with comments or questions as follows: The Public Advisor 415:703.2074 California Public Utilities Commission 1.866.849.8390 (tall free) 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 2103 TYY 415.703.5282 San Francisco, CA 94102 TYY toll free 1.866.836.7825 Public.advisor@cpuc.ca.gov Please refer to PG&E's Pension Application in your letter. All comments will be circulated to the Commissioners, the assigned Administrative Law Judge and Energy Division staff and will become part of the formal correspondence record for the proceeding. THE CPUC PROCESS The CPUC's Independent Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) will review this application, analyze the proposal, and present an independent analysis and recommendations for the CPUC's consideration. Other parties will also participate. The CPUC may hold evidentiary hearings where parties present their proposals in testimony and are subject to cross-examination before an administrative law judge. These hearings are open to the public, but only those wishing to present evidence or cross-examine witnesses may participate. After considering all proposals and evidence presented during the hearing process, the CPUC will issue a decision. When the CPUC ads on this application, it may adopt all or part of PG&E's request, amend or modify it, or deny the application. The CPUC's final decision may be different from PG&E's proposal. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION To obtain information from PG&E, write to: Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Pension Application, P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, CA 94120. Customers may review a copy of any of PG&E's applications at its corporate headquarters (77 Beale Street, Room 3120, San Francisco, CA 94105), any of its division offices, or at the San Francisco office of the CPUC (505 Van Ness, San Francisco, CA 94102). Mention the name of the application about which you are inquiring. Para information an Espanol sobre osta solicitud, por favor, escriba a Pacific Gas and Electric Company: P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, CA 94120,"Attention: Pension Application." December 9, 2005 TO: STATE, COUNTY AND CITY OFFICIALS RECEIVED DEC 13 2005 SLO CITY CLERK NOTICE OF PACIFIC GAS AND F 'rRIC COMPANY S 2007 GENERAL RATE CASE (GRC 1UCAT10N FILING WHAT IS A GRC? GRC stands for General Rate Case. Every three years. investor owned utilities such as Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) are required to file a GRC in which the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) sets annual revenue levels. Annual revenue is the tons amount of money a utility collects through rates in a given year. On December 2, 2005, PG&E filed an application asking the CPUC to increase the revenue that PG&E uses to dismbuts gas and slecmcity and to generate electricity. In a second phase of the GRC, to be filed in March 2006, the CPUC will consider the design of electric rates, meaning the level of prices charged to customers for electric service. Cas. rate design will be the subject of a separate application flung. PG&E REQUESTS A TOTAL INCREASE OF $649 MILLION FOR GAS AND ELECTRIC SERVICE PG&E is requesting a tatal annual revenue increwo in 2007 of $849 million, or 6.3 Percent over the currently authorized level of $13.46 billion. This increase consists of the fallowing: • An increase in rates for electric service in 20(77 by $699 million, or 7.0 percent over the ch mw* aufheimd Iwel of $10.02 billion. This increase is made up of two elemanac Cl) the cast of delivering electricity to PG&E customers ($577 million); and (2) the cost of operating PG&E's power plants ($122 million). This increase does not include the cost at alectrlclty, procured for PG&E cu5omers. • An increase in rates for gas service in 2007 by $150 million, or 4.4 percent, wer the currently authorized level of $3.44 billion. This Increase does not include the cost of gas procured for PG&E cpsromera PG&E is also requesting approval for the following proposals • Further Increases of $153 million in 2008 and $209 million in 2009 for electric service and of $33 million in 2008 aha $34 million in 2009 for gas service, to cover increasing costs due to plant investment and inflation. • Performance standards relating to customer service Which could result in revenue lncreaaes or decreases of up to $60 million, depending upon PG&E's performance. • A mechanism that shores with customers o portion of PG&E's earnings that exceed or fall short of authorized earning level^ by a significant amount. In November 2005, the CPUC approved attrition incrowco effective January 1, 2006, in the artmrrms of $131 million tar electric service and $36 million for gas service. Accordingly. PG&E's requested revenue increases set forth in this application result in an increase of $560 million (5.6 parcem) for electric service and $114 million (3.3 percent) for gas service, for an overall increase of $682 million (5.0 percent) over 2005 revenues, as adjusted to reflect the 2006 attrition increases. PG&E PAYMENT CENTERS ACrLtionally. PG&E is sealing approval by the CPUC to class all 84 of its company operated Payment centers in June 2007. On August 31, 2005, bill inserts were mailed to curitames informing them of PG&E's proposed request 0, more provided comments on the proposed closure of the payment canters to the CPUC Public Advisor's Office (PAO) from September 1 to October 15, 2005. Customers may continue to submit their comments and concerns an the proposed closures to the PAO by calling, or sending letters Or a -mails as part at the GRC Proceeding. THE KEY REASONS WHY PG&E IS ASKING FOR INCREASES ARE -- • RE• To continue to invest In and maintain the reliable and safe system of power plants, pales, wires, pipes and equipment needed to deliver electricity and gas to PG&E's customers; and • To continue to employ the people and. maintain the support structure necessary to keep PG&E operating and to provide PG&E's customers with safe, reliable and maponsive customer service. During the Proceedings, updated information may be Introduced the could change the amounts PG&E has requested. What the CPUC adopts may differ from what PG&E has requested. ESTIMATED IMPACT OF THIS REQUEST ON RATES By law, rates tar bundled electric residenttnl customers who use less than 130 percent of their basallne allowance will not increarna-If the CPUC approves PG&E's request for an electric revenue Increase, the bill for o typical bundled resndentlal a ar mer using 540 kWh per month would increase $1.28, or 1.9 percent, from $66.10 to $67.38. Individual matomer bills may differ. It the CPUC approves PG&E's request for a gas revenue rate increase, the bill for a typical residential customer using 45 thorns per month would increase $2.29, or 45 percent ham $51.01 to $53.30. Incirvidual customer bills may differ. PG&E will provide a mare illustrative allocation at the potential rate increases among customer classes under its proposals in a bill insert to be mailed directly to customers December 15, 2005 through January 15, 2006. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The CPUC welcomes the public's participation. Before acting on PG&E's GRC appfication, No CPUC will hold public participation hearings to provide customers with an opportunity to expraeo their views. Notification of these heanngs Will be sent to you either by a separate mailing, Or be includ- ed as a bill insert Those customers who cannot attend a hearing may submit written comments to the CPUC at the address listed below. All such correspondence to the CPUC should include a reference to PG&E's 2007 GRC Application. Evidentiary hearings an the GRC Application will also be held in 2006. Evidantary heenngs ore formal hearings where parties present their proposals In twnmany and aro subject to cuss-exominalon before on administrative law judge. These hearings aro open to the public, but only those wishing to present midence or cross-exansns witnesses may participate. It you would like to participate in the evidentiary hearings, please Cantata the CPUC§ Public Advise at the adaress below. After considering all proposals presented during the formal hearing process the CPUC will issue a decision. What the CPUC adapts may dlffer from what PG&E has requested. ff you want to participate in the hearings or send comments, if you need more advke or more information, or 4 you went to get copies of No Office of RatepayerAdvocutes' proposals when they are mailable, please write or calf Public Advisor (415) 703-2074 California Public Utilities Commission 1-866-849-8390 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 2103 TTY (415) 703-52112 San Francisco, CA 94102 TTY toll free 1-866-836-7825 or via small to: publlcadviscrOcpuc.ca.gov Planes refer to PG&E's 2007 GRC application in yaw letet All comments will be circulated to the Commissioners, the assigned administmtivo law judge, and Energy Division stab and will become part of the formal corespandence file for this application. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION You can gat mem infamration from PG&E by writing to: Pacific Cs; and ElecMc Company, 2007 GRC Application. P.O. Bot 7442, San Francisco, CA 94120. You may review a copy of PG&E's 2007 GRC application at PGSE's corporate headquarters (77 Beale Street Room 3120, San Francrsco, CA 94105), any of PG&E's division offices, or at the San Francisco office of the CPUC (505 Van Now Avenue, San Frawbca, CA 941021. Mention the name of the application about wNch you are inquiring. Este avlso describe Is solichud do PG&E a In CPUC Penn cambim an las tenter; da elactrlcidad y gas natural. Part inlornackin an Espanol sabre fists prolouests. par favor ascribe a PG&E, P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, CA 94120, "Attention 2007 General Rata Case.' (2p1.Oz November 18, 2005 TO: STATE, COUNTY AND CITY OFFICIALS NOTICE OF FILING OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY'S (PG&E) 2005 NUCLEAR DECOMMISSIONING COST TRIENNIAL PROCEEDING (NDCTP) Application for an Electric Revenue' Increase What is NDCTP and what does it do? NDCTP stands for Nuclear Decommissioning Cost Triennial Proceeding. This proceeding is filed every three years and provides the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) with an opportunity to review PG&E's updated nuclear decommissioning cost studies and ratepepayer contribution analysis. This review determines the amount of money needed to fully fund the nuclear decommissioning master trusts to the level needed to decommission (remove from service) PG&E's two nuclear power plants Diablo Canyon Power Plant (Diablo Canyon) and Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 (Humboldt Unit 3). In addition, Humboldt Unit 3 SAFSTOR2 operations and maintenance (O&M) costs are also included in this proceeding. On November 10, 2005, PG&E filed its NDCTP application with the CPUC. In this application PG&E requests the authority to coiled in rates, $9.491 million and $14.621 million for the Diablo Canyon Unit 1 and Humboldt Unit 3 Nuclear Decommissioning Trusts, respectively, and $13.232 million for Humboldt Unit 3 SAFSTOR O&M costs. If approved by the CPUC, rate increases will be effective January 1, 2007 through 2009. If the CPUC approves PG&E's request for an electric rate increase, the bill for a typical bundled service residential customer using 540 kWh per month in 2007 would increase $0.02 from $66.17 to $66.19, based on rates currently in effect. The bill for a typical bundled service residential customer using approximately twice the average baseline allowance, or 840 kWh per month, would increase $0.10 from $122.63 to $122.73. Individual customer bills may differ. PG&E will provide a more illustrative allocation of the potential rate increases among customer classes under its proposal in a bill insert to be mailed directly to customers in December. What if I want more information about this application or have comments or concerns? In addition to the detailed explanation below, you may contact the CPUC's Public Advisor with comments or questions as follows: Please refer to the application by PG&E's 2005 NDCTP. All comments will be circulated to the Commissioners, the assigned Administrative Law Judge and Energy Division staff and will become part of the formal correspondence record for this proceeding. THE CPUC PROCESS The CPUC s independent Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) will review this application, analyze the proposal, and present an independent analysis and recommendations for the CPUC's consideration. Other parties will also participate. The CPUC may hold evidentiary hearings where parties present their proposals in testimony and are subject to cross-examination before an Administrative Law Judge. These hearings are open to the public, but only those wishing to presort evidcrco or cross-examine witnesses may participate. After considering all proposals and evidence presented during the hearing process, the CPUC will issue a decision. When the CPUC acts on this application, it may adopt all or part of PG&E's request, amend or modify it, or deny the application. The CPUC's final decision may be different from PG&E's proposal. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION To obtain information from PG&E, write to: Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 2005 NDCTP Application, P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, CA 94120. Customers may review a copy of any of PG&E's applications at its corporate headquarters (77 Beale Street, Room 3120, San Francisco, CA 94105), any of its division offices, or at the San Francisco office of the CPUC (505 Van Ness, San Francisco, CA 94102). Mention the name of.the application about which you are inquiring. Para informacion an Espanol sabre este solicitud, par favor, escriba a Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 2005 NDCTP Application, P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, CA 94120. t Revenue is the technical term used to describe the total amount of money customers pay in rates for the electric service they receive. 2 SAFSTOR is a condition of monitored safe storage in which the unit will be maintained until the spent nuclear fuel is removed from the spent fuel pool and the final dismantlement of the facility can be accomplished. ECEIVED NUV 2 2 2005 SLO CITY CLERK 415.703.2074 The Public Advisor 1.866.849.8390 (tall free) California Public Utilities Commission TYY 415.703.5282 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 2103 TYY toll free 1.866.836.7825 San Francisco, CA 94102 Public.advisor®cpuc.ca.gov Please refer to the application by PG&E's 2005 NDCTP. All comments will be circulated to the Commissioners, the assigned Administrative Law Judge and Energy Division staff and will become part of the formal correspondence record for this proceeding. THE CPUC PROCESS The CPUC s independent Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) will review this application, analyze the proposal, and present an independent analysis and recommendations for the CPUC's consideration. Other parties will also participate. The CPUC may hold evidentiary hearings where parties present their proposals in testimony and are subject to cross-examination before an Administrative Law Judge. These hearings are open to the public, but only those wishing to presort evidcrco or cross-examine witnesses may participate. After considering all proposals and evidence presented during the hearing process, the CPUC will issue a decision. When the CPUC acts on this application, it may adopt all or part of PG&E's request, amend or modify it, or deny the application. The CPUC's final decision may be different from PG&E's proposal. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION To obtain information from PG&E, write to: Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 2005 NDCTP Application, P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, CA 94120. Customers may review a copy of any of PG&E's applications at its corporate headquarters (77 Beale Street, Room 3120, San Francisco, CA 94105), any of its division offices, or at the San Francisco office of the CPUC (505 Van Ness, San Francisco, CA 94102). Mention the name of.the application about which you are inquiring. Para informacion an Espanol sabre este solicitud, par favor, escriba a Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 2005 NDCTP Application, P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, CA 94120. t Revenue is the technical term used to describe the total amount of money customers pay in rates for the electric service they receive. 2 SAFSTOR is a condition of monitored safe storage in which the unit will be maintained until the spent nuclear fuel is removed from the spent fuel pool and the final dismantlement of the facility can be accomplished. ECEIVED NUV 2 2 2005 SLO CITY CLERK I a N Z N O Q yU., gwfs FLam L,a.I O vOF" v:rU �+• Z Z OFJCn�� am n`• °v- c ° Nmh d v ^ G _v v.� F ` W O T C r YWY ZLu r q C; A d .Y O C N d' L• R L L' m w O 'a ° m O E L L m C ] C 0 N o N J LL Q i) u] m° d a a VIL 0 IL U aL u J 0 aj a u LL C R jp m` z m .N d 9 'O d L vl m Z < Q LL {: L` °' X 'N yl W O W V J W E' Y O d Q m _y 6_ b r y CL R _ ]n _ T I u J W G z O n Z V W Z_ ° 1 n m W '' r C C C G Z C d C fJ 2• N N i V N N- U D J o t -n R d E G E 4 d i d 6 dL'° d W -d�y`R L U LL J LL O ° 'D G C t' v T; t-- > F` C d m L ° Q ry n 6 a E P O '� D N C ` '- d G7 ° �i _ LLa W c 4P��%vr i oc :cScu aoo °"°mi.c o LL y x m m Y u .0 u1 N a ry c E E m s o p d a Z O = W i ° a E m ° s Li N D v 'a q LLI > uc, j .E. u a d m c m `d adi m¢ i ° a � x t° c m- = 5 c O Y D c 3 v.E a a c o rn in m N¢ a o = t> w d E U W Z (� c :'v B+- w Z m C7 ^ ` o= m E U u m a o m °'^ i W � /� ` m' Z' O O 1 / •L f W V 7 d R= L Z W LL c m ^ d p u D c N w u r¢° C O `d V V L 6 aL m G IG R C OI ¢ d U E' O U 6 J W J Y C L d C L C C a C Gy N m Z eC U° E m N w r O° d D yi Y m V E Q O EI N R n C L ^° LL O E N 9 d O G j Yf R •R 'V ; d C;° m O w m O E d d rt ° S N m D u AIR N d Q G O -O ' d A Q LL P O C taJ• U _� N ry C C C O =,6 d O, 4' _ U C i.• �//�,L O1. E a O d, C E' L L i ii U U W a W q _ N O l0 U vi 0 N at IL W 'yN 6 > C O L C_ a n y° W C d _ d a C d b] d d 'y-• a V U U N = sV Q V ' O F a d N C t E c a, m d. E d .N a S N c= c , v Y m L E u 1° E d r ® r u of w ¢ a c LL V y E= a E D„_ °° a .c d o s D a u a u 3 ,`e_ E F r `m D u d y v D N vcwr L?U n u ins >• m ZU c adi c u 7 5 da'y¢t c Cu Q a, s m °c c °m a¢ mZ� cE c m uUz pb d Z mY, us U u °' n tLL E ° u Q �c - V v n = u_ a LL Z A U E' a° O d o° d O+ d N a.. O d {L W � E °_ Y c: m 3 c E m d o d y d .r Y u ,n E _ ui N c o m c C L c - v -S i s Y°•', N u v. _. '� y E c b c w ° S '" E d L w d m O - cr.' UW U u m a m e 6 u= ° L .,Wm v L E H u D n UY U d q O _L a O . 9 y �' y°- Q N 6 C ° O t N O 'C O U ? P V C Ol d - O ry G• = J g fl U a m V C d a O E A y, m Y N Y U d� Y 6 � = � �, q r D R. Z YL. FCO O m°DmE� �LJ O CR C O>Q w° moraS E E ? m N QFa °' Uuu o 3U UJ L C G Ra m d • udiR N a m y d U aQ Q d 2,m L °n N� c cum 3 T -oo E u u F n E o =° z5 4Jt w' _ ] b ° N _ ,° _ LL TL E 3o�n ° _P 6 N� m o >• m 3 c O 0 YS m=V o m °um1Oc L r°iEL o m vi; N d c j y �' G L Yi E °, U c Y>' d 3 -° d R m c u w ° E a, m v a d D Lv O C E O O C O^ .G N E �' U a U; O G m Y Y U P T ° O a d d ?+ EL 'U S ry ULL ° U C} 1 C d W- L Y L d W C U> d d P Y >i U° N N T R G M ° m Y O W C V d F Y? C U TE O a C O C L` 'y ; V V C G p N d L. N d L L3° Eq W o advdid .sE %O>oN aOYoLLI U O F m y W C ° md ° D L5n mon c o .umUGG^°Y_i ,f°6acdR YnV WLmnNcD > c° a mE E - Z c y U c ci e o o m'°mdN r 9 W uod. 8 m cm z c 2 LL o t« D E w`mu0E2 6 O C u _ ! Q am C Ld VVd - N V W ; C C C 0 C C O O R LL L c s w> c Y3'Nw En 5 d Nm a x° E o S° ua? c y F a 5 U � Y��='$ _= L i cc_ � U U '' U- v N� .'e ^' d c m -t u 2 c m d d U L V_ u 2 a Fz c a 3 U 5.S .? m e 0¢ uE j Ia�l -Da— c.cwzu BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Application of Southern California Edison Company (E 338—E) for Authority to Institute a Rate Stabilization Plan with a Rate Increase and End of Rate Freeze Tariffs. Emergency Application of Pacific Gas and Electric Company to Adopt a Rate Stabilization Plan. (U 39 E) Application 00-11-038 (Filed November 16, 2000) Application 00-11-056 (Filed November 22, 2000) Petition of THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORKI Application 00-10-028 for Modification of Resolution E-3527. (Filed October 17, 2000) CITY OF SAN JOSE'S RESPONSE TO PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY'S PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF DECISION 03-10-040 CITY OF SAN JOSE'S RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF 03-10-040 RICHARD DOYLE, City Attorney (#88625) KARIN MURABITO, Deputy City Attorney (#157135) Office of the City Attorney City of San Jose 200 East Santa Clara Street San Jose, CA 95113 Tel: (408) 535-1900 Fax: (408) 998-3131 Email: Karin.Murabito@sanjoseca.gov T431.014/3190313 Y The City of San Jose ("San Jose") hereby responds to PG&E's Petition for Modification of Decision 03-10-040 as follows: 1. BACKGROUND While PG&E does not dispute the California Public Utilities Commission's (CPUC) decision with respect to how municipal surcharges are calculated and remitted for Department of Water Resources (DWR) revenues, it does object to using the same remittance methodology for third party energy service provider (ESP) revenues. PG&E insists that it should be allowed to remit on ESP revenues using the averaged franchise fee factor from its General Rate Case (GRC) even though this argument was expressly rejected by the CPUC in Decision 03-10-040 and is in direct contravention of State law. By this petition, PG&E is asking the CPUC to reverse itself with regards to how municipal surcharges should be calculated for ESP revenues. In Decision 03-10-040, PG&E was ordered by the CPUC to remit surcharge fees to each municipality using the same percentage factor that is set forth in the speck franchise agreement applicable to the franchisor municipality in question. This remittance methodology is the same for DWR and ESP revenues. Now, nearly two (2) years later, PG&E seeks to have the order modified based on no new facts or law, but on the same arguments considered and rejected by the CPUC in 2003. For all the reasons discussed below, there is no basis whatsoever for modifying Decision 03-10- 040 and PG&E's petition should be denied. -1- CITY OF SAN JOSE'S RESPONSE T-331.014/319031_3 TO PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF 03-10.040 II. LEGAL ARGUMENT A. PG&E'S PETITION FOR MODIFICATION FAILS TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 47 AND SHOULD BE DENIED. 1. PG&E's Petition for Modification is untimely and should be summarily denied. Rule 47(d) of the CPUC Rules of Practice and Procedure states that a petition for modification must be filed and served within one year of the effective date of the decision proposed to be modified. If more than one year has elapsed, the petition must explain why the petition could not have been presented within one year of the effective date of the decision. if the Commission determines that the late submission has not been justified, it may on that ground alone issue a summary denial of the petition. In D.03=10-040, the CPUC explicitly rejected PG&E's methodology for calculating the municipal surcharge. The CPUC found that PG&E's methodology of using an averaged franchise fee factor unduly deprives some municipalities of remittances to which they are entitled under the Municipal Surcharge Act (Public Utilities Code Section 6350, et seq). PG&E was ordered to remit municipal surcharge revenues in accordance with the remittance requirements specked in each respective franchise agreement, and on a consistent basis with the remittance method already being used by Southern California Edison Company (SCE) and San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E). (D.03-10-040, p. 12). Accordingly, D.03-10-040 left no doubt that PG&E's methodology to remit surcharges to the municipalities using an averaged franchise fee factor was wrong. While PG&E concedes that the correct methodologyfor remitting municipal surcharge fees on DWR revenues is the particular municipality's franchise fee, it -2- CITY OF SAN JOSE'S RESPONSE T-331.014/319031_3 TO PETITION FOR MODIFICATION. OF 03-10-040 continues to use the wrong methodology (i.e. the averaged franchise fee factor from its GRC) to remit on ESP revenues in contravention of the Municipal Surcharge Act and D.03-10-040. By its Petition for Modification, PG&E is asking the CPUC to modify its earlier decision to allow PG&E to continue its misapplication of the Municipal Surcharge Act with respect to ESP revenues. However, the Petition for Modification was not presented within one year, and PG&E has failed to justify why it could not have presented the petition within the one- year timeframe. Accordingly, it should be summarily denied. 2. The Petition for Modification fails to satisfy the requirements of Rule 47 that there has been a change in the facts. A petition for modification is reserved for those unique situations where there has been a change in facts which warrants the CPUC re-examining its earlier decision. However, PG&E fails to allege any new facts in support of its petition. In fact, it doesn't even attempt to satisfy the requirements of Rule 47 or to discuss Rule 47 in its petition. By its petition, PG&E asks the CPUC to reverse itself with respect to how municipal surcharges are calculated for ESP revenues and to approve PG&E's concocted remittance methodology, in a desperate attempt to undermine the collection efforts of the cities and counties which have been underpaid by PG&E. This, however, does not constitute new facts under Rule 47. Since PG&E has failed to satisfy the requirements of Rule 47, its petition should be summarily denied.' ' Further, since PG&E objects to using the percentage factor that is specified in the specific franchise agreement applicable to the franchisor municipality for ESP revenues, PG&E is really seeking a rehearing of D.03-107040 and not a modification. Pursuant to Rule 85 of the CPUC Rules of Practice and Procedure, PG&E's application for rehearing should have been (footnote continued on next page) -3- CITY OF SAN JOSE'S RESPONSE T-331.014/319031_3 TO PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF 03-10-040 B. THE MUNICIPAL SURCHARGE ACT REQUIRES PG&E TO REMIT SURCHARGES TO MUNICIPALITIES AT THE RATE PRESCRIBED IN EACH MUNICIPALITY'S RESPECTIVE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT. Even though PG&E concedes that D.03-10-040 mandates that the municipal surcharge applied to revenues from the sale of energy by the DWR is the percentage prescribed in the franchise agreement (which for San Jose is 2%), PG&E contends that the municipal surcharge for all other revenues from third party suppliers is based on an averaged franchise fee factor based on its GRC. PG&E's argument was rejected by the CPUC in both D.03-02-032 and D.03-10-040, as discussed herein. Specifically, the CPUC ordered PG&E to remit surcharges to municipalities pursuant to the rate prescribed for each individual municipality in its respective franchise agreement with PG&E pursuant to the Municipal Surcharge Act The intent behind the Municipal Surcharge Act was to keep the cities and counties whole after deregulation which permitted entities other than PG&E, SDG&E, and SCE (known as the Independently Owned Utilities or "IOUs") to sell energy to retail customers.' Because filed within thirty days of the date of issuance of D.03-10-040.. Therefore, PG&E's attempt to file an application for rehearing disguised as a petition for modification is even more untimely and should be denied. 2 Historical and Statutory Notes of SB 278 [the Municipal Surcharge Act] provide as follows: "in enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares.that changes in the public utility regulatory environment have inadvertently provided for the potential erosion of the franchise fee base upon which local government has become quite dependent for its financial stability. Further, the Legislature has determined that there exists the possibility that these same regulatory changes may not ensure equitable treatment between customers purchasing gas or electricity from a utility and customers purchasing gas or electricity from other sources. Therefore, the purpose of this Act is to provide protection for the financial integrity of local government to ensure that all customers purchasing gas or electricity on transmission systems that are subject to a franchise agreement share equitably in the burden of compensating local government for the private use of public lands.' (Stats. 1993, Chapter 233, Section 1, SB 278). -4- CITY OF SAN JOSE'S RESPONSE T-331-014/3190313 TO PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF 03-10-040 then existing statutory requirements for remittance of franchise fees only applied to revenue from sales of energy by IOUs, non-utility commodity sales resulted in reduced IOU revenues and reduced franchise fees paid by IOUs to municipalities. The Legislature recognized that reducing franchise revenues simply because the commodity was supplied by an entity other than the franchised IOU was inequitable to municipalities because the private use of the public right of way was the same. D.03-02- 032, pp. 5-6,11-12. In D.03-10-040, the CPUC concluded that PG&E's interpretation of D.03-02-032 and of the pertinent statutory language regarding the method of remittances of municipal surcharge fees to individual municipalities was wrong, finding that the "provisions of the municipal surcharge do not change the rights of -municipalities to receive revenues at the same level that apply under the provisions of franchise fees." D.03-10-040, p. 11. The CPUC concluded, "PG&E shall not simply apply a uniform average factor to all municipalities based on its 1999 GRC..Such an approach as -contemplated by PG&E violates the statutory provisions of Section 6350 governing the municipal surchame that specify that the surcharge will 'replace, but not increase, franchise fees that would have been collected ...'" (emphasis added) D.03-10-040, p. 12. Further, the CPUC clearly stated that "[b]y using a simple average remittance rate, PG&E would necessarily remit municipal surcharges that exceed the comparable franchise fees for some municipalities and fees that fall short for others. The proper application of the statute should provide the same level of remittances to the municipality as they would have received under the franchise fee formula." Id. -5- CITY OF SAN JOSE'S RESPONSE T-331.014!319031_3 TO PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF 03-10-040 Accordingly, there is no justification for PG&E's position that revenues derived from the sale of energy by ESPs is subject to a municipal surcharge calculated differently than the municipal surcharge calculated for revenues from the sale of energy by the DWR. The municipal surcharge is calculated based on the specific franchise fee factor prescribed in the municipality's franchise agreement with PG&E, which for San Jose is 2%. PG&E's failure to use the franchise fee factor of 2% in calculating the municipal surcharges remitted to San Jose for the sale of energy by ESPs has resulted in an underpayment to the City of over $4,000,000 for the period from 1999-2003. Contrary to PG&E's petition, San Jose is not trying to deprive the other cities and counties of their municipal surcharges. Rather, San Jose is trying to ensure that PG&E correctly remits to all the cities and counties the municipal surcharges to which they are entitled under the Municipal Surcharge Act — nothing more and nothing less. As discussed above, the intent of the Municipal Surcharge Act is to make the cities and counties whole after deregulation. If applied correctly, the Act ensures that there are no winners or losers since the IOUs are required to remit surcharges to the cities and counties based on the percentage prescribed in each municipality's respective franchise agreement. Under PG&E's methodology, cities and counties with franchise agreements with PG&E where the contractual percentage is greater than the average franchise fee factor in the GRC will be losers, and cities and counties where the franchise fee is less than the average franchise fee factor will be unjustly enriched at the expense of the other cities and counties with a more financially favorable franchise -6- CITY OF SAN JOSE'S RESPONSE T-331.014/319031_3 TO PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF 03-10-040 agreement 3 PG&E's attempt to pit local jurisdictions against each other in this process by offering higher surcharges than authorized by law to those jurisdictions with franchise fees that are less than the averaged franchise fee factor in the GRC in exchange for lowering franchise fees in jurisdictions with franchise .fees greater than the averaged franchise fee factor (like San Jose), should not be condoned by the CPUC. As discussed in San Jose's Comments to the AW's Ruling Soliciting Comments on PG&E's Workshop Report in 2003, the inherent problem with PG&E's position is quite simple — PG&E desires to stand in the shoes of the Legislature. However, PG&E has no legislative authority to unilaterally reallocate the revenue that is due to each of its franchisor public agencies according to their respective franchise agreements. C. PG&E FAILS TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION THAT PG&E'S DECADE LONG ERRONEOUS INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF THE MUNICIPAL SURCHARGE ACT SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE UNCHALLENGED. PG&E takes the position that since it has been erroneously remitting to the cities and counties in its service territory for over a decade now, that the CPUC (and cities and counties) should allow the practice to continue. PG&E's contention is completely without merit. PG&E concedes that its interpretation of the Municipal Surcharge Act differs from that of SCE and SDG&E. The CPUC specifically ordered PG&E to use the same 3 In SCE's Response to the ALJ's Ruling Soliciting Comments on PG&E's Workshop Report, SCE confirmed that under PG&E's methodology, 58 local governments in its service territory would receive more than the rate called for in their franchise agreements while 145 would receive less (p. 6). Similarly, in PG&E's Petition for Modification, it admits that under its current methodology, Contra Costa County has been overpaid approximately $3,450,000 (pp. 5- 6). This was certainly not the intent of the Municipal Surcharge Act. -7- CITY OF SAN JOSE'S RESPONSE T-331.014/319031_3 TO PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF 03-10-040 methodology used by SCE and SDG&E, i.e. to remit the surcharges to municipalities per the rate prescribed for each individual municipality in their respective franchise agreements. Nevertheless, PG&E has ignored the CPUC and continues to remit to the cities and counties based on the averaged franchise fee factor in its GRC for ESP revenues. The fad that PG&E has erroneously remitted the surcharge to the cities and counties for so long does not justify in any way whatsoever PG&E's continued failure to comply with the CPUC's decision and State law. In support of its petition, PG&E refers to a 1994 letter it supposedly sent to all cities and counties, including San Jose, which according to PG&E explained its methodology for remitting the surcharge.to the various municipalities. The letter itself is not attached to the Declaration of Taryn Wells. However, in 2004, San Jose received a copy of a letter from PG&E dated April 11, 1994 (which bears the wont "sample" in the upper right-hand comer) and it appears to be the letter to which PG&E refers. See, Decl of Andy Heath, Exhibit 1. The sample letter does not support PG&E's position. First of all, it is not specifically addressed to San Jose or any other municipality. Second, despite PG&E's representation to the contrary, it does not discuss PG&E's proposed methodology for remitting municipal surcharges. It would have been impossible for San Jose or any other municipality even if they had received such a letter, to know that PG&E intended to utilize a methodology for remitting surcharge fees that differed substantially from that set forth in the Municipal Surcharge Act. The first time San Jose even suspected that PG&E might be remitting less than that to which it was entitled under the Municipal Surcharge Act was on April 15, 2003, -8- CITY OF SAN JOSE'S RESPONSE T-331.014/319031_3 TO PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF 03-10-040 during PG&E's workshop when it appeared that PG&E proposed using the averaged franchise fee factor from its GRC to calculate the municipal surcharge owed on DWR electricity sales. Further, the workshop itself was confusing and actually raised more questions than it answered, prompting San Jose's then Deputy Director of Finance to request that PG&E provide San Jose with a detailed explanation of how it calculates municipal surcharges for direct access customers. See, Dec] of Andy Heath, Exhibit 2. In fact, it wasn't until July 2003 when PG&E finally responded to San Jose's request for additional information, that PG&E informed San Jose for the first time that it was multiplying direct access revenues by an averaged franchise fee factor from its GRC to derive the municipal surcharge owed San Jose and the other cities and counties. See, Decl of Andy Heath, Exhibit 3. Accordingly, PG&E has failed to produce any facts whatsoever to support its contention that San Jose or any of the other cites and counties knew or should have known as early as 1994 that PG&E was misapplying the Municipal Surcharge Act to ESP revenues. More importantly, it is irrelevant whether San Jose should have known in 1994 of PG&E's intended application of the Municipal Surcharge Act. The intent of the Municipal Surcharge Act is to preserve the amount of franchise funding to local government. PG&E's methodology for remitting surcharge fees completely runs afoul of the plain language and express legislative intent of the Municipal Surcharge Act, as recognized by the CPUC in D.03-10-040 that the surcharge will replace, but not increase franchise fees that would otherwise have been collected -9- CITY OF SAN JOSE'S RESPONSE T-331.014/319031_3 TO PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF 03-10-040 and remitted to the franchisor cities and counties.' The CPUC should not condone PG&E's past practices of misapplying the remittance methodology set forth in the Municipal Surcharge Act to ESP revenues or permit PG&E to do the same in the future. D. PG&E'S ACCOUNTING AND BILLING SYSTEM DEFICIENCIES DO NOT EXCUSE PG&E FROM COMPLYING WITH THE MUNICIPAL SURCHARGE ACT. PG&E contends, as it did in 2003, that because of deficiencies in its accounting and billing system it might not be able to properly remit to the cities and counties that to which they are otherwise entitled under the Municipal Surcharge Act. PG&E alludes to a "Mismatch"that might occur between amounts collected and amounts remitted to the cities and counties if PG&E is required to use the same methodology used by SCE and SDG&E. The CPUC was not swayed by the argument in 2003 and it should not be swayed by PG&E's argument now. Any billing and accounting deficiencies (to the extent they even exist) are PG&E's own creation because PG&E is using the wrong methodology to remit surcharge fees to cities and counties on ESP revenues. SCE and SDG&E have had no difficulty with correctly calculating and remitting the appropriate PG&E attempts to confuse the CPUC by mischaracterizing the legislative intent behind the passage of the Municipal Surcharge Act by taking a legislative committee comment regarding the collection of the surcharge fees out of context The comment referred to in the petition appears to have been in reference to deregulation and the committee's concern that gas purchased from non-utility providers (or.ESPs) is less expensive because private ESPs are not regulated like local utilities. Since franchise fees are a percentage of receipts, the less expensive non-utility gas would produce less revenue and thus less fees than regulated gas. Accordingly, the concern expressed by the commentator was that the municipal surcharge fee might not equal precisely the lost franchise fee revenue. While the Legislature might not be able to guarantee recovery of 100% of prior franchise fee revenue due to deregulation's impact on gas prices, it was nevertheless the Legislature's irrtent when it passed the Municipal Surcharge Act to keep the cities and counties whole to the best of its ability by requiring the IOUs to remit surcharge fees at the rate prescribed in each municipality's respective franchise agreement. (See, Stats. 1993, Chapter 233, Section 1, SB 278). -10- CITY OF SAN JOSE'S RESPONSE T-331.014/319031_3 TO PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF 03-10-040 surcharges to the cities and counties in their respective service territories. The same should be expected and demanded of PG&E. III. CONCLUSION In D.03-10-040, the CPUC held that PG&E had misinterpreted and misapplied the Municipal Surcharge Act. The CPUC further held that the remittance methodology used by PG&E for ESP revenues was wrong. Whether the revenues owed the cities and counties are from the DWR or the ESPs, "PG&E shall remit surcharge fees to each municipality utilizing the same percentage factor that is specked in the specific franchise agreement applicable to the franchisor municipality in question." (D.03-10-040 p. 12). There is nothing in PG&E's Petition for Modification that warrants the CPUC modifying its earlier decision regarding how municipal surcharges are calculated under the Municipal Surcharge Act. Further, the Petition for Modification is untimely and fails to allege any new facts and, therefore, should be summarily denied. Dated: September 1, 2005 Respectfully submitted, RICHARD DOYLE City Attorney By Yui L492 'KARIN M. MURABITO, Deputy City Attorney Office of the City Attorney 200 East.Santa Clara Street San Jose, CA 95113 Tel: (408) 535-1900 Fax: (408) 998-3131 Email: Kad.n.Mu.rabito@SanJoseca.gov Attorneys for CITY OF SAN JOSE -11- CITY OF SAN JOSE'S RESPONSE T-31.014/319031 3 TO PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF 03-10-040 PROOF OF SERVICE BY ELECTRONIC MAIL AND U.S. MAIL 1, the undersigned, say: I am a citizen of the United States, over 18 years of age, a resident of the County of Santa Clara, and not a party to the within action. My business address is 200 East Santa Clara Street, San Jose, California, 95113. On September 1, 2005, 1 caused to be served the within: CITY OF SAN JOSE'S RESPONSE TO PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY'S PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF DECISION 03-10-040 ® on persons and entities named on the official service list for A-00-11-038, et al.. (attached hereto), by electronic mail transmission; and ® on entities named on the attached service list entitled "Counties and Cities" by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope, with postage thereon fully prepaid, for collection and mailing at my place of business following ordinary business practices. Said correspondence will be deposited with the United States Postal Service at San Jose, California, in the ordinary course of business; and there in United States mail at the place so addressed below. I am aware that on motion of party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one (1) day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct Executed at San Jose, California, on September 1, 2005.. M BOB al 05 M, -12- CITY OF SAN JOSE'S RESPONSE T-331.014/319031_3 TO PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF 03-10-040 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Application of Southern California Edison . Company (E 338—E) for Authority to Institute a Rate Stabilization Plan with a Rate Increase and End of Rate Freeze Tariffs. Emergency Application of Pacific Gas and Electric Company to Adopt a Rate Stabilization Plan. (U 39 E) Application 00-11-038 (Filed November 16, 2000) Application 00-11-056 (Filed November 22, 2000) Petition of THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK Application 00-10-028 for Modification of Resolution E-3527. (Filed October 17, 2000) CITY OF SAN JOSE'S RESPONSE TO PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY'S PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF DECISION 03-10-040 RICHARD DOYLE, City Attorney (#88625) KARIN MURABITO, Deputy City Attorney (#157135) Office of the City Attorney City of San Jose 200 East Santa Clara Street San Jose, CA 95113 Tel: (408) 535-1900 Fax: (408) 998-3131 Email: Karin.Murabito@sanjoseca.gov CITY OF SAN JOSE'S RESPONSE T-331.014/3190313 TO PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF 0310-040 The City of San Jose ("San Jose") hereby responds to PG&E's Petition for Modification of Decision 03-10-040 as follows: I. BACKGROUND While PG&E does not dispute the California Public Utilities Commission's (CPUC) decision with respect to how municipal surcharges are calculated and remitted for Department of Water Resources (DWR) revenues, it does object to using the same remittance methodology for third party energy service provider (ESP) revenues. PG&E insists that it should be allowed to remit on ESP revenues using the averaged franchise fee factor from its General Rate Case (GRC) even though this argument was expressly rejected by the CPUC in Decision 03-10-040 and is in direct contravention of State law. By this petition, PG&E is asking the CPUC to reverse itself with regards to how municipal surcharges should be calculated for ESP revenues. In Decision 03-10-040, PG&E was ordered by the CPUC to remit surcharge fees to each municipality using the same percentage factor that is set forth in the specific franchise agreement applicable to the franchisor municipality in question. This remittance methodology is the same for DWR and ESP revenues. Now, nearly two (2) years later, PG&E seeks to have the order modified based on no new facts or law, but on the same arguments considered and rejected by the CPUC in 2003. For all the reasons discussed below, there is no basis whatsoever for modifying Decision 03-10- 040 and PG&E's petition should be denied. -1- CITY OF SAN JOSE'S RESPONSE T-331.014/319031_3 TO PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF 03-10-040 ll. LEGAL ARGUMENT A. PG&E'S PETITION FOR MODIFICATION FAILS TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF RULE 47 AND SHOULD BE DENIED. 1. PG&E's Petition for Modification is untimely and should be summarily denied. Rule 47(d) of the CPUC Rules of Practice and Procedure states that a petition for modification must be filed and served within one year of the effective date of the decision proposed to be modified. If more than one year has elapsed, the petition must explain why the petition could not have been presented within one year of the effective date of the decision. If the Commission determines that the late submission has not been justified, it may on that ground alone issue a summary denial of the petition. In D.03-10-040, the CPUC explicitly rejected PG&E's methodology for calculating the municipal surcharge. The CPUC found that PG&E's methodology of using an averaged franchise fee factor unduly deprives some municipalities of remittances to which they are entitled under the Municipal Surcharge Act (Public Utilities Code Section 6350, et seq). PG&E was ordered to remit municipal surcharge revenues in accordance with the remittance requirements specked in each respective franchise agreement, and on a consistent basis with the remittance method already being used by Southern Califomia Edison Company (SCE) and San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E). (D.03-10-040, p. 12). Accordingly, D.03-10-040 left no doubt that PG&E's methodology to remit surcharges to the municipalities using an averaged franchise fee factor was wrong. While PG&E concedes that the correct methodology for remitting municipal surcharge fees on DWR revenues is the particular municipality's franchise fee, it -2- CITY OF SAN JOSE'S RESPONSE T-331.014!319031_3 TO PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF 03-10-040 continues to use the wrong methodology (i.e. the averaged franchise fee factor from its GRC) to remit on ESP revenues in contravention of the Municipal Surcharge Act and D.03-10-040. By its Petition for Modification, PG&E is asking the CPUC to modify its earlier decision to allow PG&E to continue its misapplication of the Municipal Surcharge Act with respect to ESP revenues. However, the Petition for Modification was not presented within one year, and PG&E has failed to justify why it could not have presented the petition within the one- year timeframe. Accordingly, it should be summarily denied. 2. The Petition for Modification fails to satisfy the requirements of Rule 47 that there has been a change in the facts. A petition for modification is reserved for those unique situations where there has been a change in facts which warrants the CPUC re-examining its earlier decision. However, PG&E fails to allege any new facts in support of its petition. In fact, it doesn't even attempt to satisfy the requirements of Rule 47 or to discuss Rule 47 in its petition. By its petition, PG&E asks the CPUC to reverse itself with respect to how municipal surcharges are calculated for ESP revenues and to approve PG&E's concocted remittance methodology, in a desperate attempt to undermine the collection efforts of the cities and counties which have been underpaid by PG&E. This, however, does not constitute new facts under Rule 47. Since PG&E has failed to satisfy the requirements of Rule 47, its petition should be summarily denied.' ' Further, since PG&E objects to using the percentage factor that is specified in the specific franchise agreement applicable to the franchisor municipality for ESP revenues, PG&E is really seeking a rehearing of D.03-10-040 and not a modification. Pursuant to Rule 85 of the CPUC Rules of Practice and Procedure, PG&E's application for rehearing should have been (footnote continued on next page) -3- CITY OF SAN JOSE'S RESPONSE T-331.014/319031_3 TO PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF 03-10-040 B. THE MUNICIPAL SURCHARGE ACT REQUIRES PG&E TO REMIT SURCHARGES TO MUNICIPALITIES AT THE RATE PRESCRIBED IN EACH MUNICIPALITY'S RESPECTIVE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT. Even though PG&E concedes that D.03-10-040 mandates that the municipal surcharge applied to revenues from the sale of energy by the DWR is the percentage prescribed in the franchise agreement (which for San Jose is 2%), PG&E contends that the municipal surcharge for all other revenues from third party suppliers is based on an averaged franchise fee factor based on its GRC. PG&E's argument was rejected by the CPUC in both D.03-02-032 and D.03-10-040, as discussed herein. Specifically, the CPUC ordered PG&E to remit surcharges to municipalities pursuant to the rate prescribed for each individual municipality in its respective franchise agreement with PG&E pursuant to the Municipal Surcharge Act The intent behind the Municipal Surcharge Act was to keep the cities and counties whole after deregulation which permitted entities other than PG&E, SDG&E, and SCE (known as the Independently Owned Utilities or "IOUs") to sell energy to retail customers! Because filed within thirty days of the date of issuance of D.03-10-040. Therefore, PG&E's attempt to file, an application for rehearing disguised as a petition for modification is even more untimely and should be denied. 2 Historical and Statutory Notes of SB 278 [the Municipal Surcharge Act] provide as follows: "In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that changes in the public utility regulatory environment have inadvertently provided for the potential erosion of the franchise fee base upon which local government has become quite dependent for its financial stability. Further, the Legislature has determined that there exists the possibility that these same regulatory changes may not ensure equitable treatment between customers purchasing gas or electricity from a utility and customers purchasing gas or electricity from other sources. Therefore, the purpose of this Act is to provide protection for the financial integrity of local government to ensure that all customers purchasing gas or electricity on transmission systems that are subject to a franchise agreement share equitably in the burden of compensating local government for the private use of public lands.* (Stats. 1993, Chapter 233, Section 1, SB 278). -4- CITY OF SAN JOSE'S RESPONSE T-331-014/3190313 TO PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF 03-10-040 then existing statutory requirements for remittance of franchise fees only applied to revenue from sales of energy by IOUs, non-utility commodity sales resulted in reduced IOU revenues and reduced franchise fees paid by IOUs to municipalities. The Legislature recognized that reducing franchise revenues simply because the commodity was supplied by an entity other than the franchised IOU was inequitable to municipalities because the private use of the public right of way was the same. D.03-02- 032, pp. 5-6,11-12. In D.03-10-040, the CPUC concluded that PG&E's interpretation of D.03-02-032 and of the pertinent statutory language regarding the method of remittances of municipal surcharge fees to individual municipalities was wrong, finding that the "provisions of the municipal surcharge do not change the rights of municipalities to receive revenues at the same level that apply under the provisions of franchise fees." D.03-10-040, p, 11. The CPUC concluded, "PG&E shall not simply apply a uniform average factor to all municipalities based on its 1999 GRC.. Such an approach as contemplated by PG&E violates the statutory provisions of Section 6350 governing the municipal surcharge that specify that the surcharge will 'replace, but not increase, franchise fees that would have been collected ...'" (emphasis added) D.03-10-040, p. 12. Further, the CPUC clearly stated that "[b]y using a simple average remittance rate, PG&E would necessarily remit municipal surcharges that exceed the comparable franchise fees for some municipalities and fees that fall short for others. The proper application of the statute should provide the same level of remittances to the municipality as they would have received under the franchise fee formula." Id. -5- CITY OF SAN JOSE'S RESPONSE T-331.014!319031_3 TO PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF 03-10-040 Accordingly, there is no justification for PG&E's position that revenues derived from the sale of energy by ESPs is subject to a municipal surcharge calculated differently than the municipal surcharge calculated for revenues from the sale of energy by the DWR. The municipal surcharge is calculated based on the specific franchise fee factor prescribed in the municipality's franchise agreement with PG&E, which for San Jose is 2%. PG&E's failure to use the franchise fee factor of 2% in calculating the municipal surcharges remitted to San Jose for the sale of energy by ESPs has resulted in an underpayment to the City of over $4,000,000 for the period from 1999-2003. Contrary to PG&E's petition, San Jose is not trying to deprive the other cities and counties of their municipal surcharges. Rather, San Jose is trying to ensure that PG&E correctly remits to all the cities and counties the municipal surcharges to which they are entitled under the Municipal Surcharge Act — nothing more and nothing less. As discussed above, the intent of the Municipal Surcharge Act is to make the cities and counties whole after deregulation. If appliedcorrectly, the Act ensures that there are no winners or losers since the IOUs are required to remit surcharges to the cities and counties based on the percentage prescribed in each municipality's respective franchise agreement. Under PG&E's methodology, cities and counties with franchise agreements with PG&E where the contractual percentage is greater than the average franchise fee factor in the GRC will be losers, and cities and counties where the franchise fee is less than the average franchise fee factor will be unjustly enriched at the expense of the other cities and counties with a more financially favorable franchise -6- CITY OF SAN JOSE'S RESPONSE T-331.014!319031_3 TO PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF 03=10-040 agreement' PG&E's attempt to pit local jurisdictions against each other in this process by offering higher surcharges than authorized by law to those jurisdictions with franchise fees that are less than the averaged franchise fee factor in the GRC in exchange for lowering franchisefees in jurisdictions with franchise fees greater than the averaged franchise fee factor (like San Jose), should not be condoned by the CPUC. As discussed in San Jose's Comments to the ALJ's Ruling Soliciting Comments on PG&E's Workshop Report in 2003, the inherent problem with PG&E's position is quite simple — PG&E desires to stand in the shoes of the Legislature. However, PG&E has no legislative authority to unilaterally reallocate the revenue that is due to each of its franchisor public agencies according to their respective franchise agreements. C. PG&E FAILS TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION THAT PG&E'S DECADE LONG ERRONEOUS INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF THE MUNICIPAL SURCHARGE. ACT SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE UNCHALLENGED. PG&E takes the position that since it has been erroneously remitting to the cities and counties in its service territory for over a decade now, that the CPUC (and cities and counties) should allow the practice to continue. PG&E's contention is completely without merit. PG&E concedes that its interpretation of the Municipal Surcharge Act differs from that of SCE and SDG&E. The CPUC specifically ordered PG&E to use the same 9 In SCE's Response to the ALJ's Ruling Soliciting Comments on PG&E's Workshop Report, SCE confirmed that under PG&E's methodology, 58 local governments in its service territory would receive more than the rate called for in their franchise agreements while 145 would receive less (p. 6). Similarly, in PG&E's Petition for Modification, it admits that under its current methodology, Contra Costa County has been overpaid approximately $3,450,000 (pp. 5- 6). This was certainty not the intent of the Municipal Surcharge Act. -7- CITY OF SAN JOSE'S RESPONSE T-331.0141319031_3 TO PETITION FOR MODWICATION OF 03-10-040 methodology used by SCE and SDG&E, i.e. to remit the surcharges to municipalities per the rate prescribed for each individual municipality in their respective franchise agreements. Nevertheless, PG&E has ignored the CPUC and continues to remit to the cities and counties based on the averaged franchise fee factor in its GRC for ESP revenues. The fact that PG&E has erroneously remitted the surcharge to the cities and counties for so long does not justify in any way whatsoever PG&E's continued failure to comply with the CPUC's decision and State law. In support of its petition, PG&E refers to a 1994 letter it supposedly sent to all cities and counties, including San Jose, which according to PG&E explained its methodology for remitting the surcharge to the various municipalities. The letter itself is not attached to the Declaration of Taryn. Wells. However, in 2004, San Jose received a copy of a letter from PG&E dated April 11, 1994 (which bears the word "sample" in the upper right-hand corner) and it appears to be the letter to which PG&E refers. See, Decl of Andy Heath, Exhibit 1. The sample letter does not support PG&E's position. First of all, it is not specifically addressed to San Jose or any other municipality. Second, despite PG&E's representation to the contrary, it does not discuss PG&E's proposed methodology for remitting municipal surcharges. It would have been impossible for San Jose or any other municipality even if they had received such a letter, to know that PG&E intended to utilize a methodology for remitting surcharge fees that differed substantially from that set forth in the Municipal Surcharge Act. The first time San Jose even suspected that PG&E might be remitting less than that to which it was entitled under the Municipal Surcharge Act was on April 15, 2003, -8- CITY OF SAN JOSE'S RESPONSE T-331.014/319031_3 TO PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF 03-10-040 during PG&E's workshop when it appeared that PG&E proposed using the averaged franchise fee factor from its GRC to calculate the municipal surcharge owed on DWR electricity sales. Further, the workshop itself was confusing and actually raised more questions than it answered, prompting San Jose's then Deputy Director of Finance to request that PG&E provide San Jose with a detailed explanation of how it calculates municipal surcharges for direct access customers. See, Decl of Andy Heath, Exhibit 2. In fact, it wasn't until July 2003 when PG&E finally responded to San Jose's request for additional information, that PG&E informed San Jose for the first time that it was multiplying direct access revenues by an averaged franchise fee factor from its GRC to derive the municipal surcharge owed San Jose and the other cities and counties. See, Decl of Andy Heath, Exhibit 3. Accordingly, PG&E has failed to produce any facts whatsoever to support its contention that San Jose or any of the other cites and counties knew or should have known as early as 1994 that PG&E was misapplying the Municipal Surcharge Act to ESP revenues. More importantly, it is irrelevant whether San Jose should have known in 1994 of PG&E's intended application of the Municipal Surcharge Act. The intent of the Municipal Surcharge Act is to preserve the amount of franchise funding to local government. PG&E's methodology for remitting surcharge fees completely runs afoul of the plain language and express legislative intent of the Municipal Surcharge Act, as recognized by the CPUC in D.03-10-040 that the surcharge will replace, but not increase franchise fees that would otherwise have been collected CITY OF SAN JOSE'S RESPONSE 17-331.014/319031.3 TO PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF 03-10-040 and remitted to the franchisor cities and counties.' The CPUC should not condone PG&E's past practices of misapplying the remittance methodology set forth in the Municipal Surcharge Act to ESP revenues or permit PG&E to do the same in the future. D. PG&E'S ACCOUNTING AND BILLING SYSTEM DEFICIENCIES DO NOT EXCUSE PG&E FROM COMPLYING WITH THE MUNICIPAL SURCHARGE ACT. PG&E contends, as it did in 2003, that because of deficiencies in its accounting and billing system it might not be able to properly remit to the cities and counties that to which they are otherwise entitled under the Municipal Surcharge Act. PG&E alludes to a "mismatch" that might occur between amounts collected and amounts remitted to the cities and counties if PG&E is required to use the same methodology used by SCE and SDG&E. The CPUC was not swayed by the argument in 2003 and it should not be swayed by PG&E's argument now. Any billing and accounting deficiencies (to the extent they even exist) are PG&E's own creation because. PG&E is using the wrong methodology to remit surcharge fees to cities and counties on ESP revenues. SCE and SDG&E have had no difficulty with correctly calculating and remitting the appropriate 4 PG&E attempts to confuse the CPUC by mischaracterizing the legislative intent behind the passage of the Municipal Surcharge Act by taking a legislative committee comment regarding the collection of the surcharge fees out of context The comment referred to in the petition appears to have been in reference to deregulation and the committee's concern that gas purchased from non-utility providers (or.ESPs) is less expensive because private ESPs are not regulated like local utilities. Since franchise fees are a percentage of receipts, the less expensive non-utility gas would produce less revenue and thus less fees than regulated gas. Accordingly, the concern expressed by the commentator was that the municipal surcharge fee might not equal precisely the lost franchise fee revenue. While the Legislature might not be able to guarantee recovery -of 100% of prior franchise fee revenue due to deregulation's impact on gas prices, it was nevertheless the Legislature's intent when it passed the Municipal Surcharge Act to keep the cities and counties whole to the best of its ability by requiring the IOUs to remit surcharge fees at the rate prescribed in each municipality's respective franchise agreement. (See, Stats. 1993, Chapter 233, Section 1, SB 278). -10- CITY OF SAN JOSE'S RESPONSE T-331.0141319031 3 TO PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF 03-10-040 surcharges to the cities and counties in their respective service territories. The same should be expected and demanded of PG&E. III. CONCLUSION In D.03-10-040, the CPUC held that PG&E had misinterpreted and misapplied the Municipal Surcharge Act. The CPUC further held that the remittance methodology used by PG&E -for ESP revenues was wrong. Whether the revenues owed the cities and counties are from the DWR or the ESPs, "PG&E shall remit. surcharge fees to each municipality utilizing the same percentage factor that is specified in the specific franchise agreement applicable to the franchisor municipality in question." (D.03-10-040 p. 12). There is nothing in PG&E's Petition for Modification that warrants the CPUC modifying its earlier decision regarding how municipal surcharges are calculated under the Municipal Surcharge Act. Further, the Petition for Modification is untimely and fails to allege any new facts and, therefore, should be summarily denied. Dated: September 1, 2005 Respectfully submitted, RICHARD DOYLE City Attorney Y%ARIN M. MURABITO, Deputy City Attorney Office of the City Attorney 200 East Santa Clara Street San Jose, CA 951.13 Tel: (408) 535-1900 Fax: (408) 998-3131 Email: Karin.Mutabito@SanJoseca.gov Attorneys for CITY OF SAN JOSE CITY OF SAN JOSE'S RESPONSE T-331.014/319031_3 TO PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF 03-10-040 PROOF OF SERVICE BY ELECTRONIC MAIL AND U.S. MAIL I, the undersigned, say: I am a citizen of the United. States, over 18 years of age, a resident of the County of Santa Clara, and not a party to the within action. My business address is 200 East Santa Clara Street, San Jose, California, 95113. On September 1, 2005, 1 caused to be served the within: CITY OF SAN JOSE'S RESPONSE TO PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY'S PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF DECISION 03-10-040 ® on persons and entities named on the official service list for A-00-11-038, et al. (attached hereto), by electronic mail transmission; and ® on entities named on the attached service list entitled "Counties -and Cities" by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope, with postage thereon fully prepaid, for collection and mailing at my place of business following ordinary business practices. Said correspondence will be deposited with the United States Postal Service at San Jose, California, in the ordinary course of business; and there in United States mail at the place so addressed below. I am aware that on motion of party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one (1) day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. I declare under. penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at San Jose, California, on September 1, 2005. , wokno-111.50 -12- CITY OF SAN JOSE'S RESPONSE T-931.014/319031_3 TO PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF 03-10-040 RECENED SLO CINE BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Application of Southern California Edison Company (E 338—E) for Authority to Institute a Rate Application 00-11-038 Stabilization Plan with a Rate Increase and End of Rate Freeze Tariffs. (Filed November 16, 2000) Emergency Application of PG&E to Adopt a Rate Stabilization Plan. (U 39 E) Application 00-11-056 (Filed November 22, 2000) Petition of THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK for Modification of Resolution E-3527. Application 00-10-028 (Filed October 17, 2000) DECLARATION OF ANDY HEATH IN SUPPORT OF CITY OF SAN JOSE'S RESPONSE TO PG&E'S PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF D.03-10-040 I, Andy Heath, hereby declare: 1. Unless specified otherwise, the matters set forth below are based upon my personal knowledge and, if called as a witness, I would so testify. 2. From July 1995 to May 2005, I was employed by the City of San Jose ("City" or "San Jose") and, from March 2003 to May 2005, I served as the Deputy Director of the Finance Department for the Treasury Division. I left the City on May 19, 2005, to pursue employment with the City of Auburn where I am currently the Director of Finance. As Deputy Director for San Jose, my duties included managing the billing, remittance, collection and investment of -t- DECLARATION OF ANDY HEATH IN SUPPORT OF CITY OF SAN JOSE'S RESPONSE TO PG&E'S PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF D.03-10-040 321388 citywide revenue sources. As such, I .became familiar with the issues surrounding PG&E and its proposed methodology for collecting and remitting municipal surcharges and related matters pending before the California Public Utilities Commission O'CPUC'). 3. In 2003, I became aware of D.03-02-032 and PG&E's request for a workshop to address certain accounting and billing deficiencies which PG&E alleged had the potential of adversely affecting its ability to correctly calculate the municipal surcharge owed on revenues from the sale of electricity by the Department of Water Resources (DWR).. 4. I personally attended PG&E's workshop on April 15, 2003, and was very surprised to learn that PG&E wasn't so much interested in correcting.its accounting and billing deficiencies as it was proposing a new methodology for calculating the municipal surcharge for DWR revenues which consisted of PG&E using the averaged franchise fee factor from its most recently adopted General Rate Case (GRC). PG&E's proposal appeared to be in direct contravention of the Municipal Surcharge Act (Public Utilities Code Sections 6350 — 6354.1), as I understood it, and D.03-02-032. 5. After reviewing PG&E's Status Report. following the workshop, the City informed PG&E in its April 25, 2003, letter that the workshop actually raised more questions than it answered. Please refer to the Declaration of Scott P. Johnson, Finance Director, filed on June 26, 2003, in Support of City of San Jose's Opening Comments to ALJ's Ruling Soliciting Comments on PG&E's Workshop Report 6. It appeared from PG&E's Status Report that PG&E was taking the position that it should be allowed to revise the methodology for calculating the municipal surcharge by multiplying the DWR revenues by the averaged franchise fee factor of 0.006368 for electricity for all the municipalities as set forth in its 1999 GRC. Based on the information available to the -2- DECLARATION OF ANDY HEATH IN SUPPORT 321388 OF CITY OF SAN JOSE'S RESPONSE TO PG&E'S PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF D.03-10.040 City, this proposed methodology for calculating the municipal surcharge owed the City was inconsistent with State law and D.03-02-032. 7. By its April 25, 2003, letter the City informed PG&E that it would not in any way endorse, condone, or ratify any methodology for calculating the municipal surcharge owed for electricity sales by the DWR that resulted in less revenues to the City than that to which it was otherwise entitled under State law and D.0342432. 8. PG&E did not respond to the City's concerns before finalizing and submitting its report to the CPUC. In fact, I am informed and believe that the first communication the City received from PG&E came in the form of a letter dated May 2, 2003, with a copy of the final Workshop Report already attached. See, Decl of Scott P. Johnson, Exhibit 2. 9. Shortly thereafter, the City received a copy of a letter from PG&E addressed to Ms. Laura Martin of the CPUC, stating that PG&E estimated that its proposed revised methodology for calculating municipal surcharges due the City for electricity sold by the DWR would result in a decrease of revenue to the City in the amount of $2,234,000 for 2003 alone. See, Decl. of Scott P. Johnson, Exhibit 3. 10. in October 2003, the CPUC in D.03-10-040 rejected PG&E's proposed methodology for calculating the municipal surcharge and instructed PG&E that "PG&E shall not simply apply a uniform average factor to all municipalities based on its 1999 GRC," and that "[b]y using a simple average remittance rate, PG&E would necessarily remit municipal surcharges that exceed the comparable franchise fees for some municipalities and fees that fall short for others. The proper application of the statute should provide the same level of remittances to the municipality as the would have received under the franchise fee formula." (D.03-10-040, p.12). -3- DECLARATION OF ANDY HEATH IN SUPPORT OF CITY OF SAN JOSE'S RESPONSE TO PG&E'S PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF D.03-10-040 321388 11. Now, nearly two years later, PG&E has filed a Petition for Modification of D.03- 10-040 and the Declaration of Taryn Wells, copies of which I have read. As part of its petition, PG&E contends, in part, that it should be allowed to remit municipal surcharges based on the averaeed franchise fee factor from its GRC for revenues derived from the sale of energy by third party energy service providers or "ESP&" In support of its position, PG&E alleges that, in April 1994, it mailed a letter to San Jose explaining the methodology it would be using for remitting municipal surcharges to the City. The letter itself is not attached to the Declaration of Taryn Wells, and I am not aware of any such leiter. As Deputy Director, I had access to Finance Department records. In connection with the City's audit of PG&E during the course of 2003 and 2004,1 am informed and believe that I reviewed all files related to this subject matter that were in existence at the time or instructed my staff to do so. I have no personal knowledge of any such letter having been received by the City. While I did receive correspondence from PG&E, dated September 3, 2004, with a copy of a PG&E letter attached, dated April 11, 1994 (with the word "sample" in the upper right-hand comer), a true and correct copy ofwhich.is attached hereto as Exhibit 1, the April 11, 1994, Ietter is not specifically addressed to San Jose or any other municipality, and does not explain PG&E's proposed methodology for rernittina municipal surcharges to the City for ESP revenues. 12. Further, the first time I even suspected that PG&E might be remitting less than that to which the City was entitled under the Municipal Surcharge Act for ESP revenues was on April 15, 2003, during PG&E's workshop when PG&E proposed using the averaged franchise fee factor from its GRC to calculate the municipal surcharge, prompting me shortly thereafter to request that PG&E provide a detailed explanation of how it calculates municipal surcharges for direct access customers. A true and correct copy of my June 27, 2003, correspondence sent by 4 - DECLARATION OF ANDY HEATH IN SUPPORT 321388 OF CITY OF SAN JOSE'S RESPONSE TO PG&E'S PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF D.03-10-040 electronic mail to Taryn Wells, Ricky Leung, and Jackson Cheung of PG&E is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. 13. I am informed and believe that it wasn't until July 11, 2003, when Jackson Cheung responded to my correspondence that PG&E informed the City for the first time that it was -multiplying direct access revenues by an averaged franchise fee factor from its GRC to derive the municipal surcharge owed the City rather than using the franchise fee factor of 2% from the City's franchise agreement with PG&E. It was certainly the fust time that PG&E had communicated this information directly to me. A true and correct copy of Mr. Cheung's July 11, 2003, response sent to me by electronic mail is attached hereto as Exhibit 3. 14. Upon learning that PG&E had been using the averaged franchise fee factor from its GRC rather than the specific rate prescribed in San Jose's franchise agreement with PG&E (which is 2%) for remitting the municipal surcharges owed the City, Treasury Division staff began to analyze the impact of the underpayment by reviewing all previous remittances. Upon completing the analysis, PG&E was notified of the underpayment. As of May 19, 2005, PG&E had refused to pay the underpayment amount, and I am informed and believe that PG&E has not paid the underpayment as of this date. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the matters set forth herein are true and correct except as to those matters stated on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true and correct. This Declaration was executed on the 3/ fr' day of A1c L1s T 2005, at k8wa.0 , California.. AND H -5- DECLARATION OF ANDY HEATH IN SUPPORT 321388 OF CITY OF SAN JOSE'S RESPONSE TO PG&C'S PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF D.03-10-040 PROOF OF SERVICE BY ELECTRONIC MAIL AND U.S. MAIL I, the undersigned, say: I am a citizen of the United States, over 18 years of age, a resident of the County of Santa Clara, and not a party to the within action. My business address is 200 East Santa Clara Street, San Jose, California, 95113. On September 1, 2005, 1 caused to be served the within: DECLARATION OF ANDY HEATH IN SUPPORT OF CITY OF SAN JOSE'S RESPONSE TO PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY'S PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF DECISION 03-10-040 ®. on persons and entities named on the official service list for A-00-11-038, et al. (attached hereto), by electronic mail transmission; and ® on entities named on the attached service list entitled "Counties and Cities" by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope, with postage thereon fully prepaid, for collection and mailing at my place of business following ordinary business practices. Said correspondence will be deposited with the United States Postal Service at San Jose, California, in the ordinary courseof business; and there in United States mail at the place so addressed below. I am aware that on motion of party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one (1) day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at San Jose, California, on September 1, 2005. BRANDE HALL G -7- DECLARATION OF ANDY HEATH IN SUPPORT 321388 OF CITY OF SAN JOSE'S RESPONSE TO PG&E's PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF D.03-10-040 EXHIBIT 9 Franchise Surchar4e Month WACOG Factor Rats* Mar -94. 0.21054 0.00738 0.00155 Feb -94 0.20422 0.00738 0-00151 . Jan -94 0.23795 0.00738 0.00176 Dec -93 0.18858 0.00738 0.00139 Nov -93 0.18809 0.00738 0.00139 Oct -93 0.18523 0.00738 0.00137 Sep -93 0.17655 0.00738 0.0013 Aug -93 0.18146 0.00738 0.00134 EXHIBIT 2 Page 1 of 1 From: Heath, Andy Sent; Friday, June 27, 200311:55 AM To: 'tkwl @pge.com'; 'Leung, Ricky'; Cheung, Jackson; 'TaxComplyl @aol.com' Cc: Vu, Dat Ricky and Taryn — Dat and I have been working on the Franchise Fee issue and have just about finished constructing our spreadsheets. We need a little clarification on a couple of issues: 1. Please explain how direct access revenues are derived. What is the source of the revenue (i.e. what is PG&E receiving revenue for)? Who receives the revenue? Who is the revenue from? 2 Please explain how Direct Access revenues are handled for calculation of UUT and Franchise Fees due to affected jurisdictions. Are these revenues °netted" in the exemptions box for San Jose reporting purposes? What is the nature of a positive versus a negative Direct Access revenue? Can you provide an example of how these look on customer bills? 3. How are SB 703 and SB 278 revenues derived? What is the source of the revenue? How are franchise fees paid on these revenues? Are these revenues reported separately from those reported in Gross Receipts for Franchise Fees due to the City? 4. What are the revenues for each month for which the SS703 and SB278 surcharges are calculated from (as opposed to the surcharges themselves)? 5. What are the exempt amounts for each month (not including Direct Access revenues) for purposes of calculating the UUT? I look forward to your response to these questions. If you have any questions, please call Dat at 408-794-1192. Thanksl Andy EXHIBIT 3 Page 1 of 1 From: Cheung, Jackson [JWCi@pge.comj Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 2:08 PM To: andy.heath@ci.sj.ca.us Cc: Wells, Taryn; Leung, Ricky; TaxComplyl@aol.com; datvu@ci.sj.ca.us Subject: RE: Attachments: Responseto062703email.doc Andy, Per your request below, we prepared the attached response for your review. Please let us know if you have further questions. Thank you. Jackson ----Original Message ---- From: Heath, Andy [mailto:andy.heath@ci.sj.ca.us] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 11:55 AM To: Wells, Taryn; Leung, Ricky; Cheung, Jackson; TaxComplyl@aol.com' Cc Vu, Dat Subject: Ricky and Taryn - Dat and I have been working on the Franchise Fee issue and have just about finished constructing our spreadsheets. We need a little clarification on a couple of issues: 1. Please explain how direct access revenues are derived. What is the source of the revenue (i.e. what is PG&E receiving revenue for)? Who receives the revenue? Who is the revenue from? 2. Please explain how Direct Access revenues are handled for calculation of UUT and Franchise Fees due to affected jurisdictions. Are these revenues "netted" in the exemptions box for San Jose reporting purposes? What is the nature of a positive versus a negative Direct Access revenue? Can you provide an example of how these look on customer bills? 3. How are SB 703 and SB 278 revenues derived? What is the source of the revenue? How are franchise fees paid on these revenues? Are these revenues reported separately from those reported in Gross Receipts for Franchise Fees due to the City? 4. What are the revenues for each month for which the SB703 and SB278 surcharges are calculated from (as opposed to the surcharges themselves)? 5. What are the exempt amounts for each month (not including Direct Access revenues) for purposes of calculating the UUT? I look forward to your response to these questions. If you have any questions, please call Dat at 408-794- 1192. Thanks! Andy July 11, 2003 Response: San Jose's Franchise Fee and UUT iNgia on 6/27/2003 1., 3. & 4. Direct Access (DA) refers to any end-use PG&E customer electing to procure its electricity, and any other CPUC -authorized energy services,.directly from energy service providers (ESPs) as defined in PG&E's EIectric Rule 1 on file with and approved by the CPUC. Rule 1 defines an ESP as an entity who provides electric supply services to Direct Access Customers within PG&E's service territory. An ESP may also provide certain metering and billing services to its DA Customers as provided for within these tariffs. Please see PG&E's Electric Rule 22 for further details on metering and billing services. PG&E's DA revenue is from the transmission, distribution, emergency procurement surcharge, public purpose programs, nuclear decommismormig, and competitive transition costs. The commodity charge is received by the ESPs and not included in PG&E's DA revenues. For franchise fee purposes, an electric franchise fee surcharge instead of a franchise fee is paid on the DA usage. The method to determine the electric franchise fee surcharge is usage times the rate removed from a customer's bill who has elected DA times the franchise fee factor adopted in PG&E's most recent General Rate Case (GRC). Previously while it was in business, PG&E used the price paid by the Califamia Power Exchange as the proxy for the rate removed from a DA customer's bill. On the gas side, the revenue is gas sales by third party gas providers to their customers. PG&E's revenue is from transporting the gas commodity. A gas fianchise fee surcharge is paid on third party gas volume. Gas franchise fee surcharge is determined by multiplying the third party volumes (therms) times the weighted average cost of gas (WACOG) times the franchise fee factor adopted in PG&E's most recent General Rate Case. See PG&E Gas Rate Schedule G -SUR Franchise fee surcharge is treated separately from franchise fee. PIease see Public Utilities Code Sections 6350- 6354 for an exact definition of SB279/703 and how they are treated with respect to franchise fee surcharges. On June 13, we provided to the City of San Jose the DA revenues by month. However, per the PUC Code 6350-6354, the franchise fee surcharge is not calculated based on the third -party revenue. It is based on the methodologies mentioned above. 2. DA revenue is subject to UUT; accordingly, it is a component to the UUT calculation. It is not netted on the monthly UUT statements. Electric DA revenue is derived from customers' energy usage multiplied by our frozen rate less the rate removed from a customer's bill who has elected DA . Negative DA revenue can occur when the rate removed from a customer's bill exceeds our chargeable rate allowed by CPUC. 5. On line 1 of the UUT monthly statement, we report PG&E's energy and DA revenues, both electric and gas, with respect to the City of San Jose's TOT'S geographic code. As discussed earlier, each customer's account is identified with a geographic "town and territory code." We aggregate the billings for the TOTs associated with customers with meters within the limits of the City of San Jose. At an earlier request from your office, we already restated the monthly UUT statements from July 2000 to January 2001 by separating DA revenue from the exemption amount. This was due to the negative DA revenue phenomenon. From our previous discussion and as illustrated in our system flowchart provided to you, our revenue reporting (RR) system reports our energy sales amount when the SRG system reports the UUT amount On a monthly basis, we use these two reports to complete the City of San Jose's UUT statements. Since exemption information is not available in the SRG system, the exemption figure on the tax statement is a calculated amount. BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Application of Southern California Edison Company (E 338—E) for Authority to Institute a Rate Application 00-11-038 Stabilization Plan with a Rate Increase and End of Rate Freeze Tariffs. (Filed November 16, 2000) Emergency Application of PG&E to Adopt a Rate Stabilization Plan. (U 39 E) Application 00-11-056 (Filed.November 22, 2000) Petition of THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK for Modification of Resolution E-3527. Application 00-104)28 (Filed October 17, 2000) DECLARATION OF ANDY HEATH IN SUPPORT OF CITY OF SAN JOSE'S RESPONSE TO PG&E'S PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF D.03-10-040 I, Andy Heath, hereby declare: Unless specified otherwise, the matters set forth below are based upon my personal knowledge and, if called as a witness, I would so testify. 2. From July 1995 to May 2005, I was employed by the City of San Jose ("City" or "San Jose") and, from. March 2003 to May 2005, I served as the Deputy Director of the Finance Department for the Treasury Division. I left the City on May 19, 2005, to pursue employment with the City of Auburn where I am currently the Director of Finance. As Deputy Director for San Jose, my duties included managing the billing, remittance, collection and investment of -1- DECLARATION OF ANDY HEATH IN SUPPORT 321388 OF CITY OF SAN JOSE'S RESPONSE TO PG&E's PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF D.03-10-040 citywide revenue sources. As such, I became familiar with the issues surrounding PG&E and its proposed methodology for collecting and remitting municipal surcharges and related matters pending before the California Public Utilities Commission ("CPUC"). 3. In 2003, I became aware of D.03-02-032 and PG&E's request for a workshop to address certain accounting and billing deficiencies which PG&E alleged had the potential of adversely affecting its ability to correctly calculate the municipal surcharge owed on revenues from the sale of electricity by the Department of Water Resources (DWR). 4. I personally attended PG&E's workshop on April 15, 2003, and was very surprised to learn that PG&E wasn't so much interested in correcting its accounting and billing deficiencies as it was proposing a new methodology for calculating the municipal surcharge for DWR revenues which consisted of PG&E using the averaged franchise fee factor from its most recently adopted General Rate Case (GRC). PG&E's proposal appeared to be in direct contravention of the Municipal Surcharge Act (Public Utilities Code Sections 6350 — 6354.1), as I understood it, and D.03-02-032. 5. After reviewing PG&E's Status Report following the workshop, the City informed PG&E in its April 25, 2003, letter that the workshop actually raised more questions than it answered. Please refer to the Declaration of Scott P. Johnson, Finance Director, filed on June 26, 2003, in Support of City of San Jose's Opening Comments to ALJ's Ruling Soliciting Comments on PG&E's Workshop Report. 6. It appeared from PG&E's Status Report that PG&E was taking the position that it should be allowed to revise the methodology for calculating the municipal surcharge by multiplying the DWR revenues by the averaged franchise fee factor of 0.006368 for electricity for all the municipalities as set forth in its 1999 GRC. Based on the information available to the -2- DECLARATION OF ANDY HEATH IN SUPPORT 321388 OF CITY OF SAN JOSE'S RESPONSE TO PG&E'S PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF D.03-10-040 City, this proposed methodology for calculating the municipal surcharge owed the City was inconsistent with State law and D.03-02-032. By its April 25, 2003, letter the City informed PG&E that it would not in any way endorse, condone, or ratify any methodology for calculating the municipal surcharge owed for electricity sales by the D WR that resulted in less revenues to the City than that to which it was otherwise entitled under State law and D.03-02-032. B. PG&E did not respond to the City's concerns before finalizing and submitting its report to the CPUC. In fact, I am informed and believe that the fust communication the City received from PG&E came in the form of a letter dated May 2, 2003, with a copy of the final Workshop Report already attached. See, Decl of Scott P. Johnson, Exhibit 2. 9. Shortly thereafter, the City received a copy of a letter from PG&E addressed to Ms. Laura Martin of the CPUC, stating that PG&E estimated that its proposed revised methodology for calculating municipal surcharges due the City for electricity sold by the DWR would result in a decrease of revenue to the City in the amount of $2,234,000 for 2003 alone. See, Decl. of Scott P. Johnson, Exhibit 3. 10. In October 2003, the CPUC in D.03-10-040 rejected PG&E's proposed methodology for calculating the municipal surcharge and instructed PG&E that "PG&E shall not simply apply a uniform average factor to all municipalities based on its 1999 GRC," and that "[b]y using a simple average remittance rate, PG&E would necessarily remit municipal surcharges that exceed the comparable franchise fees for some municipalities and fees that fall short for others. The proper application of the statute should provide the same level of remittances to the municipality as the would have received under the franchise fee formula." (D.03-10-040, p.12). -3- DECLARATION OF ANDY HEATH IN SUPPORT 321388 OF CITY OF SAN JOSE'S RESPONSE TO PG&E'S PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF D.03-10-040 11. Now, nearly two years later, PG&E has filed a Petition for Modification of D.03- 10-040 and the Declaration of Taryn Wells, copies of which I have read. As part of its petition, PG&E contends, in part, that it should be allowed to remit municipal surcharges based on the averaged franchise fee factor from its GRC for revenues derived from the sale of energy by third party energy service providers or "ESPs." In support of its position, PG&E alleges that, in April 1994, it mailed a letter to San Jose explaining the methodology it would be using for remitting municipal surcharges to the City. The letter itself is not attached to the Declaration of Taryn Wells, and I am not aware of any such letter. As Deputy Director, I had access to Finance Department records. In connection with the City's audit of PG&E during the course of 2003 and 2004,1 am informed and believe that I reviewed all files related to this subject matter that were in existence at the time or instructed my staff to do so. I have no personal knowledge of any such letter having been received by the City. While 1. did receive correspondence from PG&E, dated September 3, 2004, with a copy of a PG&E letter attached, dated April 11, 1994 (with the word "sample" in the upper right-hand corner), a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1, the April 11, 1994, letter is not specifically addressed to San Jose or any other municipality, and does not explain PG&E's proposed methodology for remittine municipal surcharges to the City for ESP revenues. 12. Further, the first time I even suspected that PG&E might be remitting less than that to which the City was entitled under the Municipal Surcharge Act for ESP revenues was on April 15, 2003, during PG&E's workshop when PG&E proposed using the averaged franchise fee factor from its GRC to calculate the municipal surcharge, prompting me shortly thereafter to request that PG&E provide a detailed explanation of how it calculates municipal surcharges for direct access customers. A true and correct copy of my June 27, 2003, correspondence sent by DECLARATION OF ANDY HEATH IN SUPPORT 321388 OF CITY OF SAN JOSE'S RESPONSE TO PG&E'S PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF D.03-10-040 electronic mail to Taryn Wells, Ricky Leung, and Jackson Cheung of PG&E is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. 13. I am informed and believe that it wasn't until July 11, 2003, when Jackson Cheung responded to mycorrespondence that PG&E informed the City for the first time that it was multiplying direct access revenues by an averaged franchise fee factor from its GRC to derive the municipal surcharge owed the City rather than using the franchise fee factor of 2% from the City's franchise agreement with PG&E. It was certainly the first time that PG&E had communicated this information directly to me. A true and correct copy of Mr. Cheung's July 11, 2003, response sent to me by electronic mail is attached hereto as Exhibit 3. 14. Upon learning that PG&E had been using the averaged franchise fee factor from its GRC rather than the specific rate prescribed in San Jose's franchise agreement with PG&E (which is 2%) for remitting the municipal surcharges owed the City, Treasury Division staff began to analyze the impact of the underpayment by reviewing all previous remittances. Upon completing the analysis, PG&E was notified of the underpayment. As of May 19, 2005, PG&E had refused to pay the underpayment amount, and I am informed and believe that PG&E has not paid the underpayment as of this date. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the matters set forth herein are true and correct except as to those matters stated on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true and correct. This Declaration was executed on the 310' day of but vST , 2005; at 4w3vm0 California. ANDYTEMTH -5- DECLARATION OF ANDY HEATH IN SUPPORT 321388 OF crry OF SAN JOSE'S RESPONSE TO PG&E's PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF D.03-10" PROOF OF SERVICE BY ELECTRONIC MAIL AND U.S. MAIL I, the undersigned, say: I am a citizen of the United States, over 18 years of age, a resident of the County of Santa Clara, and not a party to the within action. My business address is 200 East Santa Clara Street, San Jose, California, 95113. On September 1, 2005, 1 caused to be served the within: DECLARATION OF ANDY HEATH IN SUPPORT OF CITY OF SAN JOSE'S RESPONSE TO PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY'S PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF DECISION 03-10-040 ® on persons and entities named on the official service list for A OD -11-038, et al. (attached hereto), by electronic mail transmission; and ® on entities named on the attached service list entitled "Counties and Cities" by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope, with postage thereon fully prepaid, for collection and mailing at my place of business following ordinary business practices. Said correspondence will be deposited with the United States Postal Service at San Jose, California, in the ordinary course of business; and there in United States mail at the place so addressed below. I am aware that on motion of party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one (1) day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at San Jose, California, on September 1, 2005. BRANDE HALL GUX -7- DECLARATION OF ANDY HEATH IN SUPPORT_ 321388 OF CITY OF SAN JOSE'S RESPONSE TO PG8E'S PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OF D.03-10-040 EXHIBIT 1 Franchise Surcharge Month WACOG Factor Rate* Mar -94. 0.21054 0.00738 0.00155 Feb -94 0.20422 0.00738 0.00151 . Jan -94 0.23795 0.00738 0.00176 Dec -93 0.18858 0.00738 0.00139 Nov -93 0.18809 0.00738 0.00139 Oct -93 0.18523' 0.00738 0.00137 -93 0.:17655 0.00738 0.0013' BSe Au -93� 0.18146 0.00738 0.00134 EXHIBIT 2 Page 1 of 1 From: Heath, Andy ' Sent; Friday, June 27, 200311:55 AM To: 1kw1a@pge.com; 'Leung, Ricky'; Cheung; Jackson; 'TaxComply @aol.com' Cc: Vu, Dat Ricky and Taryn — Dat and I have been working on the Franchise Fee issue and have just about finished constructing our spreadsheets. We need a little clarification on a couple of issues: 1. Please explain how direct access revenues are derived. What is the source of the revenue CLe. what is PG&E receiving revenue for)? Who receives the revenue? Who is the revenue from? 2. Please explain how Direct Access revenues are handled for calculation of UUT and Franchise Fees due to affected jurisdictions. Are these revenues °netted" in the exemptions box for San Jose reporting . purposes? What is the nature of a positive versus a negative Direct Access revenue? Can you provide an example of how these look on customer bills? 3. How are SB 703 and SB 278 revenues derived? What is the source of the revenue? How are franchise fees paid on these revenues? Are these revenues reported separately from those reported in Gross Receipts for Franchise Fees due to the City? 4. What are the revenues for each month for which the SB703 and SB278 surcharges are calculated from (as opposed to the surcharges themselves)? 5. What are the exempt amounts for each month (not including Direct Access revenues) for purposes of calculating the UUT? I look forward to your response to these questions. If you have any questions, please call Dat at 408-794-1192 Thanksl Andy EXHIBIT 3 Page 1 of 1 From: Cheung, Jackson [JWCi@pge.comj Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 2:08 PM To: andy.heath@ci.sj.ca.us Cc: Wells, Taryn; Leung, Ricky; TaxComplyl@aol.com; dat.vu@ci.sj.caus Subject: RE: Attachments: Responseto062703email.doc Andy, Per your request below, we prepared the attached response for your review. Please let us know if you have further questions. Thank you. Jackson ---Original Message --- From: Heath, Andy [maittD:andy.heath@cLsj.ca.us] Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 11:55 AM To: Wells, Taryn; Leung, Ricky; Cheung, Jackson; 'TaxCompiyl@aol.com' Cc Vu, Dat Subject Ricky and Taryn - Dat and I have been working on the Franchise Fee issue and have just about finished constructing our spreadsheets. We need a little clarification on a couple of issues: 1. Please explain how direct access revenues are derived. What is the source of the revenue (i.e. what is PG&E receiving revenue for)? Who receives the revenue? Who is the revenue from? 2. Please explain how Direct Access revenues are handled for calculation of UUT and Franchise Fees due to affected jurisdictions. Are these revenues "netted" in the exemptions box for San Jose reporting purposes? What is the nature of a positive versus a negative Direct Access revenue? Can you provide an example of how these look on customer bills? 3. How are SB 703 and SB 278 revenues derived? What is the source of the revenue? How are franchise fees paid on these revenues? Are these revenues reported separately from those reported in Gross Receipts for Franchise Fees due to the City? 4. What are the revenues for each month for which the SB703 and SB278 surcharges are calculated from (as opposed to the surcharges themselves)? 5. What are the exempt amounts for each month (not including Direct Access revenues) for purposes of calculating the UUT? I look forward to your response to these questions. If you have any questions, please call Dai at 408-794- 1192. Thanks! Andy July 11, 2003 Response: San Jose's Franchise Fee and UUT inquiry on 6/27/2003,, 1., 3. & 4. Direct Access (DA) refers to any end-use PG&E customer electing to procure its electricity, and any other CPUC -authorized energy services, -directly from energy service providers (ESPs) as defined in PG&E's Electric Rule 1 on file with and approved by the CPUC. Rule 1 defines an ESP as an entity who provides electric supply services to Direct Access Customers within PG&E's service territory. An ESP may also provide certain metering and billing services to its DA Customers as provided for within these tariffs. Please see PG&E's Electric Rule 22 for further details on metering and billing services. PG&E's DA revenue is from the transmission, distribution, emergency procurement surcharge, public purpose programs, nuclear decommissioning, and competitive transition costs. The commodity charge is received by the ESPs and not included in PG&E's DA revenues. For franchise fee purposes, an electric franchise fee surcharge instead of a franchise fee is paid on the DA usage. The method to determine the electric franchise fee surcharge is usage times the rate removed from a customer's bill who has elected DA times the franchise fee factor adopted in PG&E's most recent General Rate Case (GRC). Previously while it was in business, PG&E used the price paid by the California Power Exchange as the proxy for the rate removed from a DA customer's bill. On the gas side, the revenue is gas sales by third party gas providers to their customers. PG&E's revenue is from transporting the gas commodity. A gas franchise fee surcharge is paid on third party gas volume. Gas franchise fee surcharge is determined by multiplying the third party volumes (therms) times the weighted average cost of gas (WACOG) times the franchise fee factor adopted in PG&E's most recent General Rate Case. See PG&E Gas Rate Schedule G -SUR Franchise fee surcharge is treated separately from franchise fee. Please see Public Utilities Code Sections 6350- 6354 for an exact definition of SB278/703 and how they are treated with respect to fianchise fee surcharges. On June 13, we provided to the City of San Jose the DA revenues by month. However, per the PUC Code 6350-6354, the franchise fee surcharge is not calculated based on the third -party revenue. It is based on the methodologies mentioned above. 2. DA revenue is subject to UUT; accordingly, it is a component to the UUT calculation. It is not netted on the monthly UUT statements. Electric DA revenue is derived from customers' energy usage multiplied by our frozen rate less the rate removed from a customer's bill who has elected DA. Negative DA revenue can occur when the rate removed from a customer's bill exceeds our chargeable rate allowed by CPUC. 5. On line 1 of the UUT monthly statement, we report PG&E's energy and DA revenues, both electric and gas, with respect to the City of San Jose's TOT's geographic code. As discussed earlier, each customer's account is identified with a geographic "town and territory code." We aggregate the billings for the TOTS associated with customers with meters within the limits of the City of San Jose. At an earlier request from your office, we already restated the monthly UUT statements from July 2000 to January 2001 by separating DA revenue from the exemption amount. This was due to the negative DA revenue phenomenon. From our previous discussion and as illustrated in our system flowchart provided to you, our revenue reporting (RR) system reports our energy sales amount when the SRG system reports the UUT amount On a monthly basis, we use these two reports to complete the City of San Jose's UUT statements. Since exemption information is not available in the SRG system, the exemption figure on the tax statement is a calculated amount y m ti g3; y aq € 2,1 gg o ^a3� L. ¢ To°m m �3 �� na z m B T ° 6 moi o f -s m �m us 9m a m o m Y S Y m $ sa m m a8 cm �i�aR m m & n -0 z me 'gr $ 8 > Y Q m P m m a$n j uY 'm Si m R m s9 ;R 3 cg 8g R O � D ° L4in 2 a n n P a u mC N G H A T r b �y f K c e n o. x0 ° C°� m A g m m o n o m � n O 0 b � e $ 3 so3 _ � �� 5f° sPm �SyG ms G_ °G 9m0 ¢Y¢ 3 uq m o 6 8 n $ C_ igx S � _$i000 0 e$a3 3..5° 3� mmoo STm � SQ ° m m $ .6 g.6 m o8 m 6o g 0N9 r rtmKi� aha $.0 yp4 nQ W m ° m Zclz O�D i t ohm m� g y mm7i 6g Q°n & Lp -76°�O icQ> too a. -a o<SYa 00.9 ff:Yg G 6 'ld 33Q 3 8 $r7 Y e gym$=_.c�$i5 m X000 Q� S� a p$ n F. �.ro c m O@0 C 9 D 1 �s �c a^ _ d3' s R Ss�c.Bs.. 8m8 ��.0 8�9 $ 3gn�4 <m9z ,c a^g o �Z� 5 w nm d CDM gamm!02 0=D D E m m gg m �a r "!"m �y0 O V � G � �'•� C T ca G C3 M 1 0 0 O O O m Y �DRi FL m 7im7i�$ �iuua $�¢ ��S 1O�>m¢ < �. ^4s aQ3 m,mgpg >4° S vmamS 3 e w9 io `P 4� YS.� �� o& 'c� $E�2yi �Y•n.RY 3+Ro S. enEm 2 g5�0 a50 �� 5 Y m °. .^. tS �,e `m ^ f7 m m O o u �m °Ra rRy> 90 o0'@6 Ra' m4 81a$t.° 6'$a mom' §.m5 3m am ��'^ ;$ m ° m0 ° n ,� E�• ma S5 S' Nb �$ 3 $°� m4 m a p p s a t m n a°+os'�lmBP na o "5.83-0� 29SL aa ° 0 aE C� mpe,RA; r YO m g_. 3m M 13 i91 u'1 � rsm R�1O 1 y 2? By S ¢ a3� �°m m s s zm� $ Z g D C r g67 o�1 6 �$eo sc g� ° 7 qo L oV'� epi 200 x�mo�m@ uL. 'a a- °m's m 2-14 m�•5310@�^ $a 63sa m��m°$�E na m $ 4 .02 li m$yym '$L$'° Z2 ccG m c�s m� � .a 0m°m ti9 0r'0 tirD on- " 00 L 0 0 cmmm aRa. ?y�y egg $fie c -°a 'R& ° 383 2 mmp 19 ^ Q O Fi V =A $m �. 9 m C r m a DOD ca 5 r6 ye s }Q i opo mw N &5 S CpX A �l= N 25 m w m O n ti OIrll Ya. S Som g� S �zcY n3:$p -oma $3 a D9_ Z ^° 0 0 �5dfl �n 'g g�g' $Nm' °3 mg n o OD RzR c�=? nmR m,> Cl) c mC=m rrl �. o y m ti g3; y aq € 2,1 gg o ^a3� L. ¢ To°m m �3 �� na z m B T ° 6 moi o f -s m �m us 9m a m o m Y S Y m $ sa m m a8 cm �i�aR m m & n -0 z me 'gr $ 8 > Y Q m P m m a$n j uY 'm Si m R m s9 ;R 3 cg 8g R O � D ° L4in 2 a n n P a u mC N G H A T r b �y f K c e n o. x0 ° C°� m A g m m o n o m � n O 0 b � e $ 3 so3 _ � �� 5f° sPm �SyG ms G_ °G 9m0 ¢Y¢ 3 uq m o 6 8 n $ C_ igx S � _$i000 0 e$a3 3..5° 3� mmoo STm � SQ ° m m $ .6 g.6 m o8 m 6o g 0N9 r rtmKi� aha $.0 yp4 nQ W m ° m Zclz O�D i t ohm m� g y mm7i 6g Q°n & Lp -76°�O icQ> too a. -a o<SYa 00.9 ff:Yg G 6 'ld 33Q 3 8 $r7 Y e gym$=_.c�$i5 m X000 Q� S� a p$ n F. �.ro c m O@0 C 9 D 1 �s �c a^ _ d3' s R Ss�c.Bs.. 8m8 ��.0 8�9 $ 3gn�4 <m9z ,c a^g o �Z� 5 w nm d CDM gamm!02 0=D D E m m gg m �a r "!"m �y0 O V � G � �'•� C T ca G C3 M 1 0 0 O O O m Y �DRi FL m 7im7i�$ �iuua $�¢ ��S 1O�>m¢ < �. ^4s aQ3 m,mgpg >4° S vmamS 3 e w9 io `P 4� YS.� �� o& 'c� $E�2yi �Y•n.RY 3+Ro S. enEm 2 g5�0 a50 �� 5 Y m °. .^. tS �,e `m ^ f7 m m O o u �m °Ra rRy> 90 o0'@6 Ra' m4 81a$t.° 6'$a mom' §.m5 3m am ��'^ ;$ m ° m0 ° n ,� E�• ma S5 S' Nb �$ 3 $°� m4 m a p p s a t m n a°+os'�lmBP na o "5.83-0� 29SL aa ° 0 aE C� mpe,RA; r YO m g_. 3m M 13 i91 u'1 � rsm R�1O 1 y 2? By S ¢ a3� �°m m s s zm� $ Z g D C r g67 o�1 6 �$eo sc g� ° 7 qo L oV'� epi 200 x�mo�m@ uL. 'a a- °m's m 2-14 m�•5310@�^ $a 63sa m��m°$�E na m $ 4 .02 li m$yym '$L$'° Z2 ccG m c�s m� � .a 0m°m ti9 0r'0 tirD on- " 00 L 0 0 cmmm aRa. ?y�y egg $fie c -°a 'R& ° 383 2 mmp 19 ^ Q O Fi V =A $m �. 9 m C r m a DOD ca 5 r6 ye s }Q i opo mw N &5 S CpX A �l= N 25 m w m O n ti OIrll Ya. S Som g� S �zcY n3:$p -oma $3 a D9_ Z ^° 0 0 �5dfl �n 'g g�g' $Nm' °3 mg n o OD RzR c�=? nmR m,> JUNE 69 2005 TO: STATE, COUNTY AND CITY OFFICIALS PG&E'S APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF ITS 2006-2008 DEMAND RESPONSE PROGRAMS What are Demand Response Programs? Demand response programs are programs which motivate electric customers to shift their usage from high -demand, or peak usage, periods to otter periods when electric demand is lower. Thus demand response increases electric reliability aril reduces power purdrase Costs. PG&E was ordered to file this Demand Response application by The California Public Utilities Commission (Commission) Decision (D.) 05-01 Q%. On June 1, 2005, Pacific Gas and Electric Campanry (PG&E) filed an application Commission for approval of its 2006-2008 Demand Response Programs (Demand Response Application). In its Demand Response Application. PG&E props programs and budgets for meeting the Commission's demand response goals in 2006-2006. PG&E proposes a total budget of S159,509.000; S39 million in 2006 and approximately $60 million in 2007 and it 2008. PG&E proposes to recover these costs in electric distribution min from both bundled and direct access customers Don this mean min will Increase? Yes. Approval of PG&E's Proposed 2006-2008 demand response program budget will result in an increase to dismtxaion rases paid by ail electric burdledt and direct =0332 curomers. PG&E expects that the rate Wnges associated with its 2006.2008 Demand Response application will be consolidated with changes in other Commission proceedings, so the wereual net change in meds for individual customers is difficult to predict If the Commission approves PG&E's Electre rate request. bills for bundled electric cus-amus who use less than 130 percent of their baseline allowance wou10 not increase. The all for a typical residential customer using 540 kWh per month would nexease from $66.07 to $66.15. A residential c stoner using roughly :wise mei baseline allowance, or 840 kWh, currently pays $121.62 per month. and would see a monmly electric bill increase to $12235 per month. Individual bills may dBm however. I Customer who receive electric generation as wall as tran,nnLssion and distribution service from PG&E z Customers who rerxim bonsinistien and dstrihutlon service from PG&E, but who purchase electric generation service train third Party Energy Service Prov es, or ESPs lvh� M� ion M unr PG&E'S APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF THE 2006-2008 ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAMS AND BUDGETS What are Energy Efficiency Progmms7 Energy Efficiency programs are those that are aimed at promoting the use of high -efficiency products, services, and practices or an energy -using appliance or piece of equipment, to reduce energy usage while maintaining a comparable level of service when installed or applied on the customs, side of the meter. Energy efficiency activities typically require Permanent repiacernent of energy -using equipment with more efficient models. Some examples of these types of equipment induce refrigerator replacement, light fixture replacement and coaling equipment upgrades PG&E's energy efficiency program, provide incentives and ur:onmation to residential, carnnN•rnal, agricultural, and industrial customers to increase energy efficiency at homes and work places to reduce energy demand. Through these conservation and energy efficiency measures, PG&E customers have minimized the need for new generation, reduced emissions of pollutants. improved energy reliability, and contributed to price stability. By Decision 05-01-055, the California Public Utilities Commission (Commission) ordered Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) to file an application seeking CPUC approval of PGBE's proposed energy eIricienry Programs and budget for years 2006-2008. On Jure 1, 2005, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) Bled an application requesting approval of its 2006-2008 Energy Efficiency Programs and Budget (the 2006.2000 Energy Efficiency Application). In its 2006-2008 Energy Efficiency Application, PG&E proposes a total energy efficiency portfolio budget for the design, administration, implementation and evaluation of the proposed energy efficiency programs for years 20062008. PG&E proposes to increase its budget for gas and elemic energy efficiency programs for years 2006.2008. The annual proposed budgets for PG&E's energy efficiency programs increase $76.4 million in 2006; an additional $43.1 million in 2007 compared to 2006: and an additional 567.2 million in 2008 compared to 2007. The increase is required so that PG&E con create art energy efficiency portfolio that allows PG&E to meet the aggressive energy savings tinges that have been mtabli shed by the Commission. Doris this mean rates will increase? Yes Approval of PG&E's proposed Energy Efficiency budget for years 20062008 will result in w increase in both gas and electric pudic purpose programa charges (rhe Public Purpoe program charge that appears in customer bills is to fund low income energy efficiency programs). The annual electric increase will result in an increase in pudic purpose program charges paid by all electric customers including bundled°, direct access and departing leads customers who are required to Pay pudic Purpose program charges. The annual gas increase will result in an increase in the 2006 — 2008 gas public purpose program surcharges paid by residential, co i to of and industrial customers. PG&E expects that the rate changes associated with its 2006-20JB Energy Efficiency application will be consolidated with changes in other CPUC proceedings, so the eventual net change in rates for individual customers is difficult to predict If the CPUC approves PG&E's Electric Energy Efficiency budget, bills 'or bundled electric customers who use Iris than 130% of their baseline allowance would not increase. The bill for a typical bundled ccstomer using 540 kWh per month in 2006 would increase $0.10 from $66.07 to $66.17. The bill !or a typical bundled customer using approximately twice the average baseline allowance, or 840 kWh per month, would increase $0.96 from $121.62 to $12258 per month in 2006. Individual bills may differ, however. t the CPUC approves PG&E's 2006 gas Energy Efficiency budget, a residential customer using 45 theins of gas per month would see on average rtnngnly gas bill increase of $021, or 0.4%, earn $5028 to $50.49. Individual bills may diger, however. 3 The public Purpose Program Charge that appears on Customer hills is to fund low k¢ane and energy efficiency programa x Customers unto receive electric generation as well as transmission and dirtribudon service from PG&E s Departing lead customers am Customers that me lager receive supply or aellvery services from PG&E PG&E will provide a more i0ustratiwe allocation of the potential rate neeases among customer classes under PG&E's probes 1 Is in a bill insert to be mailed directly to its customers in July. What 8 1 want more Information about mese applications cr have comments or concerns? For furrier intomiation, you may contact the Commissnnh Pubic Advisor as follows: Public Adviser Califomia Public Utilities Commission 505 Van Ness Avenue. Room 2103 San Francisco. CA 94102 415.703-2074 or 866-849-8390 (tel free) TTY 41.5-703-5262. TTY 866-836.7625 (tdl free) E-mail - Public.aovis"cpucca-gov The Commission welcomes your mmmens They will be circulated be the Commissioners, the assigned Administrative Law Judge and appropriate =41. They will also become part of the formal correspondence record of these proceedings. Please refer to PG&E's Demand Response and Energy Efficiency Applications. The CPUC Process The C immissroWs Independent Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) will review these applications analyze the proposals, and present an independent analysis and recommendations fa the Commission's consideration. Other parties will also participate. The Commission may had evidemiary hearings where parties present their proposals in testimony and are subject to cross-examination before an Administrative Law Judge. These hearings are open to the public. but only those formal parties wishing to present evidence a cross-examine witnesses my participate. Ater considering all proposals and evidence Wesemed dung the hearing process, the Commission will issue a decision. When the Commission acs on these applications, it my adopt all or part of PG&E's request, amend or modify it, or deny the applications. The Commission's final decision may be different from PG&E's proposal. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION To obtain infon.ur im from PG&E, write to: Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Demand Response Application. P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, CA 94120. Customers may revue a copy of any of PG&E's applications at its corporate headquarters (77 Beale Street, Room 3120, San Francisco, CA 94105), any of is division offices, or at the San Francisco office of me CPUC (505 Var. Ness. Sen Francisco, CA 94102). Mention the name of the application about which you am inquiring. Fres aviso describe Is solicitud de Pacific Gas and Electric Company a b CPUC Pam cambios en las tantas de elecaicidad y gas mural. Para infomcar.On en Espa-mol Were este propunct, par favor, escrba a Pacific Gas and Electric Company, P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, CA 84120. ESLO ECEIVED N 1 ii 200 ITYCVUtiCIL . �.0 1_f NNE 6, 2005 TO: STATE, COUNTY AND CITY OFFICIALS NOTICE OF FILING OF APPLICATION: PG&E'S 2006 ENERGY RESOURCE RECOVERY ACCOUNT (ERRA) AND ONGOING COMPETITION TRANSITION CHARGE (CTC) FORECAST REVENUE REQUIREMENTS Each year, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) is required to file an application that forecasts in detail how much. it will spend the following year to ensure adequate electricity supplies for its customers. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) carefully reviews the utility's forecast 10 ensure that customers are not charged more than it costs PG&E to provide electricity. On June 1. 2005, PG&E submitted an application requesting that the Commission adopt its .forecast of fuel and electricity purchase costs for 2006. PG&E's total electric procurement forecast is S2.617 billion. This forecast consists of $2.407 billion of power procurement costs and 5210 million of 'uneconomic' power costs (such as power purchases.under pre-existing contracts at prices that are now higher than market rates). These uneconomic power costs are recovered as an ongoing Competition Transition Charge (CTC) as allowed by the Electric Utility Industry Restructuring Act (Assembly Bill 18901. In its application, PG&E also proposes that any d ffe a ce between its forecasted and actual electric procurement costs at year-end be collected from or refunded to customers over a we year period. Does this mean electricity w10 cost me morel Even though overall revenues from bundled customers (that is, customem who receive electric generation, as well as transmission and distribution service from PG&E) will decrease by approximately $108 million, some customers' bills will increase and others will decrease. This is because the reduction is allocated among customer groups differently. PG&E expects that the rate changes associated with PG&E's 2006 electric procurement forecast, as well as any accrued under- or over -collection in related balancing accounts, will be consolidated with changes in other CPUC proceedings, so the eventual net change in rates for individual customers is difficult to predict What it 1 want mora information about this application or have comments or concerns? In addition to the detailed expluation below, you may contact the CPUC's Public Advisor as follows: Public Advisor 415-703-2074 or 866.849-8390 (toll free) Califomia Public Utilities Commission TTY 415.703.5282 50.5 Van Ness Avenue, Room 2103 TTY 866.836-7825 (toll free) San Francesco, CA 94102 .E-mail at Public.advisor@cpuc.w.gov Please refer to PG&E's 2006 ERRA application. All comments will be circulated to the Commissioners, the assigned Administrative Law Judge and Energy Division staff. Detailed Intomnation About PG&E's Application In December 2002. the CPUC ordered PG&E to establish the Energy Resource Recovery Account (ERRA). In this account. PG&E is to record the cost of fuels used in producing electricity at its own power plants and the cost of buying electricity from third parties. Each year the utility submits a forecast of upcoming costs and reports on the previous months' activities. In its 2006 ERRA application, PG&E proposes a 2006 ERRA reveriue requirement for bundled customers of 52,407 billion and an ongoing Competition Transition Charge revenue requirement for bundled, direct access, and departing load customers of 5210 million. This incmases bundled ERRA revenue collection by approximately $22 million and reduces bundled, direct access, and departing load ongoing CTC revenue collection by approximately 3142 million relative to present ERRA and ongoing CTC rates. (This comparison is based on the 2004 ERRA and ongoing CTC rates currently in ef.ect and not on the adopted but not yet implemented 2005 rates.) PG&E is seeking to change total electric charges for bundled service customers. In addition. customers who purchase energy from non -PG&E suppliers (i.e., direct access customers) wiil.also see a change (a reduction) to their bill due to the reduction of the CTC rine. (The reduction in CTC revenues across all direct access customers (approximately $11 million) is largely offset by a corresponding increase in the DVA power portion of the Direct Access Cost Responsibility Surcharge). Departing bad customers will see an increase to the CTC r.%e. PG&E will provide a mom illustrative allocaticn of the 2006 electric rate increases, among customer classes under it's proposals, In a bill insert to be mailed directly to its customers in July. if the Commission approves PG&E's application, a typical residential customer using 540 kWh per month will see the average monthly bill change from $66.07 to $65.93, a decrease of 14 cents per month. A residential customer using twice their baseline allowance, approximately 640 kWh per month, will see the average monthly bill change from $121.62 to $120.29, a decrease of $133 per month. Individual bills my differ, however. The CPUC Process The CPUC's independent Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) will review this application, analyze the proposal, and present an independent analysis and recommendations for the CPL1C's consideration. Other parties will also participate. The CPUC may hold evidentiary hearings where parties present then proposals in testimony and are subject to cross-examination before an Administrative Law Judge. These hearings are open to the public, but only those wishing to present evidence or rxossexamine witnesses may participate. After considering all proposals and evidence presented during the hearing process, the CPUC will issue a decision. when the CPUC acts on this application, it may adopt all or part of PG&E's request, amend or modity it, or deny the application. The CPUC's final decision may be different from PG&E's proposal. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION To obtain Morrnmion from PG&E, write to: Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 2006 ERRA Application, P.O. Box 7442, Son Francisco. CA 94120. Customers may review a copy of any of PG&E's applications at its corporate headquarters (77 Beale Street, Room 3120, San Francisco. CA 94105), any o1 its division offices, or at the San Francisco office of the CPUC (505 Van Ness, San Francisco, CA 94102). Mention the name of the application abort which you are inquiring. Este av¢o describe a sol'x:nud de Pacific Gas and Eieclric Company a Is CPUC para cambics an las tanfas de eleetricidad y gas natural. Para informacion an Espanol sabre este propuesta, por favor, escriba a Pacific Gas and Elecmic Company, P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, CA 94120. e .41 a#a To: STATE, COUNTY, AND sc. Fjial CITY OFFICIALS R August 27, 2004 D�Cce, NOTICE OF CHANGES IN PROPOSED GAS RATES Biennial Cost Allocation Proceeding (BCAP) Application On July 30. 2004, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) asked the Califomia Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to approve a change in natural gas rates for a two-year period beginning July 1, 2005. The net result of these proposed changes would be about an average 3 percent. increase in residential rates and about an average 3 percent decrease in small commercial rates, compared to the rates in effect July 1, 2004. Electric rates are not affected. WHAT WE ARE REQUESTING PG&E's proposals would result in an annual increase.in gas transportation revenues of $13 million to recover the cost of a program approved by the CPUC to pay incentives to customers who install -their own generation. Proposed gas transportation rates are also higher because forecasted gas sales for 2005 and 2006 are less than the adopted forecasts on which current rates are based - PG&E is proposing rates that recover the CPUC -authorized costs of transporting gas to customers on our gas distribution system. We are also proposing new gas sales forecasts. and cost allocation and rate proposals that PG&E believes will result in rates that more fairly reflect the costs to provide service to customers, and to help reduce the swings between higher winter and lower summer gas bills. Among these proposals are 1) a reduction in the price paid for residential gas transportation usage over baseline allocations and a corresponding increase in the price paid for residential gas transportation within the baseline allowance; and 2) introduction of a minimum transportation charge of $5.00 per month for single-family residential gas service. Rates that are actually adopted by the CPUC may be higher or lower than PG&E's initial proposal. Bundled core rates include an illustrative procurement rate. Actual procurement rates change monthly and reflect the current market price for gas. HOW RESIDENTIAL GAS COSTS WOULD CHANGE If the CPUC approves PG&Es request. the average bundled residential customer bill would increase about $1.57, from $49.79 to $51.36. The average residential customer uses about 45 therms per month Individual bill impacts will differ depending on energy usage. HOW SMALL COMMERCIAL GAS COSTS WOULD CHANGE If the CPUC approves PG&Es request, the average bundled small commercial customer bill would decrease about $3.56, from $320.73 to $317.15. The average small commercial customer uses about 309 therms per month. Individual bill impacts will differ depending on energy usage. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The CPUC may hold hearings to receive comments from PG&E, the CPUC's Office of Ratepayer Advocates, and other interested parties: Parties at these hearings may offer proposals that differ from ours. After considering the various proposals, the CPUC will issue a decision and could adopt mechanisms that are different from what has been proposed . If you are interested in participating in this proceeding and need advice or more information, or if you wish to comment on the Application, please writs to: The Public Advisor California Public Utilities Commission 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 5303 San Francisco, CA 94102 415.703.2074 1.866.849.8390 TTY 415.703.5282 TTY 1.866.836.7825 or via email to: public.advisor®cpuc.ca.gov Mention that you are writing about Application No. 04-07-044. lbur letter will be sent to the Commissioners and will become part of the formal file for this Application. Please indicate if you would like a written response to your inquiN otherwise no reply will be sent. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION You can get more information by writing to Pacific Gas and Electric Company, P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, CA 94120. Mention that you are writing about Application No. 04-07-044. A copy of the Application and related exhibits may be reviewed at the company's corporate headquarters (77 Beale Street, Room 3120, San Francisco CA 94105), any of our area offices, or the San Francisco office of the CPUC. Este aviso describe la propuesta de Pacific Gas and Electric Company al CPUC para cambios en las tarifas de gas. Para informacion en Espanol sobre esta propuesta, por favor escriba a Pacific Gas and Electric CompanK P.O. Box 7442, Room 3022, San Francisco, CA 94120, "Attention: Application No. 04-07--044." IN PG&E'S APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF THE 2005 CALIFORNIA ALTERNATE RATES FOR ENERGY (CARE) AND LOW INCOME ENERGY EFFICIENCY (LIEE) PROGRAMS AND BUDGETS (A.04-07-013) The California Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE) and the Low Income Energy Efficiency Programs (UEE) assist low Income families with their monthly energy Dills and with residential upgrades such as insulation and roofing that make their homes more energy efficient. On July 1, 2004. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, (PG&E) filed with the California Public Utilities Commission (the "Commission" or 'CPUC) Application of Pacific Gas and Electric Company for Approval of the 2005 California Alternate Rates for Energy and Low Income Energy Efficiency Programs and Budget ("the 2005 CARE( UEE Application" A.04-07-013). In its 2005 CARE/ UEE Application. PG&E proposes a budget for the continuation of these programs during 2005. For Its UEE program, PG&E proposes a 2005 budget of 556.53 million which Is unchanged from the UEE budget approved by the CPUC for 2004. Although the proposed budget for 2005 Is the same. PG&E requests an adjustment in the percentage split of UEE funds collected in rates from electric and gas ratepayers. Currently 48% of the rate collection funding the UEE program comes from electric revenue. The remaining 52% of the money used to fund the UEE program comes from gas revenue. Since the majority of actual spending on UEE measures is spent on electric measures. such as energy efficient refrigerators, and a smaller percentage of spending in the UEE program Is on gas measures, such as Insulation, PG&E's application proposes to change the electric/gas revenue split to 70% electric and 30% gas to align revenue[t ] collection with the actual spending pattern of UEE measures. At the same time. PG&E proposes to decrease the current 78% share of the CARE administrative budget allocated to electnc service to 61 %. to better reflect actual CARE discounts received by electric versus gas customers. For its CARE program, PG&E proposes an administrative budget for 2005 of $7457 million. The proposed 2005 CARE administrative budget reflects a $151,148 increase ever the authorized 2004 budget. This Increase represents the costs associated with a new CARE automatic enrollment program that was ordered by the CPUC. Does this mean rates will increase? Approval of PG&E's proposed CARE and LIEE 2005 budgets will result in a system -wide increase of 0.11 percent for electric service and decreases ranging up to 6.16% for gas customer classes. For electric service, these small rate Increases will vary by class of service and between me bundled (2] and direct access (3) customer groups. PG&E expects that the rate changes associated with Its 2005 CARE/ UEE Application will be consolidated with changes in other CPUC proceedings, so the eventual net change in rates for individual Customers Is difficult to predict. What if I want more information about this application or have comments or concerns? In addition to the detailed explanation below, you may contact the CPUC's Public Advisor as follows: Public Advisor California Public Utilities Commission 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 2103 San Francisco, CA 94102 415-703-2074 or 866.849-8390 (toll free) TTY 415.703-5282, TTY 866-836-7825 (toll free) E-mail at Public.advlsor®cpuc.ce.gom The CPUC welcomes your comments. They will be circulated to the Commissioners, the assigned Administrative Law Judge and appropriate staff. They will also become part of the formal correspondence record of this proceeding. Please Include the number for PG&Es 2005 CARE/UEE application (A.04-07-0131. The Commission Process The CPUC s Independent Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) will review this application, analyze the proposal, and present an independent analysis and recommendations for the CPUC"s consideration. Other parties will also participate. The CPUC may hold evidentiary heanngs where parties present their proposals In testimony and are subject to cross-examination before an Administrative Law Judge. These hearings are open to the public. but only those wishing to present evidence or cross-examine witnesses may participate. After considering all proposals and evidence presented during the hearing process, the CPUC will issue a decision. When the CPUC acts on this application. It may adopt all or part of PG&E's request, amend or modify It, or deny the application. The CPUC"s final decision may be different from PG&E's proposal. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION To obtain information from PG&E, write to: Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 2005 CARE/UEE Application, P.O. Box 7442. San Francisco. CA 94120. Customers may review a copy of any of PG&E's applications at its corporate headquarters (77 Beale Street, Room 3120. San Francisco. CA 94105), any of its derision offices, or at the San Francisco office of the CPUC (505 Van Ness, San Francisco, CA 94102). Mention the name of the application about which you are Inquinng. Este aviso describe la solicitud de Pacific Gas and Electric Company a la CPUC para cambios en las tanfas de electncldad y gas natural. Para Information en espanol sabre este propuesta, par favor, escrlba a PacificGas and Electnc Company P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, CA 94120. (11 Revenue is me tacnn," term used td dexrae eta total amount Of Taney td be Collected in miss tram customers. 721 Ctutomers wno recove electric generation as well as transmission and distribution service from PG&E 731 Ctatemers was pumnase energy from non -PG&E prowders August 3, 2004 TO: STATE, COUNTY AND CITY OFFICIALS NOTICE OF FILING OF APPLICATION FOR ENERGY RECOVERY BONDS FINANCING On July 22. 2004, Pacific Gas & Electric Company ('PG&E-) filed Application 04-07-032 with the California Public Utilities Commission ('Commission'), asking for authority to issue Energy Recovery Bonds, to allow PG&E to reduce its electric rates. PG&E estimates that the total amount paid by its bundled electric customers for electric service will decrease by $69.9 million, or 0.75 percent, in 2D05, with an additional decrease of $69.2 million, or 0.74 percent, in 2006. In its decision approving the plan for PG&E's emergence from bankruptcy, the Commission established a 'Regulatory Asset.' The purpose of the Regulatory Asset, along with the other provisions of the bankruptcy -emergence plan approved by the Commission, was to enhance PG&E's fiscal soundness and allow it to emerge from bankruptcy as a creditworthy entity. The Regulatory Asset was to be recovered through electric rates over nine years, beginning in 2004. In the same decision the Commission anticipated the possibility that the remaining unamortized portion of the Regulatory Asset, along with associated federal and state income and franchise taxes, would be refinanced if authorizing legislation were enacted. The Commission anticipated that the refinancing would reduce electric rates significantly. The necessary legislation has been enacted. Accordingly, PG&E is now requesting authority to issue 'Energy Recovery Bonds' to refinance the Regulatory Asset and associated federal and state income and franchise taxes, and consequently to reduce PG&E's electric rates. PG&E estimates that the total amount paid by its electric customers for electric service will be reduced by approximately $1 billion (nominal) or approximately $700 million (net present value), relative to what it would be if the Regulatory Asset were not refinanced, over the life of the Bonds. The exact amount of savings will not be known until the Bonds are issued. The actual savings to PG&E's customers depends, among other things, on bond maturities, credit ratings, interest rates on the bonds, and bond issuance costs. If the Commission approves PG&E's request for an electric rate decrease, atypical residential customer using 500 kWh per month would see a monthly bill decrease of $0.02 in 2005 and an additional monthly bill decrease of $0.02 in 2006. A residential customer using 750 kWh per month would see a monthly electric bill decrease of $0.99 for 2005 and an additional monthly bill decrease of $0.98 in 2006. Your individual bill may differ. This also reflects the bill impact of this proceeding only, and your total electric rates may also change based on what occurs in other proceedings. ACTION THE COMMISSION MAY TAKE ON PG&E'S APPLICATION The Commission's independent Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) will review this application, analyze the proposals, and present an independent analysis and recommendations in written reports for the Commission's consideration. Other parties will also participate in this Proceeding. PG&E believes that there is no need for the Commission to hold evidentiary hearings on this application for a rate decrease. However, the Commission may hold evidentiary hearings where parties present their proposals in testimony and are subject to. cross- examination before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). These hearings would be open to the public, but only those wishing to present evidence or cross-examine witnesses may participate. If you would like to participate in the evidentiary hearings as a formal intervenor, please contact the Commission's Public Advisor at the address below. After considering all proposals and evidence presented during any hearing process, the Commission will issue a decision. When the Commission acts on this application, it may adopt all or part of PG&E's request, amend or modify it, or deny the application. The Commission's final decision may be different from PG&E's proposal. . The Commission welcomes the public's comments on this application. You are invited to write to the Commission in care of the Public Advisor's Office (address below). All comments are circulated to the Commissioners, the assigned AW and Energy Division staff. The comments are also tallied periodically and reported to the Commissioners and agency staff, and will become part of the formal correspondence file for this application. Mention PG&E's Energy Recovery Bond Application 04-07-032. if you wish to participate in the proceeding or send comments, if YOU rl ad advice or mora infonctior, or `you want tv get copies of the Office of Ratepayer Advocates' analysis of the application and rate proposals when they are available, please write or call: The Public Advisor California Public Utilities Commission 505 van Ness Avenue, Room 2103 San Francisco, CA 94102 415.7032074 1.666.849.8390 (toll free) TTY 415.703.5282 TTY ton free 1.866.836.7025 or via e-mail to: public.advisor®cpuc.ca.gov Please refer to the Energy Recovery Bond application. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION You can get more information from PG&E by writing to: PG&E Energy Recovery Bond Application, PG&E. P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, CA 94120. You may review a copy of the PG&E application at our corporate headquarters (77 Beale Street, Room 3120, San Francisco. CA 94105), any of our division offices, or at. the San Francisco office of the CPUC. Este advise describe la propuesta de Pacific Gas and Electric Company al CPUC Para cambios an las tarifas de gas y electricidad. Para mformcion an espaRol sabre este propuesta, por favor ascribe a Pacific Gas and Electric Company, P.O. Box 7442, Room 3120, San Francisco, CA 94120, 'Attention: PG&E Energy Recovery Bond Application.' July 6, 2004 TO: STATE, COUNTY AND CITY OFFICIALS ELECTRIC RESTRUCTURING COSTS ACCOUNT (ERCA) PROCEEDING UPDATED NOTICE OF.APPLICAMON 00-07-013 DETAILED INFORMATION ABOU7G&E'S PLICATION On JW1%2=P11cftGesamSlcftComP&V(4G&nSdAppfivlfonW-MLM34MdesCditftRaeUttlSssC ynotwonroomewbn•( requsstehp a 61415 Mom , , in eI rewum edacdre Jamey 1004. PG6Eb request owmrs coals inured n Oa 1999 hart for 10W and 10M to woomart eleatrb mwu=nV in CeBbmis, PADAM ry and madost wnd lion has efarhped arbdwd* ono PG&E fled its 0110nal ap1 8ca9on As a result an April lk 2" PG&E flied an Amended Application and arppartb 9 ssetlmory that replaoes and su porwdw Ila July 2003 M4 This amended app6cabrn in a one-time am to recover specific Cosa n 1884 da Elects Ulity kWusIrY RedumangAet (A�* 9911890) traeane law n Calbr= red estab8ehad a near eleetrb power octet Onamo n da Stm.n 6994 PG&E Med appkdbn 9846-011CIEWAp.laam:ftWY MWLcarnp cbais ndaed udu eecdm 376 dtna Cd mist Pubk Unities Cods aha requested MOMWY d Oma Coes Tlrcugh a salsa of n gc Mcete w0 pathos math es The Udity Reform Nwaork (TURN) aW thea, tis appkdon ended n • sedMrmrm afpes o wth On Commission Ma addressed moowry and nature of dtese Cosa Spetllol% ERCA woad be usedtry PG&E n da loom wyc • To record reetructiAV rested costs (math se those inaared tram seting UP dhect auris =MfI l Incurred after 1988 Out were net ndudd or ewfDtally widhdrawt in PG&Fs 1999 GRC testyear brecoat • To recv . Com d new haws ..PeI reesuCturr -MM PrOWSM where to commission would considw the cote of such Pr WWW bebre it required Ola Lfildn M incur Sha cote (nah as dhow Com generated n design and implementation of the Cammiaaion crdWW Customer hfmnaon and 091ng y+*Mt: and • To amok any costs PG&E nNsred in ite req d admduing Coadnater for municipal udlOes and gwarnrnartal agencies PG&E Is repro" amroriralwr to recover a told negotiate requYemwd of 6117 olio for doovb ipha:ubS-related actmes a 1989 tlwough 2002 dwaugh dr Dh gxd= Pb Anqusament &teehadem (DRAM) efteethe Jenawy f. 2111M Nee Cwanission approves 13G6Eh request loran aleetrk rete ncruw a ty*al resWenval watemar uwq SW kWh per mom, wfa pyo e rMaMy arW +most d Vw surchapes, w0 lee no ehonpe n dre modfrAr bi A euaomw using 750 kWh who mrmw Page, an areraga S101n Per mwd4 would No a Noddy tlaetrk bill bheresee d 1415 Per mon L badv Uld bBs my didec DowttimeneI ''I vAccamemael vas, VNt♦f talsuhisdalbtitrawness adJpodnft ptiooeedngwould" aesappraonmly 1117 nMot t Aeaanng this entire amount is recovwd m disabutlon rates charges far bath dked aseaa and txft ausmmas Coll va w WPM PG&E is not Ud&V to dnahgs aerY electric tiros in Mm appBeJdlon No chaps in revnus requFemats would Bay be a m*ftd wan adterraoWpma•torrdM Thu4- -,'- anevacttrt, on rawtedcMbeouwton ors oderConagedonprooe�ge mud Could IN I d» I" of retee for as PO&E curb~ Wows . What If i ward more idwmabn stout this application of hove eommords or concern? In addition to Oa detailed atelndm bakea you may mowed da Cwmissiordv Pubir Advisor w foaowc flu Pr88e Adulator Collo is Public Utilities Ccnaruviwn 506 Yn Naw Avenue, Roan 2103 San FraORM CA 94102 415.7W2W1 6866848.11M W see) TTY 41&70&52e2 M tel *WUlB&8347&25 or % s gyral or Wase.dwsor6cpuGea.gm Comahom will be forwarded to da Commistiorwa, the atsiprned AndnietraWe Law Ardge and epprdpriste Enww OWision mmrtf. THE CONROMON PROCESS Tho commosimm gWepr . 0ftsdPA%MrAdhjocMs%XWwirevisr Mils appfirzdlorl erWyo the troPagalAaW ArewrenkWepvalte anaysis WW raootmw doll" n wrilto repce far iho C nwr iadoda conpderadon. Oshw poi d wal also padCgna n ou procaamng. Tha Cornrrearion may hdd avidam Coy m"l whore patln prseaht Mair proposals in testimony and are sugaet to crags-aneNnaam ,. I an Adwastrdve Lav Judge V4 4Thess fhearbga Nopwntedapubic,burordy Mage wwMngtopram aNdnodreroesyeernhowitrasaes MW Pert!,Oft O you world He te pwtlepm In Ore MkWtlay naahgs es a formal intervenCR plesse coned M Cammisaionh Puable Advisor at the ammo beloat After Coruiderng M PraPagsb nd rAdo ncepreswtted d ring IM fheerkp Proems. the Comnuesim will issue a dw4siorc When dna commission arts on Ohs applkamlwn. t may adopt d or Pont of PG&es request+nand or mddy i6 or day Me sp0 allan The Comnsloon's trod deraton may be different from PG&E% proposal arW may result o an' or decrease in al, ctie rates FOR FURTHM INFORMATION You on gat more fto n horn PG&E by wrung to PG&E ERCA Appiodon MAE. RQ Sags 74042 Sen Fra omm GA 9st2O You may reAsw a Copy Of des Of ay PG&E app8e000n at our wporsts Madquerars (77 Seals Street. Room 31M Sn Frenheiseo. CA 9410&4 ay d o r d'Maln oftna. or a da San fyaneisco dfiee of the CPUC. Em dwso doscrbe to popuesta•d• Poetic Gas and aeebhc Company al CPUC para Gamboa en las tadfes do gas y alacbicAdad Pere blCRnamtidrh en esPnol sobre em Wcouem. Per knot aacrlba a Pacified Goa and 6eetrie Compar* PQ Bos 7442, Room 3124 San Franeiaeo, CA 94= 9utemion: ERCA APPtreabW June 7, 2004 TO STATE, COUNTY AND CITY OFFICIALS RECEIVED f' JUN 10 2004 SLO CITY CLEF C NOTICE OF FILING OF APPLICATION: PG&E'S 2005 ENERGY RESOURCE RECOVERY ACCOUNT (ERRA) AND ONGOING COMPETITION TRANSITION CHARGE (CTC) REVENUE REQUIREMENTS Each year. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) is required to file an application that forecasts in detail how much it will sped.the following year to ensure adequate electkolty applies for customers. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) carefully reviews the uouty's forecasts to ensure that customers are not charged more than it costs PG&E to Provide electricity. . On June 1. 2004. PG&E submitted its application requesting mat the CPUC adopt its forecast of fuel and electricity purchase costs for 2005. PG&ES total procurement forecast is 52.163 billion. which consists of $2.140 billion of power procurement costs and $23 million of. •anew icon' power casts allowed by Assembly BHI 1890. otherwise known as the Canybtiilon Thatsdmn Charges (CTC). In its application, PG&E also proposes that any diffe ti between its forecasted and actual procunsnent costs at year-end be collected from or refunded to customers over a 90 -day period. Does thb mean electricity will cost ms more? Even though overall bundled rates decrease by appmdmatey82 5mill.on. some customers' bills will increase and others will decrease. This is because the reduction is allocated among customer groups differently. PG&E expects that the rate changes associated with PG&E's 2005 procurement forecasts. as well as any accrued under or cvercollectien in related baLvutlng acwurits. will be consolidated with changes in Omer CPt1C proceedings. so the eventual net change in rates for individual customers is difficult to predict What R I want more ldormation about this application or have comments or concerns? In addition to the detailed explanation below. you my contact the CPUC's Public Advisor as follows: Public Advisor California Public Utilities Conwhission 505 Van Ness Avenue. Room 2103 San Francisco, CA 94102 415-703.2074 or 866.849-8390 Roll free) TTY 415-703-5282 TTY 866-M6-7825 (toll tree) Email at Public a hitsorOWuc.ca.gov. Detailed Information About PG&E% Application . In Decentper 2002 the CPUC ordead PGM to establish the Energy Resource Recovery Account (EARA). In this account, PG&E is to raced the cost of fuels used in producing electricity at its own power plants ad the cost of buying electricity from third paNes. Each year the utility submits a forecast of upcoming costs and reports on the Previous months' wbwtle. In its 2005 ERRA application. PG&E Proposes a 2005 ongoing CTC revenueT requirement for bundled customers of 319 million. is reduces bulled - going CFC revenue collection appmximatey $762 million retative to present ongoing CTC nrtm. At the same time. bundled customers' ERRA costs ad oma ge eration-rciated Costs increase aPProxtrnatey 5680 million in 2005. ArxOrdingly the net impact on bundled customers is a reduction in rates of approximately $82 million. PG&E is seeking to change total electric charges for bundled service customers. In addition, customers who Pw&m energy from ran - PG&E supplies (.e.. direct access) but aro exempt from DWR charges will also see a change (a reduction) to their bill due to the reduction of the CTC rate. Departing bad customers will also see a reduction of the CTC rale. If the Cammission approves PG&E's -PPticaama typical residential customer using 500 kWh pa month will see no change in the moneay big. A residential customer using 750 kWh who currently Pays, on average $101.73 per month, would see a monthly electric bill decrease of $0.36 permonth. individual bills may deer. . The CPUC Process The CPUCh independent office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) will review mn application analyze the Proposal. and present an kdepe de t analysis 4W recommendations for the CPl1C-s consideration Other Parties will also Participate . The CPUC may hold evidentiary hearings where parties present their proposals in testimony and are subject to cross-examination before an Admcistrative law Judge. These hearings are open to the public. but onty those wcnirg to present evidence or cross-examine witnesses MY Participate. After consider" all proposals and evidence presented during the hearing Process, the CPUC will issue a de0151on. When the CPUC accts on osis application it may adopt all or part of PG&E's request amend or modify A or deny the application. The CPUCS final decistorn may be different from PG&E's propoSOL FOR FURTHER INFORMATION To obtain informatics from PG&E write to: Pacific Gas and Electric Company. 2005 ERRAApplication. P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, CA 94120. Customes may ie iaw a copy of any of PG&E^s applications at int ccirpgrite headquarters (77 Beak Street, Room 3120, San Francisco, CA 94105), any of its dvisiah offices. Of at the San Francisco office of the CPUC (505 Van Ness. San Francisco. CA 94102). Mention the fume of the application about which you are inquiring. . Este aviso describe la sotidhA de Pacific Gas and Electric Company a le CPUC Para cambtos en las ladies de eleetridQad y gas natural. Para infonvacion en espahc sobie este propuesta por havoc esnriba a Pacific Gas and Electric Company PO. Box 7442, San Francisco, CA 94120. tlr - C/f4-e C., o THE DL. -jLO CANYON INDEPENDENT SAFE COMMITTEE i �C NOTICE OF PLANT TOUR AND PUBLIC MEETING C;Bucrc� NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on June 3, 2004, at 8:00 A.M., the members of the Diablo Canyon Independent Safety Committee ("DCISC") will conduct an inspection tour of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant ("DCPP'). This tour, which will take approximately three hours, will be open to the public on a limited basis, and because the plant is an operating nuclear power plant the number of participants is limited and space is assigned on a reserved first-come, first-served basis with priority given to those persons who were previously confirmed for the DCISC inspection tour which was scheduled for January 7, 2004, but was cancelled due to the then existing nationwide threat condition. Prior clearance of all public attendees is required in compliance with rules of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC"). In the event that security considerations preclude a public tour of Diablo Canyon on June 3rd, then in the alternative, the DCISC will convene a public meeting at the Cliffs at Shell Beach conference facility, 2757 Shell Beach Road, Shell Beach, California, at 9:00 A.M. to receive informational presentations concerning DCPP operations from representatives of Pacific Gas & Electric Company ("PG&E"). NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that on June 2-3, 2004, at the Cliffs Resort conference facility, a public meeting will be held by the DCISC in separate sessions, at the times indicated, to consider the following matters: 1. Morning Session - (06/02/2004) - 8:00 A.M. Opening comments; consider an informational presentation requested by the DCISC from PG&E on the DCPP Long -Term Seismic Program, an update on the December 2003 earthquake and review of information concerning seismic faulting in proximity to the Southern California Edison Company's San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station; receive public comments and communications to the Committee; approve minutes of January 7-8, 2004, public meeting; discussion of administrative matters, including an update on financial matters and DCISC activities during the remainder of 2004; election of DCISC Chair and Vice -Chair to serve for the period July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2005; review and discussion concerning the DCISC Open Items List; reports by Committee members, consultants and legal counsel; receive reports concerning fact -findings; and review of Committee correspondence and documents. 2. Afternoon Session - (06102/2004) - 2:00 P.M.: Continents by Committee members; receive public comments and communications to the Committee; consideration of informational presentations requested by the DCISC from PG&E on topics relating to plant safety and operations, including an update on the status of the Return to Excellence Program and the conclusions and recommendations of the Mercer Delta Study of DCPP; results of the twelfth refueling outage of Unit 1 ("1R12"); an update on the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation ("IOW) Project; and a presentation on the identification of and the extent of degraded condition of Unit 1 diesel generator exhaust supports. 3. Evening Session - (06/02/2004) - 5:30 P.M. Comments by Committee members; receive public comments and communications to the Committee; consideration of further informational presentations from PG&E on topics relating to DCPP safety and operations, including the latest Quality Verification Performance Assessment Report; review of recent NRC Notices of Violation, Licensee Event Reports and NRC Performance Indicators; an update on Plant events and operational status and review of performance indicators; review of recent activities of PG&E's Nuclear Safety Oversight and President's Nuclear Advisory Committees; and an update on DCPP Security. 4. Morning Session - (06/03/2004) - 8:00 A.M. DCISC inspection tour of DCPP accompanied by members of the public, with pre -registration and prior security clearance required of all public participants. In the alternative, should the tour be cancelled for any reason, a public meeting will be convened at 9:00 A.M. at the Cliffs at Shell Beach conference facility to consider the following matters: introductory comments by Committee members; receive public comments and communication to the Committee; consideration of informational presentations from PG&E on topics relating to plant safety and operations, including an overview of the Engineering Department organization, staffing, current activities and issues; and inspection and.repairs to the Intake Structure during 11112. 5. Afternoon Session - (06/03/2004) -1:30 P.M. Comments by Committee members and remarks concerning the public tour, receive public comments and communications to the Committee; consider further informational presentations from PG&E on topics rehrting to plant safety and operations,. including radiation levels and As Low As Reasonable Achievable ("ALARA") Program results during 1R12; inspection and cleaning of the Steam Generators during 1R12; reactor head and under vessel inspections during 1R12; wrap-up discussion by Committee members, and the scheduling of future site visits, study sessions and meetings. The specific meeting agenda and the staff reports and materials regarding the above meeting agenda items will be available for public review commencing Friday, May 28, 2004, at the Reference Department of the Cal Poly Library in San Luis Obispo. For further information regarding the public meeting, please contact Robert Wellington, Committee Legal Counsel, 857 Cass Street, Suite D, Monterey, California, 93940; telephone: 1-800-439-4688 or visit the Committee's website at www.dcisc:org. Dated: May 20, 2004 May 20, 2004 TO: STATE, COUNTY.~ .al CITY OFFICIALS Ptr1Gl.� NOTICE OF FILING OF APPLICATIONS FOR INCREASE IN ELECTRIC REVENUES: COST OF CAPITAL (COC) AND 2003 ANNUAL EARNINGS ASSESSMENT (ASAP) PROCEEDINGS` - On May 111004, Pacific Gas & Electric Company ("PG&E") filed an application with the California Public Utilities Cor m fission ("Commission"), in which PG&E asks for authority to decrease its authorized 2004 cost of capital for its . electric and gas utility operations to reflect the effect of the financing For its exit from Chapter 11, and to increase its cost of capital for test year 2005. For 2004, PG&E's cost of capital (COC) revenues would decrease by 5106 million or 1.0%. For 2005, PG&E's COC revenues would increase -by S 104 million or 0.90/6. Cost of Capital is a financial term defining how much a corporation is allowed in rates as a return an its invested capital. In this proceeding, the Commission will determine the PG&E's reasonable costs of long-term debt, preferred stock, and common stock that are part of the authorized COC. The authorized COC adopted in this application will be applied to capital investment authorized in PG&E's pending General Rate Case application (A.02-11-017). If PG&E's requested capital investment is adopted in the GRC, the annual revenue requirement decrease for its 2004 COC will be approximately 5106 million. For 2005, PG&E annual COC revenue requirement increase will be approximately S104 Trillion above the 2004 COC reduction. PG&E also presented its request for the Commission to address debt equivalence issues for power purchase contracts in future COC proceedings. Summary of PG&E's Key Reasons Supporting Its Cost of capital Request • PG&E's authorized cost of capital must fairly and justly compensate those who invest in PG&E. • PG&E has refinanced practically all its long-term debt as a result of its exit financing and has a new cost of long-term debt that must be incorporated into its COC. • In order for PG&E to attract capital to meet its obligations to serve its customers safely and efficiently, PG&E's authorized cost of capital for 2005 must provide an increased return to equity investors from current levels. • Approval of PG&E's cost of capital proposals will assist the company in maintaining an investment-grade credit rating and continuing in its traditional role of procuring power for its customers. • PG&E has assumed that the GRC securitized financing occurs at the beginning of 2005 and has reflected the effect on PG&E's 2005 cost of debt and capital structure. If the Commission approves PG&E's request for an electric rate increase, a typical residential customer using 500 kWh per month, and paying a relatively small amount of the surcharges, will see no change in the monthly bill. A residential customer using.750 kWh and curently paying, on avenge S106.06 per month, will pay S100.07 under the new rate structure Individual bills rmy differ. If the CPUC approves PG&E's request for a gas rate increase, a residential gas customer using 50 therms per month would see a monthly gas bill decrease of 50.36 for 2004 and a monthly gas bill incrmc of $0.01 for 2005. Individual bills may differ. ANNUAL EARNINGS ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING (ASAP) PG&E has several programs to encourage its customers to install energy efficiency measures. The Commission adopted incentive mechanisms to encourage and reward PG&E for successful programs resulting in energy conservation. On May 3, 2004, PG&E filed is 2004 "Annual Earnings Assessment Proceeding" or the "2004 AEAP." In this proceeding, the Commission will examine PG&E's program accomplishments and the amount of the utility's earnings claim. The 2004 AEAP application includes the earnings claim (or portions of comings claims) that PG&E is eligible to receive this year far energy efficiency prograttts delivered to customers over the past 10 years, totaling $7million. m addition, the 2004 REAP application requests authority m recover 5431,000 in costs spent to years, encouraging electric customers to shut down their electric uses during energy shortages. run If the Commission approves PG&E's request for an electric rate increase, a typical residential customer using 500 k%%% per month, and paying a relatively small amount of the surcharges, will see no change in the monthly bill. A residential customer using 750 kWh, and currently paying on average $100.06 per month, will pay S100.07 under the new rate structure. If the Commission approves PG&E's request for a gas rate increase, an average residential customer using 50 therms per month would see an avenge monthly gas bill increase of $0.01 from $45.52 to 545.53. Your individual bill. may differ. ACTION THE COMMISSION MAY TAKE ON PG&E'S APPLICATIONS The Commission's independent Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) will review these applications, analyze the proposals, and Present an independent analysis and recommendations in written repots for the Commission 's consideration. Other parties will also participate in this proceeding. The Commission may. hold evidentiaty hearings where parties present their proposals in testimony and art subject to cross - evidence before an Administrative law fudge (AU). These hearings are open to the public, but only those wishing to present evidence or cross-examine witnesses may participate If you would like to participate in the evidentiary hearings as a formal intervenor, please contact the Commission's Public Advisor at the address below. May 20, 2004 TO: STATE, COUNTY AND CITY OFFICIALS After considering all proposals and evidence presented during the hearing process, the Commission will issue a decision. When the Commission acts on each of the applications, it may adopt all or part of PG&Fs request, amend or modify it, or deny the one or both of the applications. The Commission's final decision may be different from PG&E's proposal and may result in an increase or decrease in electric and/or gas races. The Commission welcomes the public's comments on these applications. You arc invited to write to the Commission in care of the Public Advisor's Office (address below). All comments are circulated to the Commissioners, the assigned AU and Energy Division staff. The comments are also rallied periodically and reported to the Commissioners and agency staff will become part of the formal correspondence file for this application. Mention PG&E Cost of Capital and AEAP applications. If you wish to participate in the proceedings or send comments, if you need advice or mine information, or if you want to get copies of the Office of Ratepayer Advocates' analysis of the application and rate proposals when they are available, please write or call: The Public Advisor California Public Utilities Commission 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 2103 San Francisco, CA 94102 415.7032074 1.866.849.8390 (toll free) TTY 415.703.5282 TYY toll freel.866.836.7825 or via e-mail to: ouhlic.advisor( cnuc.cagov FOR FURTHER INFORMATION You can get more information from PG&E by writing to: PG&E Cost of Capital and AEAP Applications. PG&E. P.O. Box 7442. San Francisco. CA 94120. You may review a copy of any of the PG&E applications at our corporate headquarters (77 Beale Stmt, Room 3120, San Francisco, CA 94105), any of our division offices, or at the San Francisco office of the CPUC. Este adviso describe la propuesta de Pacific Gas and Electric Company al CPUC para cambios en las tarifas de gas y eiectricidad. Pan informaci6n en espafiol sobre esta propuesta, por favor escriba a Pacific Gas and Electric Company, P.O. Box 7442, Room 3120, San Francisco, CA 94120, "Attention: PG&E Cost of Capital and AEAP Applications." rw March 26, 2004 TO: STATE, COUNTY AND CITY OFFICIALS NOTICE OF THE APPLICATION FOR GAS RATE CHANGE On March 19, 2004, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) filed an application with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC or Commission) requesting changes to PG&E's gas rates for the calendar year 2005, and storage rates'from April 1, 2005 to March 31, 2006. This application is known as the "Gas Transmission and Storage 2005 Rate Case Application" (referred to herein as the Application). In the Gas Accord II -2004 Decision (CPUC Decision (D.) 03-12-061 in Application 01-10-011), the Commission adopted the existing gas market structure for 2004 and 2005. Therein, the Commission set rates for 2004, and ordered PG&E to file this Application to, among other things, set gas transmission and storage services for 2005. WHY WE ARE ASKING FOR CHANGES We are requesting a decrease in the gas transmission and storage revenue requirement by $1 million to recover the costs of providing gas transmission and storage services and to comply with government regulations and orders regarding these services. This represents a total decrease of less than I% from the gas transmission and storage revenues for 2004. This decrease is only for the 2005 period. The decrease in revenue requirement, coupled with a projected decrease in total gas usage, result in a slight proposed increase in revenues for bundled core customers. If the CPUC approves our gas rate increase request, a residential customer using 50 therms per month would see an average monthly gas bill increase of $0.27, or 0.6%, from $45.50 to $45.77. Your individual bill may differ. Bundled core bills include the total cost of gas and transportation to a customer's location. Transportation -only customer bills only include the cost of transportation. A new backbone level service will be available to qualifying noncore end use customers. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION The CPUC welcomes the public's participation. Before acting on our application, the CPUC may hold public participation hearings to provide customers an opportunity to express their views. If public participation hearings are scheduled, you will be notified of the dates, times and locations. You may also submit written comments to the CPUC at the address listed below. All such correspondence to the CPUC should include a reference to PG&E's Gas Transmission and Storage 2005 Rate Case Application. Evidentiary hearings on this application have not yet been scheduled. Evidentiary hearings are formal hearings in which parties present their proposals in testimony and are subject to cross-examination before an Administrative Law Judge. These hearings are open to the public, but only those wishing to present evidence or cross-examine witnesses may participate. If you would like to participate in the evidentiary hearings, please contact the CPUC's Public Advisor at the address below. Participants in these proceedings may offer proposals that differ from those of PG&E. After considering these proposals, the CPUC will issue a decision. The actual plan adopted by the CPUC may differ from what is requested by PG&E in its application, and may result in an increase or decrease in your individual rates. If you wish to participate in the proceedings or send comments, if you need advice or more information, or if you want to get copies of the Office of Ratepayer Advocates' rate proposals when they are available, please write or call: The Public Advisor California Public Utilities Commission 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 2103 San Francisco, CA 94102 415.703.2074 1.866.849.8390 TTY 415.703.5282 TYY toll free 1.866.836.7825 or via e-mail to: public.advisor@cpuc.ca.gov Mention PG&E Gas Transmission and Storage 2005 Rate Case Application and indicate if you would like a written response, otherwise, no reply will be sent. Your letter will be sent to the Commissioners and will become part of the formal correspondence file for this application. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION You can get more information from PG&E by writing to: PG&E Gas Transmission and Storage 2005 Rate Case Application, PG&E, P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, CA 94120. You may review a copy of any of the PG&E applications at our corporate headquarters (77 Beale Street, Room 3120, San Francisco, CA 94105), any of our division offices, or at the San Francisco office of the CPUC. Este adviso describe to propuesta de Pacific Gas and Electric Company al CPUC para cambios en las tarifas de gas. Para inforrnacibn en espafiol sobre esta propuesta, por favor escriba a Pacific Gas and Electric Company, P.O. Box 7442, Room 3120, San Francisco, CA 94120, "Attention: PG&E Gas Transmission and Storage 2005 Rate Case Application' F{ D C Gas 80d F4 4 ®BCbl6 COfOpM March 20, 2002 Docket Clerk California Public Utilities Commission 505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102 Chades R Lewis, IV Attorney at law n Beale meat San Fran om 0s 941M Msihng Address P.O. Box 7442 San Frmc=. 0194120 415973.6610 Fac: 415.973.D516 E -Mail: crl2Qpp.com Re: Order Instituting Rulemaking Into implementation of Assembly Bill 1149, Regarding Underground Electric and Communications Facilities, Rulemaking 00-01-005 (Filed January 6, 2000) Dear Docket Clerk: Enclosed for filing are the original and five copies of: 1) PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO REQUEST OF CITIZENS CONCERNED ABOUT EMFS FOR AN AWARD OF COMPENSATION, 2) PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY'S. RESPONSE TO REQUEST OF 1e STREET NEIGHBORS FOR AN AWARD OF COMPENSATION, and 3) PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO REQUEST OF CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE FOR UTILITY SAFETY AND EDUCATION (CAUSE) FOR AN AWARD OF COMPENSATION. Note that PG&E is filing today pursuant to an express extension of time granted to participating utilities by Administrative Law Judge Carol. A. Brown. Please file the original and return a file -stamped copy in the envelope provided. Your co . esy in this matter is appreciated. V y y yours, CHARLES R. LEWIS, IV CRUbb Enclosures RECEIVED cc: All Parties of Record MAR 2 5 2002 David Lee SLO CiTy COUNCIL BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Order Instituting Rulemaking into Implementation of Assembly Bill 1149 RULEMAKING 00-01-005 Regarding Underground Electric and Communications Facilities PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO REQUEST OF CITIZENS CONCERNED ABOUT EMFS FOR AN AWARD OF COMPENSATION MICHELLE L. WILSON CHARLES R LEWIS, IV Law Department Pacific Gas and Electric Company Post Office Box 7442 San.Francisco, CA 94120 Telephone: (415) 973-6610 Fax: (415) 973-5520 e-mail: crl2@pge.com Attorneys for PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY March 20, 2002 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Order Instituting Rulemaking into Implementation of Assembly Bill 1149 RULEMAKING 00-01-005 Regarding Underground Electric and Communications Facilities PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO REQUEST OF CITIZENS CONCERNED ABOUT EMFS FOR AN AWARD OF COMPENSATION Pursuant to section 1804(c) of the Public Utilities Code and the one-week extension of time granted by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Carol Brown, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) hereby comments on CCAE's request for compensation in R.00-01- 055 for its contributions to Decision 01-12-009. CCAE was found eligible to file for an award of intervenor compensation in ALJ Brown's Ruling dated June 12, 2000. CCAE is requesting an award of compensation of $45,777.13 for its contributions. PG&E opposes CCAE's request. L BACKGROUND In response to AB 1149 the Commission instituted Rulemaking 00-01-005 to study ways to amend, revise and improve the rules for conversion of overhead electric and communication utilities facilities to underground facilities. Out the outset of this proceeding, the Energy Division issued its "White Paper" covering the Commission's program for undergrounding electric distribution lines. The Commission held several workshops, public participation. meetings, and allowed several. rounds of written comments from parties. CCAE has been a participant in this proceeding since the early stages and filed its Notice Of Intent To Claim Compensation on March 8, 2000. Be IL CCAE'S CONTRIBUTION PG&E disagrees with CCAE that CCAE provided substantial contributions to the rulemaking that are evidenced in D.01-12-009. A "substantial.contribution" is defined in Public Utilities Code §1802 (h) as: "in the judgment of the commission, the customer's presentation has substantially assisted the commission in the making of its order or decision because the order or decision has adopted in whole or in part one or more factual contentions, legal contentions, or specific policy or procedural recommendations presented by the customer." PG&E does not believe CCAE's participation meets the criteria for an award as stated in Public Utilities Code §1802 (h). Furthermore, PG&E wonders about the purpose and value of CCAE's continued participation when their primary concern appears to be EMFs and the Commission had already at the outset, as noted in the Energy Division's White Paper (November 19, 1999), requested the Department of Health Services to conduct a study of the health impacts of EMFs, examining among other things, undergrounding as a potential mitigation measure. To date there has been no conclusive evidence to support the undergrounding of electric facilities as a cost effective solution to concerns with EMFs from overhead electric utility facilities. CCAE appears to have joined in with several other parties in.the generic chorus of "Do more, faster, cheaper, and put the cities in charge." While loud and repetitive, the refrain does not ensure rational public policy. The Commission, in D.12-01-009, has taken a rational and measured approach, based on the information before it, to make revisions to Rule 20 to allow for greater utilization of undergrounding resources by expanding Rule 20A criteria, has extended from 3 to 5 years the length of time communities can "mortgage" allocations, and allows Rule 20A funds to be used to "seed" Rule 20B projects. The bulk of CCAE's proposals are not reflected in the Commission's decision and CCAE's attempt at its rather esoteric goal may actually have detracted from the constructive debate as opposed to adding substantively to the proceeding. M Active participation alone does not warrant an award of compensation. A pair of issues CCAE points to as justification for its request had already been identified by the Commission for consideration; more control and flexibility for local governments, and improved service reliability. But this pair of issues was not "raised" by CCAS. Indeed, these issues were included in the list contained in AB 1149. Moreover, CCAE's participation, though at times vociferous, did not bring either of these issues to resolution. in phase one of this proceeding. Similarly, with.regard to another issue "raised" by CCAS, identifying alternative funding sources, CCAE did nothing to further debate of this matter. First, such funding (e.g., municipal bonds) was not "raised" by CCAS. Such alternative sources of funding are listed in the League of California Cities' Underground Utilities Conversion Planning Guide. (See Planning Guide page 18.) Second, expansion of alternative funding for Rule 20 projects is beyond the Commission's jurisdiction. Finally; existing tariffs do not Prohibit the use of other funds in conjunction with Rule 20 projects. In short, there has been no identifiable incremental benefit for ratepayers from CCAE's participation in this proceeding to date. III. BENEFITS TO RATEPAYERS The Commission in D.01-12-009 ordered the utilities to file advice letters incorporating the identified revisions. The utilities filed new Rule 20 language incorporating the following: • expanding Rule 20A criteria to includes arterial streets or major collectors; -3- • allowing Rule 20A funds to be used in combination with Rule 20B funds to promote more conversion projects; and • allowing cities to mortgage Rule 20A allocations for up to five years The Commission also ordered the utilities to create a formalized process whereby a point person at each of the utilities will meet regularly with the city and residents who are in the queue for conversion projects, and with residents and the city once a conversion project is under way. PG&E is undertaking to establish such a formalized process. Additionally the utilities are required to meet and confer and design a standardized reporting mechanism by which all utilities involved in conversion projects will keep data on each circuit, including the percentage of overhead and underground lines, what technology is used, and the age of the equipment, and file the data annually with the Commission's Energy Division. The utilities are complying. Finally, PG&E, Pacific Bell, and the League of California Cities are required to meet and confer on the drafting of an updated Undergrounding Planning .Guide, and report to the Energy Division as to when the update will be available, both in hard copy, and on the CPUC website. PG&E is undertaking that task as well. Notably, the Commission did not adopt two of CCAE's primary proposals to turn control of Rule 20 over to local communities or to introduce competitive bidding. Several of CCAE's other proposals regarding service reliability, life are deferred until Phase two of this proceeding and as such, compensation for work related to those proposals should be requested at the conclusion of Phase two of R.00-01-005. For these reasons it is difficult for PG&E to describe CCAE's contributions as substantial. CCAE's participation failed to provide meaningful benefits to ratepayers in this proceeding, and in several respects CCAE's proposals, if adopted, would have resulted in increased costs to all ratepayers with only a few reaping benefits. -4- IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons captured herein, PG&E opposes CCAE's request for an award of compensation of $45,777.13. Dated: March 20, 2002 Respectfully submitted, CHARLES R. LEWIS, IV Law Department Pacific Gas and Electric Company Post Office Box 7442 San Francisco, CA 94120 Telephone: (415)973=6610 Fax: (415)973-5520 e-mail: cr12@pge.com Attorneys for PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY -5- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY FACSIMILE AND MAIL I, the undersigned, state that I am a citizen of the United States and am employed in the City and County of San Francisco; that] am over the age of eighteen (18) years and not a party to the within cause; and that my business address is Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Law Department B30A, 77 Beale Street, San Francisco, California 94105. I am readily familiar with the business practice of Pacific Gas and Electric Company for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. In the ordinary course of business, correspondence is deposited with the United States Postal Service the same day it is submitted for mailing. On the 20th day of March 2002, 1 served a true copy of: PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY'... RESPONSE TO REQUEST OF CITIZENS CONCERNED ABOUT EMFS FOR AN AWARD OF COMPENSATION by facsimile, and by placing it for collection and mailing, in the course of ordinary business practice, with other correspondence of Pacific Gas and Electric Company, enclosed in a sealed envelope, with postage fully prepaid, addressed to: To all parties on the official service list I certify and declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on the 20th day of March 2002. BELINDA BATES BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Order Instituting Rulemaking into Implementation of Assembly Bill 1149 RULEMAKING 00-01-005 Regarding Underground Electric and Communications Facilities PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO REQUEST OF 19`x' STREET NEIGHBORS FOR AN AWARD OF COMPENSATION MICHELLE L. WILSON CHARLES R LEWIS, IV Law Department Pacific Gas and Electric Company Post Office Box 7442 San Francisco, CA 94120 Telephone: (415) 973-6610 Fax: (415) 973-5520 e-mail: crl2@pge.com Attorneys for PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY March 20, 2002 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Order Instituting Rulemaking into Implementation of Assembly Bill 1149 RULEMAKING 00-01-005 Regarding Underground Electric and Communications Facilities PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO REQUEST OF 19th STREET NEIGHBORS FOR AN AWARD OF COMPENSATION Pursuant to section 1804(c) of the Public Utilities Code and the one-week extension of time granted by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Carol Brown, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) hereby comments on 19'h Street Neighbors' request for compensation in R.00-01-055 for its contributions to Decision 01-12-009. Wh Street Neighbors was deemed eligible to seek an award of intervenor compensation in ALJ Brown's Ruling dated April 11, 2000. 19'hStreet Neighbors is requesting an award of compensation of $33,095. PG&E opposes 196' Street Neighbors' request and reiterates its opposition to Utility Design, Inc. (UDI), serving as the 19'h Street Neighbors' representative, seeking compensation as a "customer" when it is clearly pursuing its own commercial interests and is not serving in a representative capacity. L BACKGROUND In response to AB 1149 the Commission instituted Rulemaking 00-01-005 to study ways to amend, revise and improve the rules for conversion of overhead electric and communication utilities facilities to underground facilities: Out the outset of this proceeding, the Energy Division issued its "White Paper.'covering the Commission's program for undergrounding electric distribution lines. The Commission held several -1- workshops, public participation meetings, and allowed several rounds of written comments from parties. The 19'h Street Neighbors has been a participant in this proceeding since the early stages and filed its Notice Of Intent To Claim Compensation on March 10, 2000. IL THE 19th STREET NEIGHBORS' CONTRIBUTION PG&E disagrees with 19`h Street Neighbors that is provided substantial contributions to the rulemaking that are evidenced in D.01-12-009. A "substantial contribution" is defined in Public Utilities Code § 1802 (h) as: "in the judgment of the commission, the customer's presentation has substantially assisted the commission in the making of its order or decision because the order or decision has adopted in whole or in part one or more factual contentions, legal contentions, or specific policy -or procedural recommendations presented by the customer. This simple fact is that the 19'h Street Neighbors have not made a substantial contribution to the Commission's decision making in this proceeding and it has not intended to make such a contribution. Indeed, 10 Street Neighbors do not seek any changes to Rule 20. The residents of 19'h Street simply want their block included in the current phase of undergrounding projects scheduled in San Francisco. Thus, the primary and only complaint of the 19'h Street Neighbors is that the City and County of San Francisco has selected streets near their block of 19`h Street for undergrounding pursuant to Rule 20A but not their specific block. Residents of 19"' Street have repeatedly written to the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor urging that their block be selected for the current round of undergrounding projects. (See attached letters.) The city has stated that although this block of 19`h Street qualifies for undergrounding pursuant to Rule20A, there were insufficient allocations available to include the block in the current round of projects. (id.) -2- But the 19a' Street Neighbors' interest is not before the Commission in this proceeding. Indeed, the selection by San Francisco or any other city of one Rule 20A qualifying project over another qualifying with less meritorious project is a matter within that city's discretion. It would make a mockery of the intervenor compensation process if the 19`s Street Neighbors were granted compensation from all utility ratepayers in order to advocate their Rule 20A project be selected over another qualified project previously selected by the city. Moreover, the proposal for competitive bidding serves not the primary goal of the 19'` Street Neighbors but UDI's own commercial interest and as such does not merit an award of intervenor compensation: As PG&E noted in its. comments filed jointly with Southern California Edison in response to 19`s Street Neighbors'/UDI's Notice Of Intent to Request Compensation, Public Utilities Code Section 1804 permits'only "customers" to seek Intervenor Compensation. In this proceeding, UDI is not. so much a customer or representative of a group of customers and their interests. Rather, it is a commercial entity that designs undergrounding utility systems for a living and is here trying to enlarge its piece of the undergrounding pie. Furthermore, several parties proposed allowing the use of Rule 20A funds to leverage Rule 20B projects. 19`s Street Neighbors'/UDI's position was not unique in this regard and thus fails to meet the standard of"substantial contribution" and does not warrant the request for an award of compensation. Active participation alone, particularly participation intended to feather UDI's own nest, does not warrant an award of compensation. There has been no identifiable incremental benefit for ratepayers from 19'b Street Neighbors/UDI's contribution in this proceeding. Ili. BENEFITS TO RATEPAYERS -3- The Commission, in D.01-12-009, ordered the utilities to file advice letters incorporating the identified revisions. The utilities filed new Rule 20 language incorporating the following: • expanding Rule 20A criteria to includes arterial streets or major collectors; • allowing Rule 20A funds to be used in combination with Rule 20B funds to promote more conversion projects; and • allowing cities to mortgage Rule 20A allocations for up to five years. The Commission also ordered the utilities to create a formalized process whereby a point person at each of the utilities will meet regularly with the city and residents who are in the queue for conversion projects, and with residents and the city once a conversion project is under way. PG&E is undertaking to establish such a formalized process. Additionally the utilities are required to meet and confer and design a standardized reporting mechanism by which all utilities involved in conversion projects will keep data on each circuit, including the percentage of overhead and underground lines, what technology is used, and the age of the equipment, and file the data annually with the Commission's Energy Division. The utilities are complying. Finally, PG&E, Pacific Bell, and the League of California Cities are required to meet and confer on the drafting of an updated Undergrounding Planning Guide, and report to the Energy Division as to when the update will be available, both in hard copy, and on the CPUC website. PG&E is undertaking that task as well Not one of the changes listed above include any suggestion by the 19's Street Neighbors/UDI. Therefore, PG&E believes that the 19'hStreet Neighbors'/UDI's participation failed to provide meaningful benefits to ratepayers in this proceeding, reflected the limited interests of the 19`s Street Neighbors and the commercial interests of UDI. -4- IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons captured herein, PG&E opposes 19'h Street Neighbors'/UDI's request for an award of compensation of $33,095. Dated: March 20, 2002 Respectfully submitted, w.nnrmr T c 7 XIM enAT Law Department Pacific Gas and Electric Company Post Office Box 7442 San Francisco, CA 94120 Telephone: (415) 973-6610 Fax: (415)973-5520 e-mail: crl2@pge.com Attorneys for PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY -5- City and County at San lgaridsoo wane t owls Drum, Jr., Mayor VIark A. Prtmau, ALik tlk=w and City Amh bed April 13,1998 Eileen Gold 3631 19th- Stant San Francisco, CA 94110 Subject: UndergroundtngofUtil ias Dear Ms. Gold: (415) 554.6801 FAX (415) 5544847 ef�rJarwws�w.00a Oepartatant of Pubrie World Bureau ed8bed4be sed Mappinl US Stalin t Strait, Room 46( So Franciscoo, CA. 941034)947 Thank you for your letter regerd-mg utility andergrounding an 19th Street. As you may know, last summer the Board of SupcT% isors approved an agreement whereby the City and PG&E will be combining the undergroundraE of overhead utilities with PG&E's gas maiaTeplaeemeat program. Because the gas main replaeetaent program is so extensive and tmde:g;ot Rift fends are limited, criteria outimed by Sae CriifomiaPublic Utilides Corataission and contain isthe City's Public Works Code were utilized to select candidate area. Approximately 55 miles of strscu were specified as eligible candidates to be underg ouaded via this accelerated joint project Mthese, 42 miles will be selected to be tmdergrounded over the nextfive years. The potential districts were identified as having streets that carry a heavy volume of pedestrian and vehicl: !raffic or areas that are in the general public interest, such as areas around parks and coms.cnity centers. Potential candidates are within areas designated for PG&E's gas pipeline repiacemeut program. Also considered are atlas containing the City's major capital improvement protects as well as those arras which had previously verified petitions for undetgrounding. In sdditioa, we are attempting to spread die program in all sections of the City, especially :hose in which little has been undergmunded in the past We are not recommending adding on to the areas specified in the agreement Rather, we are currently engaged in the considerable task of reducing the existing projects down Som 55 miles to 42 miles. We are proceeding with several underground projects in the Dolores Street area, which were all selected rising thecriteria outlined above. These include clearing the overhead lines from the length of Dolores Std and tmdergrotmding two previously petitioned great~ the Liberty Hill mcg, and the Dolores Heights arra. While we mgeetthatwe etre unable to include 19111 Street. we are pleased that your neighborhood will greatly benefit under the new meelerated progm- The Deparaneat of Public Works is working with the Board of Supervisors to develop a policy for prioritizing areas to be underlacuoded after the current joint undetgroun 4iag/gas main . replacement effort is completed. The Mayor's office has strocgly urged Public Worms to joie capital projects wherever possible. ME's pipeline replacement program offers the potential for extending this joint project beyond the txtrteat 5 year construction schedule, as do numerous other public and private capital projects. 'IMPROVING TME OUALRV OF UFE IAr SAN FRANCISCO' Nv � d�dkrb0lid eoeunkt�d to hanwvk eroeaasr farrtm and m ones wWwwwnt lel oaewahto wM No awnwaft Er7cea Gold P&PZ Apail 13t 1998 Tie Utility Uoderpotmdiog Prop= is a popular war e:pecidiy since the agreement was aanoaooed Inst summer providing funds for streetlights. Our office has received ummy waft nequft s for iaelnsion sincethat time. Buttbecommodmadvi6nming=ftme signif cam PG&Wx portion alone costs an averse ofSl a MEm per mile. It is a source of %tstration for us not to be able to wWaS omd all the area where PG&E aoeavatioo provides the opportunity for coardmadaa. At this time we eau only coordinate with 20'%6 of the streets rectift pipeline np>pmdas. We art working with the League of Calibmia Cities to find ways to increase the WRocadons available for utft undergrooad'mg which are regulated by the Slate of Cml&miei Public Utilities Commission. At the current rate of funding we are 125-150 years away ftum seeing the last of overhead utility linea in, San Francisco. If you are Wereftcl in this issue please e6mteet: League of California Cities 1400 K SUM 4th floor Sacramento, CA ' 95814 We encourage your continued zuersst in the program, but are not aec cp ft petitions at this time. We have however, fled your lacer to record your neighborhood's iater+est in the tttiyity • undergrounding program. If yze have any other questions, or need farther hLfmma&% please call Mr. John Fadeff at 554-5330. Sincerely, tJ. rimbur Utility Undergrounding Coordinator 3-%Undcrpemd%U® Rcqucx&oIrp WpimfCold 191h S&BcLd c City and County of San F► ci wo WOO Lewis ern. Jr., Mew Mark A.tawata,t sndGtyAnddW Noveeober 3. 1999 Ilene Cold 3631-190 Street San Famcisco, CA 94110 Dear Ms Gold: (415) 554.6800 FAX (415) 364.6845 etof W avre,v 4d8teaatdla and 678 stawnwn Shy R=n 460 Sae RaCA 941034M 8arbars L ". Bureau UsmW I've enclosed copies of ow old petitions as you mp sted. As we discussed, the petitioning process to identify utility upw rouadiag areas was suspended is the summer of 1997. Sincerely, John Utility Unde:grounding '"Im"W"MOMB.a4..N.mwwaswvemank" •IUMW VIA G THE O=nY of UFE W sw FRAM %S= tM. us armedr ratrmnnKaeto i.anwork ewroRw MWVAM BW eoWWW MvMvwW*a PW&W&* wen►Ns mfflnm" r. C&WWr rsRA%W Tidnwork CWHI1nOMffl�pfOv�nlMlt City and County of Sr 'imnaisco Me Laarh eroera, Jr.. Mtayor (bark A. Ptbnm% AtadbcL AIA, Dkoctor January 11, 2000 Eileen Gold Robert Sims 3631 19e Street San FmnckM CA 94110 Subject UndergroundingofUtk'W= Dear Ms. Gold and M. Sims: •�� DpParti MM of PO k IWm BtaMu o! 8bsa6(lae and MaPpl am Ru CA 94103-M Berl N 0 L_ Mel,, Bureau Mtenal This is in response to your letter of29 Dooe *w 1999. the sit m6= in >tgatds to our un Program has not changed since our letters to you in 1998. 8 As you are aware, we aro with the MdaZMnft gas main outlined in the 1997 agreeme use t andreidacement in the s undergrouading ittads are iimiud, w e can mem RPlaeemeat Pwg= is so extensive and area replacement is °�r undergrond about me in every five miles where gas :Twain occurring. We will be spreading the program in all seed ms ofthe City, especianythose in which little has been undergrotmaed in the past. We are not recotnmending adding on to the areas specified in the agtemm We are procce several underground projects in the Dolores Street anx These include clearing the overhead linemg with the length of Dolores Street, and undergrounding two previously petitioned areas. the l t�erty Irl a and the Dolores Heights area. In addition, we will be undtWounding along the entire length Street While we regret that we are unable to include your block of 19e of Folsom neighborhood will greatly benefit under the new accelerated program, Sezeet, we aro phrased :fiat Your The Utility Undergrounding Program remains a popular one. Our office has received many wo , 5v requests for inclusion since that time. But the ve a source of snation for us not to be able to and sts associated with underpmmding are significant. It is . the opportunity for coordination. erground all the areas where PG&E =Mvation provides We continue working with the IAagne of California Cities to Sad wa" to available for utility undergrounding which are re ineeese the allocations Commission. If you ase interested in yah issue please S . of Califoaaia s Public U`Mities League of California Cities 1400 K Stmt, 4e floor Sacramento. CA 95814 'IMPROVING THE QU4L rM OF LIEF IN SAN FPANMW- NIA! q Old �rrardma0 faaerr�k CutlOraar SOMM a" M&N OM %apOYarMat An parbrrM* We are OOfaelaaf�, Customer SIPFAM Tia�lnOk t�rlatlYWf ar►pYpYf� Eileen Gold and Rober. is Jant ary I I, 2000 Page 2 of 2 Yon may also wish to Contact the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) d'rectly and UV changesin the undagorrodmg program. I gaderawd that some changes ate cwnn* under review. The CPUC may be reached at Caikkiotnia PublicUtilities Commission SOS Van Nes Avenue San Francisco, CA 941M we encmusp your continued Interest in the program. we we unable to aeoept your petitions at this time sincc, as both Mr. Fadeff and I told you, we no longer have an active petitiong program. AMhozh we are keeping a copy as an a gxmion of your uterus we are returning them to you for safe keeping. If you have any other questions, or need further' 6 ation, please call Mr. John Fadeff at 554-5830. Sincerely. Thomas J. Trimbur Utility Underground ng Coordinator cc: Mayor Willie Brown Supervisor Mark Leno Patricia Healy.PG&E 1:%UrAffrn=cRUGD Rrgwm1pim bgWhd%3W=.doc City and County of So, vnciaco WBila L WAS Brvrm, Jr., Mayor Mark A. Prbrm% ArchheaL AIA. Direvor February I Or 2000 Catmna Ramirez Sao Francisco Neighborhood Alliance SSS John Muir. No. 404 San Francisco, CA 94132 Subject Undecgounding of Utilities on 196• Street. Darer Ms. Ramiro= (415) 5560 FAX µ13S 5644M hl�JAwww.stfapw.mr DOPrtin.0011 of PubBe We* Bureau of StrNt.Ws and lbappirq BTS Stevenson Stfaet. Room 49 Sam Frartdsco, CA 8410344 Barbara L May, Bureau leafage This is in response to your e-mail to Mark Primeau on February 6,1999. 1 am responding via post so as to be able to provide you with copies of our correspondence with Eileen Gold (enclosed). This office received a letter fr= Ns. Gold in I999, but no petitions were intruded with that correspondence. In toy response to that inquiry (enclosed), I outlated tltt: limimdon to the nodcgounding Program and *e. benefits tier the program will be banging to this particular neighborhood. Following that letter. Ms. Gold had several conversations with W. John Fadeff who works with me on the undergroundipS program. In November of 1998, Ms. Gold requested copies of our old petitions. By that time, we were no longer acc%ning new petitions as we had eacplained to Ms. Gold and reiterated in our letter to her (enclosed). For your information prior to -1997 agreement with PG&E, petitions had been provided to anyone who telephoned regarding undergtotmding. Late in December of 1999 Ms. Gold submitted petitions from her block. Our response to her submittal is also enclosed. As described in the enclosed correspondence, the 1997 agreement approved by the Board of Supervisors and signed by the Mayor identified areas scheduled for gas mails rephmm at as candidates for undcrgmunding. Because the ges main replacement program is so ermosive and uodagotmding ftmds are limited, criteria outlined by the California Public Utilities Commission and contained in the City's Public Works Code were utilized to select candidate areas. Caodidwe areas were identified as having streets that carry a heavy volume of pedestrian and vehicle traffic or areas that an in the general public interest, such as aeras adjacent to parks and community -entre%. Also considered are areas containing the City's major capital improvemar projects as well as those area which had tmevieusly verified petitions for undergrounding. In addition, we arc attempting to spread the program in all sections of the City, especially those in which little ha; been undeigrounded in the past. The agent of undorgrounding that the City is able to accomplish is determined at the state level by the California Public Utilities Commission which has established allocation formulas for undengroumding. Let me assure you that the limitations on the project are mmsmely frustrating for all concerned, indbdintg City staff. The City has been and continues to work with the league of California Cities to increase the allocations for undetgrounding. I& PRO WNC rHE OLJALJIY OF LIFE W SAN FA/U =C W "taco dedeaAW RXWd=* eenre►itbd w MWmark atstmrw,► %ernes SW CWWWN0 &OMMnpn! Lr+ptrrMf&* Nth ft eamRamIV Customer Senke Aamwmt CoMy = tmprowtaerd Carmea Ramiro Sia Francisco Neigh wawod Allisaee February 10, 2000 P4P 2 oft' Villas iutme wed will be for mudag oanding on the 3600 block of 10 Street and the remainder of grab throughout[ the G"riy will depend on a member of factem. Until recently we had PG&E, POBen aid AT&T Cable services meluded is oar trade Wand piojeu . Reca dy an additional partmpait, RCN, has bees joining in and lues reddeed tie can per panieipant cosb.alm will depend on other Capital . improvemeer projects which may be o=zmng m the area as wen a: impnmd technologies which may ingrease efficiencies in such projects. WbatsvW the costs. it is vay unlikely that a district would be created for this one block. Rather, to farther increase gffeianu� we would inch a tris block in a dustriCt with other adjacent blocks which would be uodergtoaided at the sung time. The fact mmam that raeurces for ondagrouiding are limited. We receive n>tmerous wuatlty Miles's feom neighborhoods such as Ms Gold's to be included in madmWound districts For ammpla, we have had requests for inclusion of daost a mile of additional blocks g the L'baty Hill/Dolaes Heights area alone. Udminately are do not have the resouoea tD include then m me rm requem in the program. As I have stated, the finding levels ane very frustrating and we are working with the Lague of California Cities to increase the rate of undeegroumding dmShout all pus -of the City. If you have any other questions, orr need further information, please give me a call at SS4.6167. Sincerely, ZbomasW'Trimbur Utility Underground ng Coordinator cc: Alex Manak I*zm5d*nfduUhWazm=dkUGD Rcqucshlpby M*&k =k=OO.ADC poeffle SOS Md Becok 1' February24, 2000 Ms. Eileen Gold 3531 190 Street San Francisco, CA 94110 Dear Ms. Gold: lI11E41, or RQnme��"' � � Met� M Y �M! C oY a2 I', 23 Dr. a< Fustic wOR s This letteris in response to your questions in your letter dated January 10, 2000. 2m -,mime Anel SoF,ace rAserro Why Is undergrounding not being implemented on the blocks where the gas mains are replaced? • Then: is a 42 mile Rule 20A undergrounding program whereby apprmdmato 2-3 milesyear of undergrounding occurs where gas main replacement Is occuring. • Apprwdmately 30 moos of gas mann replacement occurs per yaw. Was there not an agreement between the PUC and PG&E in 1997 where the City agreed to underground all wires where gas main replacement occurs? • The City and County of San Francisco and PG&E entered into a Master Agreement in 1997. PG&E and the Department of Public Works will cooperate to underground 42 milesof overhead electric wires ana poles and coordinate this work with PG&es natural gas pipeline replacement Pogtwr., -which is aPPrordmateiy 350 mites. What will PG&E do for us to ensure !hat our wires are undergrounded when our gas mains are replaced in 2001? • The 42 mile undergrounding program being coordinated with gag pipeline replacement is . per •Section A' of the Rule 60 tariff (see attached). Several of the 42 mrle undergroundrng Projects are in the Dolores Street area. These include the length of Dolores Street, the Liberty Hill area and the Dolores Heights area. • We regret to inform you that your oloc k is not included as one of the 42'roes specified in the agreement. We feel that your neighborhood will gmwy benefit by the work planned in the Dolores Street area under tho new 42 mile undergrounding Program, • The Rule 20 tariff has a provision 'section B' for Rule 20B projects in ciriaunstancas other than those covered by'Section A' such as the 42 mile program. This Program is available to you. For your information the cost tar the electric portion of underaroundmg is aoproximately $300/ trench foot +150%. Trenching is generally on both sides of the street, mduding the intersections to new power poles, whets the electric rises from underground bade to overhead, outside the project boundary; therefore, the electric portion of undergrounding the 3600 block of 1 e Street may be 5500,000 +/. 50%. If you would like to discuss an undergrounding project per •Section B' of the Rule 20 tariff, please contact me at (415) 69S-3394. P.E. cc: Tom Tnmbur, CCSF-DPW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY FACSIMILE AND MAIL I, the undersigned, state that.1 am a citizen of the United States and am employed in the City and County of San Francisco; that I am over the age of eighteen (18) years and not a party to the within cause; and that.my business address is Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Law Department B30A, 77 Beale Street, San Francisco, California 94105. I am readily familiar with the business practice of Pacific. Gas and Electric Company for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. In the ordinary course of business, correspondence is deposited with the United States Postal Service the same day it isisubmitted for mailing. On the 20th day of March 2002, 1 served a true copy of: PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO REQUEST OF. 19"' STREET NEIGHBORS FOR AN AWARD OF COMPENSATION by facsimile, and by placing it for collection and mailing, in the course of ordinary business practice, with other correspondence of Pacific .Gas and Electric Company, enclosed in a sealed envelope, with postage fully prepaid, addressed to: To all parties on the official service list I certify and declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on the 20th day of March 2002. BELINDA BATES BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Order Instituting Rulemaking into Implementation of Assembly Bill 1149 RULEMAKING 00=01-005 Regarding Underground Electric and Communications Facilities PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO REQUEST OF CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE FOR UTILITY SAFETY AND EDUCATION (CAUSE) FOR AN AWARD OF COMPENSATION MICHELLE L. WILSON CHARLES R LEWIS, IV Law Department Pacific Gas and Electric Company Post Office Box 7442 San Francisco, CA 94120 Telephone: (415) 973-6610 Fax: (415) 973=5520 e-mail: crl2@pge.com Attorneys for PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY March 20, 2002 BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Order Instituting Rulemaking into Implementation of Assembly Bill 1149 RULEMAKING 00-01-005 Regarding Underground Electric and Communications Facilities PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO REQUEST OF CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE FOR UTILITY SAFETY AND EDUCATION (CAUSE) FOR AN AWARD OF COMPENSATION Pursuant to section 1804(c) of the Public Utilities Code and. the one-week extension of time granted by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Carol Brown, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) hereby comments on CAUSE's request for compensation in R.00-01- 055 for its contributions to Decision 01-12-009. CAUSE was deemed eligible to seek for an award of intervenor compensation in ALJ Brown's Ruling dated May 1, 2000. CAUSE is requesting an award of compensation of $106,843.80 for its contributions. PG&E believes that CAUSE has made a contribution to this proceeding but opposes CAUSE's request due to the over excessive charges for the amount of work that CAUSE has produced in this proceeding. I.BACKGROUND In response to AB 1149 the Commission instituted Rulemaking 00-01-005 to study ways to amend, revise and improve the rules for conversion of overhead electric and communication utilities facilities to underground facilities. At the outset of this proceeding, the Energy Division issued its "White Paper" covering the Commission's program for undergrounding electric distribution lines. The Commission held several -1- workshops, public participation meetings., and allowed several rounds of written comments from parties. CAUSE has been a.participant in this proceeding since the early stages and filed its Notice Of Intent To Claim Compensation on March 9, 2000. II. CAUSE'S CONTRIBUTION PG&E agrees that CAUSE provided a substantial contribution to the rulemaking that are evidenced in D.01-12-009. Public Utilities Code §1802 (h) defines "substantial contribution" as: "in the judgment of the commission, the customer's presentation has substantially assisted the commission in the making of its order or decision because the order or decision has adopted in whole or in part one or more factual contentions, legal contentions, or specific policy or procedural recommendations presented by the customer." However, PG&E does not believe that CAUSE's contribution, although meeting the minimum criteria for an award as stated in Public Utilities Code § 1802 (h), is sufficient to justify an award of more than $30,000 for Phase 1 of this proceeding. Basically, CAUSE's request for an award of intervenor compensation reveals excessive charges on numerous items listed in CAUSE's activity log submitted to the Commission on February ill 2002. The following are some examples that PG&E believes CAUSE is overcharging our ratepayers for the time they spent on this proceeding. CAUSE (along with Margit-Ross-Collins) propounded a joint data request early in the proceeding (Master Data Request #4) consisting of twenty questions. Half of these questions were objected to by PG&E and others. Yet, according to the time log, Ms. Johanson spent over 30 hours in preparing the data request and the abortive motion to compel responses. Meanwhile, Ms. Tukey of CAUSE spent another 8 hours on the data requests and the proposed motion to compel data responses. Also, CAUSE's attorney spent an additional 40 hours reviewing data requests and discussing strategy on the abortive motion to compel further responses to these requests. 5pa In summary, CAUSE proposes to charge utility ratepayersalmost $16,000 associated with one 20 -question data request which was of only marginal value. PG&E believes that this is an example of the over -inflated charges by CAUSE in this proceeding. Another example is the time CAUSE's attorney spent preparing and attending meetings with two Commissioners on this matter. According to the time log, the CAUSE attorney spent 6 hours (at $315 per hour) meetings with Commissioners Woods and Duque. No ex -parte notice was ever submitted in this docket regarding those meetings. Again, PG&E believes that utility ratepayers should not be required to support these inflated charges for institutional lobbying by CAUSE. Another example is the total time spent on this matter by the attorneys for CAUSE. To date, CAUSE has claimed a total of 274.55 attorney hours (at the rate of $315 per hour for the three senior attorneys and $165 per hour for an associate), which amounts to $77,130.75 of attorney fees. This represents almost $80,000 that CAUSE seeks for time spent by its team of attorneys. Indeed,. the time log reveals that some of this time may have been wasted by these attorneys tripping over each other. For example, CAUSE's activity log revealed the total charges of about 17 attorney hours of Mr. Marc B. Mihaly. These charges are to "re -invent the wheel" to review work that another CAUSE attorney had already done and generally "get up to speed" in the case. Again, PG&E does not believe that utility ratepayers should be required to subsidize these inefficient activities. Yet another example of over -inflated charges is the time spent preparing the request for compensation. Even allowing for a 50% discount, the charges seem excessive. For example, CAUSE attorney Alvin Park spent more than 25 hours (12.6 hours claimed) to prepare its request. This is on top of the 18.4 hours that CAUSE attorney Steven Weissman spent on the notice of intent (for which no reduction in time was proposed.) This means that CAUSE proposes to charge utility ratepayers almost $10,000 for time spent by its attorneys to figure out how to charge utility ratepayers in this proceeding. -3- If another example is needed, PG&E points to the $1,648.81 charge for "duplicating costs" on February 11, 2002. The only document that CAUSE produced on that date was the "request for an award of intervenor compensation" which included a sixty-two page of document. CAUSE has the option to submit that document by electronic e-mail instead of spending an excessive amount for producing hard copy of that document. Again, PG&E believes that these costs are excessive and not reasonably incurred and should not be charged to utility ratepayers in full. For these reasons, it is difficult for PG&E to support CAUSE's request for its full compensation. III. BENEFITS TO RATEPAYERS The Commission in D.01-12-009 ordered the utilities to file advice letters incorporating the identified revisions. The utilities filed the new Rule 20 incorporating the following: • expanding Rule 20A criteria to includes arterial streets or major collectors; • allowing Rule 20A funds to be used in combination with Rule 20B funds to promote more conversion projects; • allowing cities to mortgage Rule 20A allocations for up to five years; • regular communication with cities and residents regarding the status of projects; • standardized reporting on each utility circuit; and • an updated Undergrounding Planning Guide for cities. CAUSE can point to the fact that it was among a.group of other participants that contributed to these positive suggestions. But CAUSE's contribution was not alone and the sum of these suggestions cannot justify its requested charge. -4- IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons captured herein, PG&E believes that the value of CAUSE's contribution to this proceeding is minimal and recommends that CAUSE be compensated for the total amount of $30,000 instead of $106,843.80 as CAUSE currently claimed. Dated: March 20, 2002 Respectfully submitted, WILSON his. IV CHARLES R. LEWIS, Law Department Pacific Gas and Electric Company Post Office Box 7442 San Francisco, CA 94120 Telephone: (415) 973-6610 Fax: (415) 973-5520 E-mail: crl2@pge.com Attorneys for PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY -5- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE BY FACSIMILE AND MAIL I, the undersigned, state that I am a citizen of the United States and am employed in the City and County of San Francisco; that I am over the age of eighteen (18) years and not a party to the within cause; and that my business address is Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Law Department B30A, 77 Beale Street, San Francisco, California 94105. I am readily familiar with the business practice of Pacific Gas and Electric Company for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. In theordinary course of business, correspondence is deposited with the United States Postal Service the same day it is submitted for mailing. On the 20th day of March 2002, 1 served a true copy of: PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY'S RESPONSE TO REQUEST OF CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE FOR UTILITY SAFETY AND EDUCATION (CAUSE) FOR AN AWARD OF COMPENSATION by facsimile, and by placing it for collection and mailing, in the course of ordinary business practice, with other correspondence of Pacific Gas and Electric Company, enclosed in a sealed envelope, with postage fully prepaid, addressed to: To all parties on the official service list I certify and declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on the 20th day of March 2002. Belinda Bates _ March 20, 2002 T E, COUNTY AND CITY OFFICIALS D RE�E�vE No ce of Filing of Nuclear Decommissioning Cost Triennial Proceeding 5 'ju' a Application for an Electric Revenue Increase 9. CLERK g�0 acific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E).fled Application on March 15, 2002, with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to increase PG&E's electric revenue in connection with its 2002 Nuclear Decommissioning Cost Triennial Proceeding (NDCTP). If approved by the CPUC after hearings, increases will become effective January1, 2003. PG&E is requesting that, beginning January 1, 2003, it be allowed to include in electric revenues amounts necessary to meet expected nuclear decommissioning liabilities at Diablo Canyon Power Piant and Humboldt Bay Power. Plant Unit 3, as well as the SAFSTOR operations and maintenance costs necessary to maintain the shut down Humboldt Unit 3 facility in compliance with its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license, until decommissioning and dismantlement of that plant can proceed. As filed, the Company's nuclear decommissioning cost proposal would result in an electric revenue increase of $17.706 million in 2003 over the currently authorized level 0'.$31.183 million. This proposed increase is primarily due to higher Humboldt Unit 3 nuclear decommissioning contributions. In addition, PG&E is requesting that electric revenues be further increased on January 1, 2004, by $0.218 million and by an additional $0.230 million on January 1, 2005. All else being equal, adoption of PG&E's proposed $17.706 million electric revenue increase would result in a commensurate electric rate increase. However, PG&E is not requesting any change in total rates at this time. As noted above, based on this Application, PG&E is not seeking a change in total rates, therefore the typical residential electric customer would not see a change in their monthly electric bill. Formal evidentiary hearings on PG&E's Application probably will be held in the Summer of 2002. At these hearings, the CPUC will receive the testimony of PG&E, the.CPUC's Office of Ratepayer Advocates, and other interested parties. • Parties at these hearings may offer proposals to the CPUC that differ from those requested by PG&E. In addition, during the proceedings, updated information may be introduced that could change the amount of the revenues requested. After considering all proposals presented during the formal hearing process, the CPUC will issue a decision. Revenue increases adopted by the CPUC may differ from those requested by PG&E and may result in an increase or decrease in individual rates. Anyone interested in participating in this proceeding and needing advice or more information, including information on the hearings, or wishing to obtain copies of the Office of Ratepayer Advocates' rate proposals when they are available, may write to: The Public Advisor California Public Utilities Commission 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 5303 San Francisco, CA 94102 Or Via electronic mail to: public.advisorna.couc.ca.gov All such correspondence should reference PG&E's 2002 Nuclear Decommissioning Cost Triennial Proceeding. These letters will be sent to the Commissioners and become part of the formal correspondence file for this Application. Please indicate if you would like a written response to your inquiry; otherwise no reply will be sent. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION If you have additional questions about this filing you may write to: Pacific Gas and Electric Company P.O. Box 7442 San Francisco, CA 94120 Attention: 2002 Nuclear Decommissioning Cost Triennial Proceeding A copy of our Application and related exhibits may be reviewed at PG&E's corporate headquarters 77 Beale Street, Room 3120, San Francisco, CA 94105, at any of our division offices, or at the San Francisco office of the CPUC. Este aviso describe la solicitud de PG&E a la CPUC para cambios en las tarifas de electricidad. Para informacibn en espanol sobre este propuesta, por favor escriba a PG&E, P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, CA 94120, "Attention 2002 Nuclear Decommissioning Cost Triennial Proceeding." l,e!5-e Y�� <= Ma 0, 2002 REC�1v ST TE, COUNTY AND CITY OFFICIALS N ice of Filing of Nuclear Decommissioning Cost Triennial Proceeding Application for an Electric Revenue Increase Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) filed Application on March 15, 2002, with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to increase PG&E's electric revenue in connection with its 2002 Nuclear Decommissioning Cost Triennial Proceeding (NDCTP). If approved by the CPUC after hearings, increases will become effective January 1, 2003. PG&E is requesting that, beginning January 1,.2003, it be allowed to include in electric revenues amounts necessary to meet expected nuclear decommissioning liabilities at Diablo Canyon Power Plant and Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3, as well as the SAFSTOR operations and maintenance. costs .necessary to maintain the shut down Humboldt Unit 3 facility in compliance with its Nuclear Regulatory Commission license, until decommissioning and dismantlement of that plant can proceed. As filed, the Company's nuclear decommissioning cost proposal would result in an electric revenue increase of $17.706 million in 2003. over the currently authorized level of -$31.183 million. This proposed increase is primarily due to higher Humboldt Unit 3 nuclear decommissioning contributions. In addition, PG&E is requesting that electric revenues be further increased on January 1, 2004, by $0.218 million and by an additional $0.230 million on January 1, 2005. All else being equal, adoption of PG&E's proposed $17.706 million electric revenue increase would result in a commensurate electric rate increase. However, PG&E is not requesting any change in total rates at this time. As noted above, based on this Application, PG&E .is not seeking a change in total rates, therefore the typical residential electric customer would not see a change in their monthly electric bill. Formal evidentiary hearings on PG&E's Application probably will be held in the Summer of 2002. At, these hearings, the CPUC will receive the testimony of PG&E, the CPUC's .Office of Ratepayer Advocates, and other interested. parties. - Parties at these hearings may offer proposals to the CPUC that differ from those requested by PG&E. In addition, during the proceedings, updated information may be introduced that could change the amount of the revenues requested. After considering All proposals_presented during the formal hearing process, the CPUC will issue a decision. Revenue increases adopted by the CPUC may differ from those requested by PG&E and may result in an increase or decrease in individual rates. Anyone interested in participating in this proceeding and needing advice or more information, including information on the hearings, or wishing to obtain copies of the Office of Ratepayer Advocates' rate proposals when they are available, may write to: The Public Advisor California Public Utilities Commission 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 5303 San Francisco, CA 94102 Or Via electronic mail to:yublic.advisor(d)couc.ca.gov All such correspondence should reference PG&E's 2002 Nuclear Decommissioning Cost Triennial Proceeding. These letters will be sent to the Commissioners and become part of the formal correspondence file for this Application. Please indicate if you would like a written response to your inquiry; otherwise no reply will be sent. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION If you have additional questions about this filing you may write to: Pacific Gas and Electric Company P.O. Box 7442 San Francisco, CA 94120 Attention: 2002 Nuclear Decommissioning Cost Triennial Proceeding A copy of our Application and related exhibits may be reviewed at PG&E's corporate headquarters 77 Beale Street, Room 3120, San Francisco, CA 94105, at any of our division offices, or at the San Francisco office of the CPUC. Este aviso describe la solicitud de PG&E a la CPUC para cambios en las tarifas de electricidad. Para informacibn en espanol sobre este propuesta, por favor escriba a PG&E, P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, CA 94120, "Attention 2002 Nuclear Decommissioning Cost Triennial Proceeding." September 13, 2001 TO STATE, COUNTY AND CITY OFFICIALS 11, Notice of Application for an Electric Rate Increase: Application to Change Distribution Level Standby Rates as Required by CPUC Decision 01-07-027 RECEIVED SEP 2001 CIT Y COUNCIL On September 10, 2001, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) filed an with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), requesting a change in distribution level standby rates as required by CPUC Decision No. 01-07-027. The application is known as PG&E's "Distribution Level Standby Rates Application. The application is necessary to bring the distribution portion of PG&E's standby rates (rates for customers who generate their own electric power but may need service from PG&E when their power generation facilities are out of service) into conformity with the policies adopted by the CPUC in Decision No. 01-07-027. Although the vast majority of PG&E's electric rates will not be affected by the application, the application will, if granted, result in an increase in distribution rates for PG&E customers that take distribution level standby service and are not otherwise exempt from paving such rates. - For that small number of customers, the reservation charge for secondary service will increase from $2.55 (per kW per month applied to 85% of reservation capacity) to $6.91, or 171%, and the reservation charge for primary service will increase from $2.55 (per kW per month applied to 85% of reservation capacity) to $6.25, or 145%. The charge per kWh would decrease. Bundled revenue allocated to standby customers taking secondary service will increase from $2.342 million to $2.561 million, or 9.35%, and bundled revenue allocated to standby customers taking primary service will increase from $5.094 million to $5.428 million, or 6.55%. In addition, standby customers that pay the reservation charge, but pay other charges on the otherwise applicable rate schedule, will pay increased standby charges equivalent the increase in the reservation charge (i.e., 171% at secondary service and 145% at primary service), or an -increase of $2.765 million from PAD million to $4.198 million. PG&E is proposing increases only to standby rates. Increases described in the Application to non -standby rate classes are a result of the increase to the standby reservation charge, not the underlying otherwise applicable rate. This is because certain customers that generate some of their own energy pay the reservation charge in addition to charges on the otherwiseapplicable rate schedule. If the CPUC approves PG&E's electric rate request, the average residential electric customer will see no increase in his or her monthly electric bill. EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS Before acting on this application, the CPUC will hold an evidentiary hearing, expected to begin early next year. At this hearing, which is open to the public, the CPUC will receive the testimony of PG&E, the CPUC's Office of Ratepayer Advocates and other interested parties. Participants at the hearing may offer proposals that differ from those of PG&E. After considering these proposals, the CPUC will issue a decision. The actual decision adopted by the CPUC may differ from what is requested by PG&E in its application. However, it is unlikely that the outcome of the application will result in a change in individual rates for residential customers. If you want to participate in the hearing or send comments, or if you need advice or more information, please write to: The Public Advisor California Public Utilities Commission 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 5303 San Francisco, CA 94102 Or via electronic mail to: Dahl ic.advisor(a.cnu�, . a.Lyo_v FOR FURTHER INFORMATION You can get more information from PG&E by writing to: 2001 Rate Applications, PG&E, P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, CA 94120. You may review a copy of any of the PG&E applications at our corporate headquarters (77 Beale Street, Room 3120, San Francisco, CA 94105), any of our division offices, or at the San Francisco office of the CPUC. Mention the name of the application about which you are inquiring. Este aviso describe la solicitud de PG&E a la CPUC para cambios en las tarifas de electricidad gas natural. Para informacion en espanol sobre este propuesta, por fabor escriba a PG&E, P.O. Box 7442, San Franciso, CA 94120, "Attention: 2001 Rate Applications.. May 17, 2000 TO STATE, COUNTY AND CITY OFFICIALS: RECEIV MAY 2 2 2000 Notice of Applications for a Gas Rate Increase and Electric Revenue Increase: Annual Earnings Assessment and Cost of Capital Proceedings On May 1, 2000 and May 8, 2000, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (the "Company's filed two applications with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) that ask for changes in the Company's electric and natural gas revenues. Together the applications request that the CPUC authorize increases of $139.7 million in electric revenues and $48.9 million in gas rates, effective January 1, 2001. Under a recent state law, electric rates cannot be increased until 2002 or until competitive transition charges ("CTC") are collected. Therefore, the net electric revenue increases requested in the two applications will increase electric rates in the future, but not for a year or more. The gas revenue increases asked for in the two applications will increase gas rates when approved by the CPUC. 2001 ANNUAL COST OF CAPITAL PROCEEDING On May 8, 2000, the Company filed Application No. 00-05-013 for its 2001 cost of capital. In this case, the CPUC evaluates the Company's cost of acquiring funds to finance the company's operations and capital investments. In previous years, the cost of capital for the Company was set for bundled electric service. With electric industry restructuring, the generation, distribution and transmission activities are being unbundled. Therefore the Company is making a proposal for the cost of capital for only unbundled utility distribution operations, public purpose programs and nuclear decommissioning. The Company also is asking the CPUC to authorize the Company to adopt an Annual Cost of Capital Adjustment Mechanism which would set the Company's cost of capital for the next five years based on changes in an approved interest rate benchmark. The Company is requesting an authorized rate of return on equity (ROE) of 12.4 percent to compensate its shareholders fairly for the risks of investing in the utility's electric and gas distribution operations. 2001 COCnewpapereitycourrty.doc 5/IM= 11:05 AM If approved by the CPUC, the Company's cost of capital proposals for its . electric distribution utility operations, taken alone, would result in an electric revenue increase of $114.4. million (1.5 percent). Recently, the Company's 2000 cost of capital proceeding settled at a recommended ROE of 11.22 percent. That settlement is pending approval by the Commission. If the 11.22 percent ROE for 2000 is approved, the electric revenue increase requested in this case for 2001 would become $72.3 milliorr{I-:0-perceIIt}.. As-memioned'above; state law requires that the electric revenue increases will not increase your electric rates at this time, but will do so after the rate freeze ends, or March 2002, whichever comes first. The.Company's gas proposal would lead 1o•.a.gas,revenue requirement.:... increase of $36.7 million (2.8 percent) for 2001, over present rates. If the 11.22 percent ROE settlement for 2000 is approved, the gas revenue increase requested in this case for 2001 would become $23.2 million (1.7 percent). Absent the 2000 settlement, the Company proposes that the increased gas rates be allocated as follows: Gas Customer Class Current Current Rates Revenue % Rates ($/ Adjusted for Increase) Increase therms) Requested (thousands) Increase ($/therms) Bundled Core: Residential $0.587 $0.601 $25,776 2.3% Small Commercial... ,... $0572:.. $0.585.. ... $4,201. . - 2.2% Large Commercial $0.371 $0.375 $72 1.1% Core Transport: Residential $0.305 $0.317 $1,050 4.0% Small Commercial $0.341 $0.353 $3,994 3.7% Large Commercial $0.155 $0.159 $154 2.7% Noncore Transport: Industrial $0.115 $0.118 $1,274 3.2% Distribution (G NT) Industrial $0.025 $0.025 $82 0.2% Transmission (G -NT) 2001 CoUmpapercitycounty.doc 5/17/2000 11:05 AM 2 Cogeneration $0.020 $0.020 $29 0.2% (G -COG) Electric Generation $0.020 $0.020 $60 0.2% (G -EG) Wholesale (G-WSL) Palo Alto $0.018 $0.018 $0 0.0% Coalinga $0.022 $0.022 $0 0.0% West Coast Gas $0.032 $0.032 $0 0.0% Island Energy $0.047 $0.047 $0 0.0% Alpine Natural Ga_ s $0.022 $0.022 $0 0.0% Intrastate (G -AFT '$0.017 $0.017 $0 0.0% Baja) Intrastate (G -AFT $0.027 $0.027 $0 0.0% Redwood) Total Revenue $36,692 2.8% Change If the CPUC approves the Company's gas request, a residential gas customer using 70 therms per month during the winter would see a monthly gas bill increase of $0.90, from $39.98 to $40.88. Your individual bill may differ depending on your energy use. Although adoption of the Company's proposal for electric distribution would otherwise result in an electric rate increase, PG&E's proposal will not increase total electric rates at this time. Under the electric rate freeze, the increase in distribution rates will be offset by an equal reduction in Competition Transition Charges (CTC), the component of rates that funds the Company's uneconomic generation costs. Since the Company's rate freeze will end when its CTC is paid, but not later than March 31, 2002, a reduction in collection of these CTC costs could extend the electric rate freeze if it otherwise would have ended before March 31, 2002. When the rate freeze ends, the Company's electric distribution rates would be higher than they would have been otherwise if the CPUC approves the Company's requested rate of return. Based on the Company's request, the adjustment would increase electric distribution rates by $114.4 million over current levels. If the pending settlement of the Company's 2000 ROE is adopted, the increase in electric distribution rates would become 72.3 million. The Company proposes to allocate the distribution increase as shown in column (a) below. Absent the electric rate freeze and the 2000 2001 COC"apercityco>mty.doc 5n7a00o 11:05 AM w settlement, the increase in distribution would create the increase to total electric rates shown in column (b). Under the electric rate freeze, however, CTC is reduced by an equal amount as shown in column ( c ) to ensure no change to total electric revenue (shown in column (d)). During the rate freeze, residential electric customers will not see any change in their total monthly electric bill due to this application, but will see an increase when the rate freeze ends, or March 2002, whichever comes first. If the CPUC approves the Company's electric request, the average residential electric customer using 540 kwh per month in the summer would see a monthly electric bill increase of $1.10, from $57.65 to .$58.75 on an average monthly basis, absent the freeze. Your individual bill may differ depending on your energy use. ANNUAL EARNINGS ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING (AEAP) 2001 Coa,ewpaWltyoounty.doe smrz000 11:05 AM 4 Increase in Percentage CTC Change in Electric Increase to Reduction Electric Revenue Electric�Customer ;•Revenuet wh* Total'- - - During Rate During Rate, Class no Rate Electric Freeze Freeze Freeze Rates with no (thousands) (thousands) (thousands) Rate Freeze Residential $55,502 1.9% ($55,502) $0 Small Light and $ 15,650 1.8% ($15,650) $0 Power Medium Light and $16,088 1.3% ($16,088) $0 Power E-19 Class $9,313 1.1% ($9,313) $0 Large Light and Power: E -20T $606 0.2% ($606) $0 E -20P $3,893 0.8% ($39893) $0 E-205 $3,994 1.2% ($3,994) $0 Agriculture $7,718 2.0% ($7,718) $0 Standby $355 1.7% ($355) $0 Streetlights $1,252 2.8% ($1,252) $0 Total Revenue $114,371 1.5% ($114,371) $0 Change_. During the rate freeze, residential electric customers will not see any change in their total monthly electric bill due to this application, but will see an increase when the rate freeze ends, or March 2002, whichever comes first. If the CPUC approves the Company's electric request, the average residential electric customer using 540 kwh per month in the summer would see a monthly electric bill increase of $1.10, from $57.65 to .$58.75 on an average monthly basis, absent the freeze. Your individual bill may differ depending on your energy use. ANNUAL EARNINGS ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING (AEAP) 2001 Coa,ewpaWltyoounty.doe smrz000 11:05 AM 4 On May 1, 2000, Pacific Gas and Electric Company filed Application No. 00-05-0049 commonly referred to as the 2000 "Annual Earnings Assessment Proceeding" or the "AERP". In the 2000 AERP, the Company is requesting an increase in electric revenues of $25.3 million (a 0.3 percent increase) and a gas increase of $12.2 million (a 0.9 percent increase) to be collected in 2001. The total of the electric and gas revenue increases is $37.5 million. The Company has several programs to encourage customers to install energy-efficient measures. The CPUC has adopted mechanisms to reward the Company for successful programs. The 2000 AEAP proceeding verifies the Company's success and the amount of the earnings claim. The 2000 AEAP includes the Company's earnings claims (or portions of earnings claims) that it is eligible to receive for its energy efficiency programs over the past five years. Here is how this application, on a stand-alone basis, would affect the revenue collected from each gas customer class:: Gas Customer Class Revenue Increase (thousands).. . % Increase Bundled Core: Residential $8,860 0.78% Small Commercial $1,389 0.73% Large Commercial $7 0.11%. Core Transport Only: Residential $361 1.36% Small Commercial $1,330 1.22% Large Commercial $15 0.27% Noncore Transport: Industrial Distribution $147- 0.36% Industrial Transmission (G -NT) $26 0.07% Cogeneration (G -COG) $6 0.04% Electric Generation (G -EG) $13 0.04% Wholesale (G-WSL) $0. _ 0.00% Total Revenue Change $12,154 0.92% 2001 C0CnCWP2PC=ityC0Uniy.d0C 5/17/2000 11:05 AM If the CPUC approves the Company's gas request, a residential gas customer using 70 therms per month during the winter would see a monthly gas bill increase of $0.31, from $39.98 to $40.29. Your individual bill may differ depending on your gas use. For the same reasons discussed in the Cost of Capital section, PG&E's AEAP proposal will not increase total electric rates at this time. When the rate -freeze ends; the-Eompany1s2000'AEAP'wiH cause electric' distribution rates to be higher than they would have been otherwise. Based on the Company's request, the adjustment would increase electric distribution rates by $25.3 million over current leveli. The..C.ompany. proposes to,allocate, the ;electric,.distribu#Qn.increase.as .; . shown in column (a) below. If taken on a stand-alone basis, absent the effect of the electric rate freeze, the increase in distribution would create the increase to total electric rates shown in column (b). Under the electric rate freeze, however, CTC is reduced by an equal amount as shown in column ( c ) to ensure no change to total electric revenue (shown in column (d)). 2001 COCnewpapercitycounty.doc 5/172000 11:05 AM 6 Increase in Percentage CTC Change in Electric Increase to Reduction Electric Revenue Electric Customer Revenue with Total During Rate During Rate Class no Rate Electric Freeze Freeze Freeze Rates with no (thousands) (thousands) (thousands) Rate Freeze (a) (6) (d) - Residential $12,285 0.4% ($12,285) $0 Small Light and $34,64 0.4% ($34,464) $0 Power Medium Light and $3,561 0.3% ($39561) $0 Power E=I9 Class $29061 '0.2% ($21061) $0 Large Light and Power: E -20T $134 0.0% ($134) $0 E -20P $861 0.2% ($861) $0 E -20S $884 0.3% ($884) $0 Agriculture $19708 0.4% ($1.708) $0 Standby $79 0.4% ($79) $0 2001 COCnewpapercitycounty.doc 5/172000 11:05 AM 6 Streetlights $277 1 0.6% ($ 277) $0 Total Revenue $25,314 0.3% ($25,314) $0 Change J . i During the rate freeze, residential electric customers will not see any change in their total monthly electric bill due to this application, but will increase rates when the rate freeze ends or March 2002, whichever comes first. If the CPUC approves the Company's electric request, the average residential electric customer using 540 kwh per month in the summer would see a monthly electric bill increase of $0.25, from $57.65 to $57.98 on an average monthly basis, absent the freeze. Your individual bill may differ depending on your energy use. FURTHER INFORMATION A copy of the applications and related exhibits will be famished upon written request to the Company at: Pacific Gas & Electric Company 2000 Rate Applications P.O. Box 7442 San Francisco, CA 94120-7442. You also may review a copy of any of the Company's applications at our corporate headquarters (77 Beale Street, Room 3120, San Francisco, CA 94105), any of our division offices, or at the San Francisco office of the CPUC (505 Van Ness Ave, SanFrancisco, CA 94102). Mention the name of the application about which you are inquiring. Este aviso describe la solitud de PG&E a la CPUC para cambios en las tarifas de electricidad y gas natural. Para informaci6n en espailol sobre esta propuesta, por favor escriba a PG&E, P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, CA 94120, "Attention: 2000 Rate Applications. " Pacific Gas and Electric Company 2001 cocnewpapercitycounty.doc 5/172000 11:05 AM On November 1, 1999, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) filed Application No. 99-11-003, with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) asking for changes in PG&E's electric and gas distribution revenues. The application requests the CPUC to authorize revenue increases of $127.8 million in electric revenues and $36.6 million for gas rates effective January 1., 2000. This filing is a yearly cost of capital proceeding in which the CPUC evaluates PG&E's cost of acquiring funds to finance the company's operations and capital investments. In this case, PG&E is presenting its proposal for the cost of capital for its utility distribution operations. PG&E's rates of return on its unbundled electric generation, electric transmission, and gas transmission, storage and gathering operations have been set in other proceedings. Therefore, PG&E has not included a requested 2000 cost of capital in this case for those parts of its utility operations. PG&E is requesting an increase from its 1999 authorized rate of return on equity (ROE) of 10.6 percent to a 2000 ROE of 12.5 percent to compensate its shareholders fairly for the risks of investing in the utility's electric distribution and gas distribution operations. The gas revenue increase asked for in the application will increase gas rates after approval by the CPUC. For gas rates, PG&E's proposal would lead to a gas revenue requirement increase over present gas revenues of $36.6 million, or 1.7 percent. On a stand-alone basis, our proposal for utility operations in this application would allocate the proposed increase in gas rates as shown in this table: Gas Customer Class Revenue Increase (thousands) Pacific Gas and Residential BOMiC Company 1.8% Shirley A Woo 77 Beale Street Attorney at Law San Francisco. CA November 10, 1999 Mailing Address P.O. Bax 7442 RECEIVED San Francisco. CA 94120 1.9% 415.973.2248 TO STATE, COUNTY AND CITY OFFICIALS: 0 � 1 2 1999 Telecopier: 415.973.0516 Telecopier: 415.973.5520 SW C' �' CLERIK $ 29 NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR A GAS RATE Electric Generation INCREASE AND ELECTRIC REVENUE 0.1% INCREASE; COST OF CAPITAL PROCEEDING $ 0 On November 1, 1999, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) filed Application No. 99-11-003, with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) asking for changes in PG&E's electric and gas distribution revenues. The application requests the CPUC to authorize revenue increases of $127.8 million in electric revenues and $36.6 million for gas rates effective January 1., 2000. This filing is a yearly cost of capital proceeding in which the CPUC evaluates PG&E's cost of acquiring funds to finance the company's operations and capital investments. In this case, PG&E is presenting its proposal for the cost of capital for its utility distribution operations. PG&E's rates of return on its unbundled electric generation, electric transmission, and gas transmission, storage and gathering operations have been set in other proceedings. Therefore, PG&E has not included a requested 2000 cost of capital in this case for those parts of its utility operations. PG&E is requesting an increase from its 1999 authorized rate of return on equity (ROE) of 10.6 percent to a 2000 ROE of 12.5 percent to compensate its shareholders fairly for the risks of investing in the utility's electric distribution and gas distribution operations. The gas revenue increase asked for in the application will increase gas rates after approval by the CPUC. For gas rates, PG&E's proposal would lead to a gas revenue requirement increase over present gas revenues of $36.6 million, or 1.7 percent. On a stand-alone basis, our proposal for utility operations in this application would allocate the proposed increase in gas rates as shown in this table: Gas Customer Class Revenue Increase (thousands) % Increase Residential $26,382 1.8% Small. Commercial $ 8,564 2.2% Large Commercial $ 223 1.4% Industrial Distribution $ 1,272 1.9% Industrial Transmission $ 76 0.1% Cogeneration $ 29 0.1% Electric Generation $ 60 0.1% Wholesale $ 0 0.0% Total Revenue Change $36,606 1.7% Although adoption of PG&E's proposal for electric distribution would otherwise result in an electric rate increase, PG&E's proposal is consistent with the current electric rate freeze. Specifically, PG&E's electric rates will not change due to this proceeding, until the rate freeze ends. If PG&E's request is approved before the end of the rate freeze, the increase could extend the freeze. If an electric rate freeze were not in effect today, on a stand-alone basis, our proposal for utility operations in this application would allocate the proposed increase based on total bundled rates as shown in this table: Electric Customer Class Distribution Increase (thousands) % Increase Of` -Setting CTC Headroom Reduction (thousands) % Decrease Net Change in Electric Revenues (thousands) Residential $ 62,103 2.1% ($ 62,103) (2.1%) $0 Small Light and Power $17,512 2.1% ($ 17,512) (2.1%) $0 Medium Light and Power $ 18,000 1.5% ($ 18,000) (1.5%) $0 . E-19 Class $ 10,420 1.2% ($ 10,420) (1.2%) $0 Large Light and Power $ 91,329 0.8% ($ 9,329) (0.8%) $0 Agriculture $ 8,637 2.2% ($ 8,637) (2.2%) $0 Standby $ 397 1.9% ($ 397) (1.9%) $0 Streetlights $ 1,402 3.2% ($ 1,402) (3.2%) $0 Total Revenue Change $127,800 1.7% ($127,800) (1.7%) $0 If the CPUC approves PG&E's gas request, a residential gas customer using an average of 50 therms per month would see a monthly gas bill increase of $0.61, from $34.42 to $35.03. Your individual bill may differ depending on your energy use. If the CPUC approves PG&E's electric request, the average residential electric customer using 543 kwh per month would see a monthly electric bill increase of $1.23, from $58.49 to $59.72, absent the freeze. During the rate freeze, residential electric customers will not see any change in their monthly electric bill due to this application. EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS Before acting on this application, the CPUC would hold separate evidentiary hearings, expected to begin within the next several months. At these hearings, which are open to the public, the CPUC will receive the testimony of PG&E, the CPUC's office of Ratepayer Advocates and other interested parties. Participants at these hearings may offer proposals that differ from those of PG&E. After considering these proposals, the CPUC will issue its decision. The actual plan adopted by the CPUC may differ from what is requested by PG&E in its application and may result in an increase or decrease in your individual gas rates. FOR FURTHER -INFORMATION If you need more information, or if you want to get copies of the Office of Ratepayer Advocates' rate proposals when they are available please write to: The Office of Ratepayer Advocates California Public Utilities Commission 505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, CSA 94102 Mention that you are writing about Application No. 99-11-003, and indicate if you would like a written response, otherwise no reply will be sent. Your letter will be sent to the Commission and will become part of the formal correspondence file for the application. You can get more information from PG&E from Barrett W. Young, Legal Assistant, by calling him at 415- 973-6699, or writing him at: Barrett W. Young Pacific Gas And Electric Company P.O. Box 7442 San Francisco, CA 94120-7442 "Attention: Application No. 99-11-003" You may review a copy of the application at our corporate headquarters (77 Beale Street, 23rd Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105), at any of our division offices, or at the San Francisco office of the CPUC. Ask for Application No. 99-11-003. This notice is given in accordance with the requirements of Rule 24 of the CPUC's Rules of Practice and Procedure. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY By: %42g J� SHIRLEY A. WOO Attorney 1, 'A e- 4�� city o f sAn lois OBISPO955 Morro Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401DATE: July 13,1999 TO: Southern California Gas Company Pacific Telephone Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company avfharter Communications SUBJECT: Abandonment of a portion of Johnson Avenue, between Buchon Street and the Union Pacific Railroad R/W. The City Council passed a "conditional" Resolution of Abandonment for a portion of excess Johnson Avenue R/W on January 19, 1999 (attached), which required the execution of a "common driveway" agreement between the affected property owners, prior to recordation of the resolution. The common driveway agreement and abandonment resolution have now been recorded. The attached recorded copy is transmitted for your records, in accordance with Section 8347 (b) of the Califomia Streets & Highways Code. The final Resolution of Abandonment includes the reservation of a public utility easement to accommodate existing and any future public utilities. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (805) 781-7194. Sincerely, jKenny ising ivil Engineer Attachment: Resolution No. 8901 (1999 Series) cc: Lee Price, City Clerk J Jorgensen, City Attorney MM/MB/HB/file DevRev/... /Johnson Ave. Abandonment - Utility Co. Final Resolution transmittal J U L 1 4 1999 OAML TelecomThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services. programs and activities. munications Device for the Deaf (80s) 781-7410. ii council acEnba lZEpoRt CITY OF SAN LUI S OBI SPO 1,201- Oz D� Sent._ 15, 1998 I= Nmbu FROM: John Moss, Utilities Director Prepared By: Ron Munds, Utilities Conservation Coordinatorqvvl�_ SUBJECT: ELECTRIC DEREGULATION STRATEGY CAO RECOMMENDATION By motion: 1. Receive the "Electric Deregulation: A Regional Strategy" report prepared by a subcommittee formed by the SLO County joint City Councils; 2. Endorse the short and long term planning strategy portion of the report; and 3. Authorize the City Administrative Officer to negotiate and execute an agreement for electric service for city facilities with a qualified Energy Service Provider, consistent with the criteria set forth in this report. DISCUSSION Background On September 23, 1996, Governor Pete Wilson signed into law Assembly Bill 1890 which dramatically changed the market system that has been in place for more than eighty years for serving the electricity needs of California's homes, businesses, industry and farms. In March 1998, the new era of electric deregulation officially began with opening of the Power Exchange which is the state agency responsible for the pricing of electricity. At the joint City Councils meeting on January 8, 1998, it was decided to form a regional electric deregulation sub -committee to research and develop a strategy on how local governments should proceed in this new era of electric purchasing. Attachment 1 is the resulting document from the group's activities. The report summarizes the intent of the legislation, suggests goals and contract evaluation criteria, projects costs savings based on the City's load profile and makes recommendations on how to approach the task of securing electric service. The document also addresses the issue of regional aggregation versus each jurisdiction procuring electric service individually. The committee determined that regional aggregation would not be advantageous from a cost standpoint during the transition period and would be complicated to administer. Future regional aggregation may be an option but will require fiirther a:alysis. In order to evaluate the options presented in the regional report, a City electric deregulation committee was formed. Members included the Assistant City Attorney, the Utilities Director and two other representatives from the Utilities Department. Based on the information contained in the report, the City's electric deregulation committee determined that the recommended two S-1 Council Agenda Report — Electric Deregulation Strategy Page 2 phased approach would best address the City's needs. Phase I would be a short term plan to be implemented during the time that transitional charges and stranded costs incurred by the major utility companies are to be repaid. This would be to the year 2002. Phase II would look at the changing deregulation arena and develop a long term plan by 2002. Short Term Plan Based on the most recent information, the cost savings during the transition period for City electric accounts are estimated to be in the range of $20,000 to $30,000 per year or about 2% to 3% of the current charges for electricity. Additional savings of about 1% may be possible through energy management services offered by the selected Electric Service Provider (ESP). Given the amount of savings to be realized during this period, a key question is what level of effort should be dedicated to securing electric services and then monitoring the agreement. Staff is recommending an option which would require a minimal amount of staff time while procuring a reasonable agreement with reasonable savings to the City during the transition period. The regional strategy report analyzed five options for purchasing power and determined that three were viable alternatives for local jurisdictions to consider for implementation. Since the time the report was written, many aspects of electric deregulation have changed. It appears that an important component of any short term plan will be to retain the flexibility to adapt to the evolving deregulation market. Staff is recommending that Council give the City Administrative Officer the authority to negotiate and execute a direct access agreement with a qualified ESP. It has also been staff s experience during the evaluation process that as new information becomes available, contract terms and conditions change and the number• of qualified ESP's declines, decisions to secure a viable agreement for electric service must be made in timely manner. In order to facilitate this type arrangement in contracting for electric service, the following evaluation criteria for selecting the best ESP is suggested. The contract should be: • Simple in approach; • Provide for a reliable source of electricity; • Provide real cost savings; • Be flexible in terms of the length of commitment; and • Be low risk to the City. The following are the advantages and disadvantages of the recommended option and the three alternatives listed the regional strategy report: Staff Recommendation: Direct Access for City Facilities, "Staff Negotiated Agreement". With this alternative the CAO or his designee would negotiate'with an ESP using the evaluation criteria and would then be authorized to execute an agreement with the qualified ESP. This Council Agenda Report — Electric Deregulation Strategy Page 3 would provide the flexibility needed to secure a contract in a timely manner to take advantage of the changing environment in electric deregulation. Advantages: Able to negotiate directly with electric service providers for electric rate and added services; probability for entering into a short term agreement; could provide greater cost savings than other alternatives; able to take advantage of offers made by an ESP in a timely manner and respond to the new market conditions. Disadvantages: Requires more staff involvement and time than alternative 2 and 3 for monitoring the utility bills and the Direct Access contract; potential higher risk than Alternative 1; requires ongoing monitoring. Alternative 1. Direct Access for City Facilities Only, "RFP". This alternative would provide potential cost savings through the competitive proposal process. If this option is chosen, staff would prepare and issue an agency specific Request for Proposal. Advanta Able to negotiate directly with electric service providers for electric rate and added services; probability for entering into a short term agreement; could provide greater cost savings than Alternatives 2 and 3. Disadvantages: Requires considerable staff involvement and time; higher risk than Alternative 2; complicated in terms of evaluation process of ESP contracts; requires ongoing monitoring; because of the time required for the RFP process, may not provide the flexibility and responsiveness required by today's electric market. Alternative 2: Direct Access "Selective Aggregation". With this alternative the City would aggregate with a larger program such as the State of California. Department of General Service's Electric Power Services (DGS) or ABAG. Advantages: Less administrative time involved since the aggregating organization (DGS, ABAG, etc.) will provide the staff to oversee and manage contracts with the electric service providers (ESPs); lower risk to the city than other alternatives. Disadvantages: Obligated to the terms and conditions offered by the aggregating organization for the duration of the contract; may be difficult to enter into a short term agreement; depending on aggregator to secure best pricing, must pay an administrative fee to the aggregating organization. Alternative 3. Bundled Utility Service. This alternative would guarantee the Power Exchange (PX) pricing during the transition period by remaining with the City's current service provider (PG&E). dr -3 Council Agenda Report — Electric Deregulation Strategy Page 4 Advantages: Simple in terms of implementation; low risk; reliable source of electricity; short term in length of commitment; no service provider costs. Disadvanta,zes: No cost savings from PX price. Long Term Plan It is recommended that, during the transition period of electric deregulation, a long term plan be developed taking into account the latest information, the goals and program evaluation criteria. This will allow staff to monitor and evaluate adjustments that occur in the deregulated market during the transition period and for further research and understanding of the impacts of those changes. In addition to the evaluation criteria previously discussed, the suggested goals to be used as guidelines in the planning and evaluation process for the long term plan are as follows. The plan should: • Provide a reasonable monetary savings compared to cost to secure an electric services contract; • Provide public information, assistance and guidance to our citizens; and • Establish an energy demand management (energy conservation) and monitoring program for all City facilities. The long term fiscal impacts of the plan will be identified upon completion of the evaluation process. CONCURRENCES The Finance Department and the City's electric deregulation committee concur with the recommendation made in this report. FISCAL IMPACT Assuming a suitable agreement can be reached with an ESP, the City should anticipate a savings of $20,000 to $30,000 per year. Some minor costs may be incurred with the transition from PG&E to another ESP. These costs will be included in the evaluation process and should not exceed the first year's savings. ATTACHMENTS Attachment l- Regional Electric Deregulation Strategy S—01� Electric Deregulation: A Regional Strategy INTRODUCTION Attachment 1 On September 23, 1996, Governor Pete Wilson signed into law Assembly Bill 1890 which dramatically changed the market system that has been in place for more than eighty years for serving the electricity needs of California's homes, businesses, industry and farms. The legislation: • Recognizes that new technology and new federal laws allow us to change today's highly regulated market structure to one that relies on competition to set the price of the generation component of electricity bills. • Creates two new market entities, one to oversee the high voltage transmission system, and one to create an auction market for buying and selling of electricity. e Authorizes retail competition, which allows customers to choose their electricity supplier, beginning with some users March 31, 1998, and encompassing all customers no later than 2002. • Permits new business opportunities to develop in buying, selling or brokering electricity for individual customers or customer group. • Permits utilities to recover their transition costs from ratepayers. • Mandates a 10 percent rate reduction for small residential and commercial customers by January 1, 1998, with a goal of an additional 10 percent by 2002. • Provides funds for continuation of utility energy conservation; research, development and demonstration; public assistance; and renewable energy -based electricity generation activities. • Allows customers to continue to rely on service from local utility companies as they have in the past, if they choose not to participate in the competitive market. Consumers of electricity, including public facilities, institutions and residential customers, are facing a bewildering array of new services and service providers. The new electricity market promises to provide savings to electricity consumers who can manage their demand, understand the intricacies of the electric power markets and make the purchasing decisions. The purpose of the following information is to outline a strategy to research, develop and implement a plan for both the short and long term in regards to how the governmental agencies in the San Luis Obispo County region should proceed in the new electricity purchasing market. The following components have been identified as elements of the plan: J55 Formulation of the goals and policies relating to electric deregulation; Legal/legislative evaluation and review of aggregation agreements, power purchase agreements, franchise and utility user fees, city and county ordinances and billing; Technical evaluation of the energy profile, rate schedules, power purchase alternatives, demand management options and extended services (e.g. undergrounding of utilities, clean power generation, etc.) for each jurisdiction; and 4. Public information and education regarding AB1890 and. energy conservation. 1. Goals and Policies The primary decision to be made in regards to electric deregulation is how each jurisdiction will proceed in the new electric market in terms of the various options for aggregation or in acting alone in finding its own service provider. There appears to be a significant amount of uncertainty in regards to the future of electric deregulation and the actual cost savings available to customers. Because of this, it is recommended that a short and long term planning approach be implemented to define the strategy needed to ensure that each participating jurisdiction will be able to accomplish the established goals. The "Recommendation" section of this report discusses the short and long term strategies in more detail. When analyzing the components of the plan, the following program goals have been identified as guidelines in the planning and evaluation process. The plan will: Provide real cost savings to the participating jurisdictions Provide public information, assistance and guidance to our citizens Establish an energy demand management (energy conservation) and monitoring program within each participating jurisdiction Additionally, the evaluation criteria and overall strategy should be: • Simple in approach; • Provide for a reliable source of electricity; • Be flexible in terms of the length of commitment; and • Below risk to each jurisdiction. Z Legal/Legislative Component It is important that each jurisdiction evaluate current franchise and utility user fees and monitor legislative actions that would affect these revenue sources. Additionally, it may be necessary to introduce new or change existing ordinances that may be affected by changes in State law. The following are areas which require review by each jurisdiction. • Franchise fees • Utility User fees • Ordinances J!� Regional Electric Deregulation Strategy Page 3 Additionally, a review process should be established to analyze potential aggregation and power purchase agreements. Once an agreement is entered into, monitoring procedures will need to be established to ensure that the contract provisions are being adhered to. Because of the complicated nature of these agreements, the initial staff time required for monitoring could be significant. 3. Technical Evaluation An energy profile, also known as a load profile, is the amourit of electricity being used at any given time during a 24 hour period. The cost of electricity, measured as a certain rate per kilowatt hour, varies depending on the amount used and the time of day the use occurs. Using the City of San Luis Obispo's energy profile as an example, the following is a breakdown of the City's electric use by type of account and rate schedule. City of San Luis Obispo's Rate Schedules & Energy Profile • A-1 The A-1 rate is used for residential and small general service commercial customers. Actual electrical rates per kilowatt hour of use vary from summer ($0.14870) to winter ($0.10193). This is the basic electric rate that most customers are familiar with. The City of San Luis Obispo has 79 A-1 rate accounts comprising approximately 6% of the City's overall electrical use. • A-6 The A-6 rate has the same general description and customer base as the A-1 rate with the added component of peaking charges in the summer months. This account is used to reduce energy costs on accounts where the electrical use can be shifted off peak, or on continuously operating pumps or similar equipment. The City of San Luis Obispo has 21 A-6 rate accounts again comprising approximately 6% of the City's overall electrical use. A-6 rates vary in the following manner; .Summer Winter On Peak Rate $0.23258 none Partial Peak Rate $0.10288 $0.11562 Off Peak Rate $0.05618 $0.07169 • A-10 For accounts with demands larger than 20 kilowatts, the A-10 rate comes in to effect. A-10 rates are metered in two different ways by recording electrical meters. The basic rate is similar to the A-1 rate with the inclusion of demand charges. While the above rates have metered -only electrical use, A-10 adds electrical demand charges to the bill. Demand charges are calculated for the large inrush currents typically required by large motors. The electrical provider must design the electrical transmission system to provide these inrush currents when necessary, while maintaining regular service to the other customers in the transmission grid. This causes the utility to oversize the system for the larger demands. The City has four A- 10 accounts comprising approximately 5.8% of the overall electrical use. The A-10 rates are as follows; d7 Regional Electric Deregulation Strategy Page 4 Summer Winter Energy Rate $0.08915 $0.07279 Demand Rate $4.75 $1.20 (per kw of demand) • E-19 For accounts with demands larger than 500 kilowatts, the E-19 rate comes in to effect. E-19 rates are metered similarly to the A-10 rates with recording electrical meters, however E-19 adds time of use to the total bill including demand charges. This is the rate structure that many large business and municipal accounts use. The rates encourage use of electrical power off peak by escalating charges dramatically during the on peak period. The City has 13 accounts in this category consuming approximately 77% of the overall electrical use. The E-19 rates are as follows; Summer Winter Energy Use On Peak Rate $0.08773 none Partial Peak Rate 0.05810 $0.06392 Off Peak Rate $0.05059 $0.05038 Demand Charges On Peak Rate $13.35 none • Partial Peak Rate $3.70 $3.65 • Off Peak Rate $255 $2.55 • Miscellaneous accounts include traffic signals, un -metered accounts, and others. The City has 59 accounts in this category comprising approximately 5% of our overall electrical use. The rates vary by account, but are generally similar to the A-1 rate. Notes: Reference to time of use metering ie. Winter vs. Summer means; Summer = May 1 to October 31 on peak = noon to 6 pm Monday through Friday part peak = 8:30 am to noon and 6 pm to 9:30 pm.Monday through Friday off peak = 9:30 pm to 8:30 am Monday through Friday, all day Saturday, Sunday, and holidays Winter = November 1 to April 30 on peak = none part peak = 8:30 am to 9:30 pm Monday through Friday off peak = 9:30 pm to 8:30 am.Monday through Friday, all day Saturday, Sunday, and holidays J" el Regional Electric Deregulation Strategy Page 5 2. These are general descriptions of the rates currently in use by the City. For actual account reference, use the P.G. and E. tariff descriptions available from the utility. Many other factors influence the actual billing received by the City. Power Purchase Alternatives There are five alternatives which a jurisdiction can consider for purchasing electricity. The following is a brief description of each option: 1. Bundled Utility Service- under this option, an agency would remain with the current electric provider until a future date when the deregulation impacts are fully understood. 2. Direct Access "Individual Agency Facilities Only"- the focus of this option would be to determine if selected accounts or all metered service under an agency's control would provide cost savings. The probable course of action would be the issuance of a Request for Proposal to energy service providers for cost saving and service information. This could be either a short term contract such as a one year or year to year agreement, or a longer term contract in the range of two to four years. 3. Direct Access "Selective Aggregation"- under this option, an agency would partner with selected businesses, aggregation groups such as ABAG or other governmental agencies in an attempt to secure the best electric rate. Again, this could be a short or longer term contract. 4. Direct Access "Community Aggregation"- this option would include an entire community and would require separate contracts with each participant in the aggregated group. 5. Municipalization- Under this option, cities would condemn the existing electric infrastructure and assume the role as the full service electric utility. In developing the overall strategy it is important to understand the significant milestones established by AB 1890. The first and probably the most significant is the recovery by investor owned utilities of stranded costs in the form of a Competition Transition Charge (CTC). Stranded costs are investments made by investor owned utilities in power plants and power contracts to ensure an adequate supply of electricity to meet customer demands but are now considered "uneconomic". The recovery of these costs are to end no later than March 31, 2002. Until this date, there is limited cost savings to be realized in the transition period to a true electric market competition. The second milestone is the repayment of bonds issued by the investor owned utilities under the authorization of AB 1890 to offset the revenues the utilities lose as a result of the mandatory 10% rate reduction. The payments known as Trust Transfer Amount or TTA, will extend beyond the end of the CTC recovery and the 10% rate reduction, and will decrease each year. It is anticipated that these bonds will be paid off over a 10 year period beginning in December 1997. 1-.�7 Regional Electric Deregulation Strategy Page 6 4. Public Information and Education Regarding AB1890 and Energy Conservation Electric deregulation offers the opportunity to furnish our communities with general information regarding AB 1890 and energy conservation. It is proposed that the information regarding AB 1890 be provided by the participating jurisdictions using information published by the State and California Public Utilities Commission as a guide. The energy conservation information can be provided by existing sources such as PG&E. It is recommended that a regional committee be formed to review the available information and make recommendations on what and how to distribute it to the various communities. A funding source would have to be identified to purchase and/or produce and print the information to be distributed. RECOMMENDATION Based on the timeline for repayment and cost recovery of these components of AB 1890, it is recommended that a two phased approach be considered. Phase one would be the short term plan to be implemented during the transition period which would be to the year 2002. This would allow for the development of phase two during this period. Phase two would look at the changing deregulation arena and recommend a long term plan for the region. Short Term Plan It is recommended that the short term plan will be for the transition period, to the year 2002. After analyzing the five options for purchasing power, it has been determined that Direct Access "Selective Aggregation, Bundled Service and, Direct Access "Individual Agency Facilities Only" should be considered as alternatives for the transition period. Each jurisdiction will need to determine which alternative best suites the needs of their community and the agencies comfort level and staff resources available to manage and monitor the power purchase contract process. The following section summarizes the alternatives and discusses the advantages and disadvantages of each. Alternative 1: Direct Access "Selective Aggregation" With this alternative each jurisdiction would individually aggregate with a larger program such as the State of California, Department of General Service's Electric Power Services (DGS) or ABAG. At this stage of electric deregulation, it appears this would be the least risk option while providing some saving on overall electric costs. It is not recommended that local businesses or governmental organizations aggregate at this time. At this point, it appears that aggregating with other local entities would be more complicated and costly (in terms of staff time) for little or no benefit. This will be discussed in more detail in the following sections. If this alternative is selected, the participating jurisdictions could research as a group the aggregation opportunities available and provide an analysis of the various for a service providers. ,.f -/O Regional Electric Deregulation Strategy Page 7 Advantages: Less administrative time involved since the aggregating organization (DGS, ABAG, etc.) will provide the staff to oversee and manage contracts with the electric service providers (ESPs); potential increased savings by being part of a larger group of energy users lower risk to the cities than other alternatives. Disadvantages: Obligated to the terms and conditions offered by the aggregating organization for the duration of the contract; may be difficult to enter into a short term agreement; depending on aggregator to secure best pricing. Alternative 2. Direct Access for "Jurisdiction Facilities Only". This alternative would provide potential cost savings through the competitive proposal process. If this option is chosen, jurisdiction staff would prepare and issue an agency specific Request for Proposal. Advanta,aes: Jurisdiction able to negotiate directly with electric service providers electric rate and added services; higher probability entering into a short term agreement; could provide greater cost savings than Alternative 1. Disadvantages: Requires more staff involvement and time; higher risk than Alternative 1; complicated in terms of evaluation process of ESP contracts; requires ongoing monitoring. Alternative 3. Bundled Utility Service. This alternative would guarantee the Power Exchange (PX) pricing during the transition period by remaining with the jurisdiction's current service provider. Advanta Simple in terms of implementation; low risk; reliable source of electricity; short term in length of commitment. Disadvantages: No cost savings from PX price. Not Recommended: Community Aggregation and Municipalization Community Aggregation and Municipalization were not chosen as alternatives for the short term plan because of the staff time and subsequent cost, higher risk exposure and other direct costs versus the potential cost savings to develop and implement those programs. Long Term Plan It is recommended that, during the transition period of electric deregulation, a long term plan be developed taking into account the latest information, the goals and program evaluation criteria. This will allow for adjustments that occur in the deregulated market during the transition period and for further research and understanding of the impacts of those changes. Regional Electric Deregulation Strategy Page 8 In conjunction with the evaluation and development of the long term strategy, each participating jurisdiction will need to perform internal evaluations listed in Attachment of this report. In order to ensure the timely preparation of the long term plan, the following suggested timeline has been established: • Formation of Regional Electric July 1998 Deregulation Work Group • Development of Public Information Program September 1998 • Evaluation of Utility User Fees, January 1999 Franchise Fees, Ordinances • Evaluation of Regional Energy Profile June 1999 • Monitoring of PX Pricing ongoing • Review of existing Proposals and ongoing Contracts from ESP's • Determine Regional Aggregation Feasibility January 2000 • Formalize Regional Aggregation Organizational June 200 Structure (if considered feasible) • Determine Regional Aggregation Options and January 200 Select Preferred Plan • Implement Long Term Plan January 200 The timeline will be adjusted as needed to accommodate changes in the electric deregulation arena. Dedicated staffing and time allocation to the planning process will need to be determined to support the proposed timeline. Estimated Potential Savings Again using the City of San Luis Obispo as an example, staff has estimated the potential cost savings on an annual basis during the transition period using Alternative 1: Direct Access "Selective Aggregation'. This alternative was chosen for the analysis because of the amount information available at the time this report was prepared. The following is the breakdown of the estimated savings based on information provided by PG&E and the State of California, General Services Department. As indicated in the energy use analysis, the estimated savings is derived from using Enron as the energy service provider through aggregation with DGS. Regional Electric Deregulation Strategy Page 9 SUMMARY OF ACCOUNTS CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO with 10% MANDATED RATE. REDUCTION RATE SCHEDULE NUMBER OF ACCOUNTS TOTAL KWH TOTAL ENERGY COST PERCENT OF TOTAL USAGE COSTIKWH ESTIMATED 10% RATE REDUCTION Al 79 643,796 $87,907 5.97 $0.1365 $8,791 A6 21 649,242 $64,288 6.02 $0.0990 $6,429 A10 4 625,440 $64,178 5.80 $0.1026 Value E19 E19 13 8,320,555 $629,514 77.18 $0.0757 59 542,040 $61,583 5.03 $0.1136 Duration TOTAL 176 10,781,073 $907,470 100 1 $0.0842 1 $15,220 ENRON RATES AVAILABLE THROUGH STATE GENERAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT 3/31/9 Rate Contract Contract Reduction Duration Duration off 1996 PG&E 4 year 5 year Tariff General Accounts 2% 3% Base Contract Value 3.75% 5.25% Added Contract Contract Contract Street Duration Duration Lighting Accounts 4 year 5 year Base 0.50% 1.25% Contract Value 2% 2.25% Added Contract 9 /3 Regional Electric Deregulation Strategy Page 10 Roca d_Ycar Fnrnn rnntrart RATE SCHEDULE NUMBER OF ACCOUNTS TOTAL KWH TOTAL ENERGY COST PERCENT OF TOTAL USAGE COSTIKWH ESTIMATED 2% RATE REDUCTION Al 79 643,796 $87,907 5.97 $0.1338 $1,758 A6 21 649,242 $64,288 6.02 $0.0970 $1,286 A10 4 625,440 $64,178 5.80 $0.1006 $1,284 E19 13 8,320,555 $629,514 77.18 $0.0741 $12,590 C. 59 542,040 $61,583 5.03 $0.1113 $1,232 TOTAL 176 10,781,073 $907,470 100 $0.0825 1 $18,149 Base 5 -Year Enron Contract RATE SCHEDULE NUMBER OF ACCOUNTS TOTAL KWH TOTAL ENERGY COST PERCENT OF TOTAL USAGE COSTIKWH ESTIMATED 3% RATE REDUCTION Al 79 643,796 $87,907 5.97 $0.1324 $2,637 A6 21 649,242 $64,288 6.02 $0.0960 $1,929 A10 4 625,440 $64,178 5.80 $0.0995 $1,925 E19 13 8,320,555 $629,514 77.18 $0.0734 $18,885 MISC. 59 542,040 $61,583 5.03 $0.1102 $1,847 TOTAL 176 10,781,073 8907,470 100 $0.0816 $27,224 Value Added 4 -Year Enron Contract RATE SCHEDULE NUMBER OF ACCOUNTS TOTAL KWH TOTAL ENERGY COST .PERCENT OF TOTAL USAGE COSTIKWH ESTIMATED 3.75% RATE REDUCTION Al 79 643,796 $87,907 5.97 $0.1314 $3,297 A6 21 649,242. $64,288 6.02 $0.0953 $2,411 A10 4 625,440 $64,178 5.80 $0.0988 $2,407 E19 13 8,320,555 $629,514.. 77.18 $0.0728 $23,607 MISC. 59 542,040 $61,583 5.03 $0.1094 $2,309 TOTAL. 176 10,781,073 $907,470 100 $0.0610 $34,030 Value Added 5 -Year Enron Contract RATE SCHEDULE NUMBER OF ACCOUNTS TOTAL KWH TOTAL ENERGY COST PERCENT OF TOTAL USAGE COSTIKWH ESTIMATED 5.250/6 RATE REDUCTION Al 79 643,796 $87,907 5.97 $0.1294 $4,615 A6 21 649,242 $64,288 6.02 $0.0938 $3,375 A10 4 625,440 $64:178 5.80 $0.0972 $3,369 E19 13 8,320,555 $629,514 77.18 $0.0717 $33,049 MISC. 1 59 1 542,040 1 $61,583 . 5.03 .$0.1076 $3,233 TOTAL I 176 1 10,781,073 1 $907,470 100 $0.0798 $47,642 Regional Electric Deregulation Strategy Page 11 note: 1. Estimates do not include 10% mandated reduction from PGE on A-1 and A-6 accounts. 2. 10% PGE reduction will be adjusted (reduced) for power generation amount if provided by others. 3. Value Added contracts require participation in energy efficient upgrades to facilities as determined by Enron. "Value Added" programs proposed by Enron and other service providers generally require the contracting agency to agree to certain energy savings or demand management capital improvements or operating program changes. For example, as a capital improvement an agency may replace all non energy efficient motors at their water treatment plant, with energy efficient motors; as an operating program change, an agency may operate their water treatment plant only during off-peak hours. The "Value Added" program being offered is for the service provider to assist the agency in identifying opportunities with reasonable pay back periods, the agency would then agree to complete the necessary changes and the share a portion of the savings with the energy service provider. As an option to "Value Added" contracting, staff would recommend for the short term plan, that a regional technical group be formed and research, share and assist in the development of demand management programs for the participating agencies. This option should allow most agencies access to the various demand opportunities that are available, with the greatest flexibility in determining which opportunities will be pursued. Energy Profile Evaluation Summary To summarize, the total potential combined savings (Enron plus P.G. and E.) from the various contracts above would be as follows; Contract Type Estimated Savings Percent Savings • 4 -year `Base" $18,149* 2% • 5 -year "Base" $27,224* 3% • 4 -year "Value Added" $34,030* 3.75% • 5 -year "Value Added" $47,642* 5.25% * does not include the 10% mandated rate reduction for the transmission and distribution portion of the rate. Regional Electric Deregulation Strategy Page 12 SUMMARY Since there appears to be a significant amount of uncertainty in regards to the future of electric deregulation, the recommended short and long term planning strategy will allow agencies the opportunity to evaluate future options as more information becomes available. Until the CTC costs are paid, there is limited cost savings to be realized in the transition period. Because there are not substantial saving at this point in time, agencies should evaluate the low risk options while exploring regional aggregation alternatives. Additionally, there is the opportunity to form a regional technical group to research, share and assist in the development of demand management programs for the participating agencies. Public education and information is vital component of any plan in order to assist our citizens in understanding this complex subject. By following the recommendations and timeline presented in this report, agencies will be able to make informed decisions when evaluating the future of electric deregulation. sv(o Pacific Gas and Electric Company December 17, 1997 Law Department 77 Beale Street San Francisco, CA Tel ecopier 415/973-5520 u'I'/ P.O. Box 7442 San Francisco, CA 94120 TO: THE STATE, COUNTY, AND CITY OFFICIALS DEC 2 2 1997 SLO c:,----1. , .1. ERK NOTICE OF FILING APPLICATION FOR A GAS RATE INCREASE AND AN ELECTRIC REVENUE INCREASE Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) filed Application No. 97-12-020 on December 12, 1997, with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to increase PG&E's base electric and gas revenues. If approved by the CPUC after hearings, increases will become effective January 1, 1999. What we are requesting We are requesting that, beginning January 1, 1999, we be allowed to increase our current electric and gas base revenues. This includes an increase in electric revenues of $693 million, or 10%, and an increase in gas revenues of $5.01 million, or 25%. However, under a recent state law, electric rates are frozen until March 31, 2002, or the date when PG&E's approved transition costs are fully recovered, whichever occurs first. Therefore, the electric revenue increases requested in this proceeding may affect rates in the future, but not for several years. In addition, a recent CPUC decision set gas transmission and storage rates through 2002. Therefore, customers will not experience an increase in gas transmission and storage rates as a result of this request. Of the $501 million requested increase in gas base revenues, we propose that $7 million be recovered in the Customer Class Charge for changes in the costs of low income conservation and energy efficiency programs. The remaining $494 million will increase gas transportation rates for industrial distribution customers, residential customers, and commercial customers only. (See Gas Department Table, below.) Why we are asking for a revenue change In this General Rate Case (GRC), we are asking for an increase to our base revenues to recover the costs of owning and operating facilities and to comply with government regulations and orders regarding the provision of electric and gas services to our customers. These costs include all non -fuel operation and maintenance expenses, state and federal taxes, depreciation associated with plant investments including fossil and geothermal decommissioning, and the effects of inflation on PG&E's costs. The requested increase also reflects costs for expenditures required to maintain and enhance system reliability and provide safe, responsive customer service. The requested increase does not cover any costs of operating the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, except that it does include costs associated with nuclear decommissioning. TO: THE STATE, COUNTY, AND CITY OFFICIALS December 17, 1997 Page 2 The effect on residential customers If the CPUC approves our request, average residential gas bills for customers who use 30 therms of natural gas per month during summer and 100 therms per month during winter fm. would increase by $5.16 a month in summer, from $19.16 to $24.31, and by $17.15 per month in winter, from $63.73 to $80.88. Individual bills will vary from this example, depending on how much energy is used. For residential electric bills, the overall electric rate is decreasing by 10 percent on January 1, 1998, and then will be frozen at this lower level for several years, in accordance with state law and CPUC orders. PG&E's overall electric rate consists mainly of two types of costs: General Rate Case costs and transition costs, which result from the restructuring of the electric industry to a competitive generation supply market. If the CPUC authorizes our requested increase, then there will be less revenue left over to cover transition costs. How the rate change will be apportioned As stated before, rates for electric customers will not change as a result of this request. According to established CPUC policies, the overall bundled rate change to gas distribution will be divided among customer classes as shown below. The different rates for various classes reflect the fact that the costs of serving some classes are higher than others. Gas Department Proposed Revenue Changes* *The allocation of the increased revenue for each customer.class will be determined in a future proceeding, known as the Biennial Cost Application Proceeding Changes In Annual Revenue Class of Service Revenues Change ($0005) Percent Residential 363,889 27.7% Small Commercial 116,277 34.1% Large Commercial 2,718 12.7% Industrial Distribution 16,572 38.6% Industrial Transmission 289 0.3 Electric Generation 647 1.0 Cogeneration 299 1.0 Wholesale 8 0.6 Total Change From Authorized 1997 Revenues 500,699 25% *The allocation of the increased revenue for each customer.class will be determined in a future proceeding, known as the Biennial Cost Application Proceeding TO: THE STATE, COUNTY, AND CITY OFFICIALS December 17, 1997 Page 3 Attrition rate adjustment request for 2000 and. 2001 The CPUC allows PG&E to make a general base (non -fuel) rate change request every llrrs2l three years. To help cover expected cost increases beyond 1999, PG&E has requested that electric and gas base revenues be further increased on January 1, 2000, by $148 million and $30 million (or 2 and 1 percent), respectively. PG&E also asks that electric and gas base revenues be increased on January 1, 2001, by $120 million and $27 million (or 2 and 1 percent), respectively. The amount of the rate change for each customer class will be determined in future proceedings. Public hearings Before acting on our Application, the CPUC will hold public participation hearings in the Spring of 1998 to provide customers an opportunity to express their views. The CPUC welcomes the public's participation. When dates, times, and locations of these hearings have been scheduled, we will send notices in future customer bills. Those people who cannot attend a hearing may submit written comments to the CPUC at the address listed below. All such correspondence to the CPUC should include a reference to PG&E's Application No. 97-12-020. Formal evidentiary hearings on PG&E's Application will also be held in the Spring of 1998. At these hearings, the CPUC will receive the testimony of PG&E, the CPUC's Office of Ratepayer Advocates, and other interested parties. Parties at these hearings may offer proposals to the CPUC which differ from those requested by PG&E. In addition, during the proceedings, updated information may be introduced that could change the amount of the revenues requested. After considering all proposals presented during the formal hearing process, the CPUC will issue a decision. Rates adopted by the CPUC may differ from those requested by PG&E, and may result in an increase or decrease in individual. rates. Anyone interested in participating in this proceeding and needing advice or more information, including information on the hearings, or wishing to obtain copies of the Office of Ratepayer Advocates' rate proposals, when they are available, may write to: The Public Advisor California Public Utilities Commission 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 5303 San Francisco, CA 94102 or Via electronic mail to: public.advisor@cpuc.ca.gov All such correspondence should reference PG&E's Application No. 97-12-020. These letters will be sent to the Commissioners and become part of the formal correspondence file for this Application. Please indicate if you would like a written response to your inquiry; otherwise no reply will be sent. TO: THE STATE, COUNTY, AND CITY OFFICIALS December 17, 1997 Page 4 For further information llr�l If you have additional questions about this filing you may write to: Pacific Gas and Electric Company P.O. Box 7442 San Francisco, CA 94120 Attention: General Rate Case, .Application No. 97-12-020. A copy of our Application and related exhibits may be reviewed at PG&E's corporate headquarters (77 Beale Street, Room 3120, San Francisco, CA 94105), at any of our division offices, or at the San Francisco office of the CPUC. The State, counties, and municipal corporations, and any other parties interested in the above-mentioned filing, can obtain a copy of Application No. 97-12-020 and related exhibits upon written request to Lise H. Jordan, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 77 Beale Street, Mail Code B30A, San Francisco, CA 94105. This notice is given in accordance with the requirements of the California Public Utilities Commission. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY By �& d'C • 10^-__ LISE H. RDAN C. y of Morro Bay " A MORRO BAY, CALIFORNIA 93442 805-772-6200 4• Vim'"" p ,T �• �I - . II a September 26, 1997 Dennis Hennessy, District Manager Pacific Gas & Electric P.O. Box 8592 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406-8592 Dear Mr. Hennessy: The seven incorporated Cities of San Luis Obispo County are fully aware that PG&E must meet the restructuring regulations ordered by the Public Utilities Commission. Although the restructuring may have positive benefits to consumers, the proposed reductions will have an unintentional reduction in property tax revenues to local government. We are aware that PG&E has entered negotiations with the County of San Luis Obispo and San Luis Coastal Unified School District for a possible one time settlement. It appears once again that the Cities have been left out of the process and will ultimately suffer the most from any revenue reductions. More than half of the County's population reside in the incorporated areas. Failure to include representation from these areas only results in near-sighted settlements that truly don't encompass and address the needs of all the citizens of our County. The seven incorporated Cities of San Luis Obispo County respectfully request that PG&E support the inclusion of a representative from the CitiesA any future meeting on this tonic_ /-% f 1 FINANCE 595 Harbor Street ADMINISTRATION 595 Harbor Street City of�Arroyo Grande Ci".f Grover Beac. City of Pismo FIRE DEPARTMENT 715 Harbor Street HARBOR DEPARTMENT PLANNING AND BUILDING POLICE DEPARTMENT 1275 Embarcadero 535 Harbor Street 850 Morro Bay Blvd. GENED OCT 0 8 1996 SLO C;'TY CJOUNCIL PUBLIC WORKS 695 Harbor Street RECREATION AND PARKS 1001 Kennedy Way Pacific Gas and Bectiic Company June 19, 1997 MAMM ADDRESS P.O. Box 7442 San Francisco, CA 94120 3771 T1C0URZRADDRESS Law Department 77 Beale Street, B30A San Francisco, CA 94105 415/973-2768 Fax 415/973-0516 TO STATE, COUNTY AND CITY OFFICIALS: William H. Edwards Attorney at Law RL, ..:; D 1997 SLO Cl' `1K Notice of Updated Application for Performance -Based Ratemaking for Electric Generation On July 15, 1996, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) filed its Application to Adopt Performance -Based Ratemaking (PBR) for Electric Generation (A. 96-07-018) to comply with California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Decision 95-12-063. PG&E proposed a PBR mechanism for out hydroelectric and geothermal power plants but did not include a specific revenue change request. On June 11, 1997, PG&E updated the application to include. the revenue change request. The updated application asks the CPUC to authorize an electric revenue increase of $6.6 million, effective in 1998. This increase is based on an index for inflation and productivity applied to the 1997 hydroelectric and geothermal base revenue requirement proposed in PG&E's Cost Separation Application (A. 96-12-009). However, under a recent state law. PG&E's current electric rates cannot increase until the earlier of March 31. 2002. or when the CPUC -authorized costs for utility generation -related assets and obligations that may become uneconomic as a result of a competitive generation market (transition costs) have been fully recovered. The period when utility generation -related transition costs will be recovered is called the transition period. Because overall electric rates are frozen during the transition period, if PG&E recovers $6.6 million in 1998 under its PBR proposal, recovery of $6.6 million in transition costs xvill be delayed until a future period. If PG&E is unable to recover this $6.6 million in transition costs by March 31, 2002, PG&E's shareholders will bear that cost. However, ratepayers will pay that cost if PG&E is able to recover all of its transition costs by March 31.2002. In either case, electric rates will not change until the end of the transition period. PG&E's proposed PBR mechanism provides financial incentives for PG&E to operate its hydroelectric and geothermal power plants efficiently and consists of a base revenue amount that is indexed for. inflation, minus an offset for productivity. The mechanism includes adjustments for shared earnings and extraordinary costs or savings. PG&E Notice to Government Utficials June 19,1997 Page 2 proposes to recover its actual variable energy costs associated with hydroelectric and geothermal generation separate from the PBR mechanism. HEARING ON PROCEEDINGS Before acting on this application, the CPUC will hold oral argument commencing at 2:00 p.m. on Monday, June 23, 1997, to determine whether this proceeding should continue or be deferred. If the Commission determines to proceed it will hold evidentiary hearings, expected to begin in September 1997. At these hearings, which are open to the public, the CPUC will receive the testimony of PG&E, the CPU.C's Office of Ratepayer Advocates and other interested parties. Participants at these hearings may offer proposals that differ from those of PG&E. After considering these proposals, the CPUC will issue a decision. The actual plan adopted by the CPUC may differ from what PG&E:has requested. If you want to participate in the hearings or send comments, if you need advice or more information, or if you want to get copies of the Office of Ratepayer Advocates' rate proposals when they are available, please write to: The Public Advisor California Public Utilities Commission 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 5303 San Francisco, CA 94102 or via electronic mail to: public.advisor@cpuc:ca.gov Mention that you are writing about Application 96-07-018 and indicate if you would like a written response. otherwise no reply will be sent. Your letter will be sent to the Commissioners and will become part of the formal correspondence file for this application. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION You can get more information from PG&E by writing PG&E, P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco. CA 94120, "Attention:Application 96-07-018." You may review a copy of this application at our corporate headquarters (77 Beale Street, Room 3120. San Francisco, CA 94105), at the San Francisco office of the CPUC or in PG&E's main business offices in the following locations: Aubum, Bakersfield, Belmont, c: %u indou sucmplgovnot.doc Notice to Govemment Officials June 19, 1997 Page 3 Chico, Concord, Cupertino, Hayward, Merced, Oakland, Sacramento, Salinas, San Francisco, San Jose, San Luis Obispo, San Rafael, Santa Rosa and Stockton. This notice is given in accordance with the requirements of Rule 24 of the CPUC's Rules of Practice and Procedure. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY By: _ LL H. EDWAIMS Attorney. c. \w indows\tempigovnot. doc 990 PALM ST SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401 Ila 6440319 II' [.0 1 130 29 20i:05997811n — -------------------------------------------------------------------------- — L PLEASE FOLD FIRST THEN DETACH ALONG PERFORATION ♦ F j 1 14. GCM .53-292 ..... • < .:...., . ' 20 woof Rd 0113 :: Medlloid, MA 02155 -Check No. :8440319 Pay $""•'•121,514.36• ND:FN" E HUNDRED FOURTEEN"":""""•""' . ....... 'AND 38f100 DOLLARS " ACCOUNTS PAYABLE '�11��F4}k��+Yki`.'RTM,�•'�R4fnSKY.T.°ivP.t:!Rit'�Y:"i" .. .. .. �:K':, `ytrT""'�'�4' VIICCEOPRES-IDEIN�TRWEASR,. a�sl�TREASURE J .VOID.AFfER 9.0 DAYS Ila 6440319 II' [.0 1 130 29 20i:05997811n — -------------------------------------------------------------------------- — L PLEASE FOLD FIRST THEN DETACH ALONG PERFORATION ♦ F j 1 L FOLD L Special Handle Code: 01 CITY OF BAN LUIS OBISPO Check no. 6440319 Date 03/28/1997 i Your account number 1031192 Payment Document 2000113559 a n n u z Our account with you N/A n i a L u Invoice Date Discount NetAmount Comments 03/17/97 0.00 121,514.36 DAVID 3-2022 E/FRAN ORD 767 Totals DSD 0.00 121,514.36 For Payment Inquiries, Call 1 -800 -756 -PAID L FOLD L Special Handle Code: 01 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY �' o (� 1996 ELECTRIC FRANCHISE Ordinance Number: 767 I. BROUGHTON ACT COMPUTATION City or Town of: San Luis Obispo I. PLANT INVESTMENT ELECTRIC DEPARTMENT: A. Investment in transmission and distribution lines, laterals and appurtenances on streets, roads and highways covered by franchises: Transmission........................................................ $ Distribution .............. 126,162,349 . Subtotal 3,644,072,582 B. Other Electric Department investment........................ 3,770,234,931 Excluded investment (Franchise intanibles g) ................. 20,925,814,157 Plant Investment ............... (45,417,024) $ 24,650,632,064 2. FRANCHISE GROSS RECEIPTS ELECTRIC DEPARTMENT: Gross billIngs'....................................................... $ Less uncollectible accounts .............................................. 7,511,357,497 ................................ Franchise Gross Receipts (26,824,634) $ 7,484—,532—,863 • Excludes electricity valued at $12,156,361 used by other operating departments (CPUC Account 448, Interdepartmental Sales). 3. GROSS RECEIPTS PER MILE ATTRIBUTABLE TO INVESTMENT IN ELECTRIC TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION LINES, LATERALS AND APPURTENANCES ON STREETS, ROADS AND HIGHWAYS COVERED BY FRANCHISES: $3,770,234,931 x $7,484,532,863 = $ $24,650,632,064 1,144,735,241 $1,144,735,241 Franchise receipts = Rate per mile $ 19 652.93 58,247.57 Franchise miles 4. GROSS RECEIPTS DERIVED FROM THE USE, OPERATION OR POSSESSION OF FRANCHISES: Gross Receipts attributable to miles of line operated under Electric Franchise Ordinance: 138.29 miles x $19,652.93 per mile Franchise Rate ...................................... Franchise Payment ........................... II. 1937 ACT COMPUTATION 1. Gross Receipts within City/Town (See attached) 2. Franchise Rate ........................... ................................ 3. Franchise Payment ............................. [II. HIGHER OF CALCULATIONS IN SECTION l OR II = PAYMENT DUE I certify under penalty of perthat , 19the above statement is true and correct. Executed on March 97 at San Francisco, California. $ 2,717,803.69 2% 54,356.07 24,302,872.05 0.5% 121,514.36 $ 121,514.36 m PAL.. IC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANT CERTIFICATION OF GROSS RECEIPTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ELECTRIC FRANCHISE GRANTED PURSUANT TO THE FRANCHISE ACT OF 1937 OR TO ORDINANCE 767 CITY/TOWN OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INC ORDINANCE: 767 GROSS RECEIPTS FOR THE PERIOD FROM JANUARY 12 1996 TO DECEMBER 31, 1996 MONTH JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER TOTAL GRANTED: 1978 AMOUNT 1,915,441.27 1,949,243.93 1,808,467.12 1,733,530.16 2,105,934.77 2,094,033.79 2,145,472.35 2,158,750.19 2,261,489.9'7 2,304,103.81 1,996,628.02 1,903,116.92 LESS UNCOLLECTIBLE ACCOUNTS 24,376,212.30 73,340.25 -------------- GROSS RECEIPTS 24,302,872.05 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE ABOVE IS A TRUE AND CORRECT STATEMENT OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS FROM ELECTRIC CUSTOMERS IN THE CITY OR TOWN OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INC FOR THE,PERIOD SHOWN ABOVE. --------��. ----------- ---=--- DIRECTOR, REVENU AND CONTROL SECTION MEASURE, BILL, ND COLLECT DEPARTMENT I Pacific Gas and Electric Company September 27, 1996 77 Beale Street San Francisco, CA 415/973-1497 Telecopier415/543-7813 !.'amlm kkirm P.O. Box 7442 San Francisco, CA 94120 TO: STATE, COUNTY AND CITY OFFICIALS: Mark F. Hallman Attorney at Law NOTICE OF FILING FOR CHANGES IN CORE TRANSPORT GAS RATES On September 18, 1996, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) asked the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to approve a $463 thousand decrease in core transport natural gas rates. This results in. an overall 5.1 percent decrease in core transport rates. Other gas and electric rates are not affected. WHAT ARE WE REQUESTING We are proposing to remove the costs of interstate pipeline capacity from core transport rates. Core aggregators providing procurement service to PG&E's core transport customers will be responsible for obtaining any interstate capacity they need to provide that service. If approved by the CPUC, our core transport rates would change as shown below, and take effect upon approval. PROPOSED CORE TRANSPORT GAS RATE CHANGES Customer Category Annual Revenue Change Percent Rate Change (thousands) from Current Rates Residential Small Commercial Large Commercial -5.3% -4.9% -9.1% f =' TO: STATE, COUNTY AND CITY OFFICIALS September 26, 1996 Page 2 HOW RESIDENTIAL GAS RATES WILL CHANGE PG&E's request does not affect axesidential customer taking bundled procurement and transport service from PG&E. A residential customer taking core transport service who uses 100 therms per -month in winter would see a monthly PG&E gas bill decrease of $1.98, from $40.35 to $38.37, during the winter season (November through April). Your individual PG&E bill may differ depending on your energy use. Also, because this application may affect core aggregators' practices, residential core transport customers' bills from their aggregators could be affected. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Parties in this proceeding may offer proposals to the CPUC that differ from ours. Also, during the proceeding, updated information may be introduced that could change the amount of revenues requested. After considering the various proposals presented, the CPUC will issue a decision. The actual rates adopted may differ from those we requested and may result in an increase or decrease in your individual rates. If you are interested in participating in this proceeding and need advice or more information, or if you wish to comment on the Application, please write to: The Public Advisor California Public Utilities Commission 107 South Broadway, Room 5109 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Via Electronic Mail: Publicadvisdr.la@cpuc.ca.gov TO: STATE, COUNTY AND CITY OFFICIALS September 26, 1996 Page 3 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION If you need more information, please write to: The Division of Ratepayer Advocates California Public Utilities Commission 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 4202 San Francisco, CA 94102 Mention that you are writing about Application No. 96-09-029 and indicate if you would like a written response, otherwise no reply will be sent. Your letter will be sent to the Commissioners and will become part of the formal correspondence file for this Application You can get more information from PG&E by calling 415-973-4599 or writing to: Maryann C. Friel PG&E P.O. Box 7442 San Francisco, CA 94120 You may review a copy of any of the PG&E Applications at our corporate headquarters (77 Beale Street, Room 3120, San Francisco, CA 94105), any of our divisions offices, or the San Francisco office of the CPUC. Mention the Application of which you are inquiring. This notice is given. in accordance with the requirements of Rule 24 of the CPUC's Rules of Practice and Procedure. r PaWc Gas and Elea is Company May 10, 1996 77 Beale Street San Francisco, CA 415/973-2069 Telecopier 415/543-7813 Telecopier 415/973-9271 Mailing Alddmu P.O. Box 7442 San Francisco, CA 94120 TO STATE, COUNTY AND CITY OFFICIALS: Robert B. McLennan Attorney at Law RECEIVE0 MAY 1 ) 1904 ciTy CLERK_ SARI LUIS OBISPO. ee NOTICE OF RATE APPLICATIONS RESULTING IN AN ELECTRIC RATE FREEZE AND NATURAL GAS INCREASE Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) recently filed two applications with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC or Commission) which ask for increases in PG&E's electric and natural gas revenues. For electric customers, we are asking that the CPUC combine the requests in both of these applications with requests in applications previously filed, so that you see no change in your electric rates through December 31, 2001. To make sure your rates do not increase, PG&E has asked that recovery of the increased revenue requirement be deferred until 1998 or later to the extent necessary to maintain the electric rate freeze. For gas customers, the increases requested in the two applications together will result in a gas rate increase of less than one percent on January 1, 1997. SUMMARY OF APPLICATIONS Annual Earnings Assessment Proceeding (AEAP) On May 1, 1996, PG&E filed Application No. 96-05-002 requesting an electric revenue increase of $13.5 million and a gas increase of $0.5 million in 1997. If this application is approved by the CPUC, the increase would normally represent less than a one percent increase in gas and electric rates. However, for the reasons set forth above, there will be no change to your electric rates. The overall $14 million increase represents a net change resulting from the shareholder incentives PG&E is eligible to receive for its energy efficiency programs over the last four years. PG&E has several programs to encourage customers to install energy-efficient measures. The CPUC has adopted a mechanism where PG&E keeps 30 percent of the value of energy efficiency savings and ratepayers keep 70 percent of the benefits. PG&E's 1995 energy efficiency programs saved over $346 million of energy, so PG&E is requesting a $101.2 million shareholder incentive. Under normal recovery procedures established by the CPUC, the requested amount would be collected in four installments over the next ten years; therefore, one fourth, or $25.3 million Notice To Governmei.. ifficials May 10, 1996 Page 2 a ($20.8 million electric and $4.5 million gas) would be recoverable in calendar year 1997. The amount to be recovered for the 1995 energy efficiency programs is partially offset by the expiration of the shareholder incentive for PG&E's 1992 ($000's) energy efficiency programs, resulting in the net increase of $13.5 million (0.18 $ 375 percent) above present electric revenues and $0.5 million (0.027 percent) above $ 142 present gas revenues. Here is how this application, on a stand alone basis would affect each customer class: 0.003% Industrial Revenue Increase Percent Electric Customer Class ($000's) Increase Residential $ 5,559 0.18% Agricultural $ 721 0.18% Streetlighting $ 47 0.11% Small LAP $ 1,661 0.18% Medium L&P $ 1,941 0.18% E-19 Class $ 1;534 0.17% E-20 T $ 600 0.17% E-20 P $ 786 0.18% E-20 S $ 676 0.18% Tota] E-20 Tariff $ 2,062 0.17% Contracts $ 0 0.00% Total E-20 $ 2,062 0.17% Standby $ 23 0.18% Total Revenue Change $13,548 0.180 2 Revenue Increase Percent Gas Customer Class ($000's) Increase Residential $ 375 0.032% Small Commercial $ 142 0.032% Large Commercial $ 2 0.003% Industrial $ 10 0.007% Cogeneration $ 1 0.002% UEG $ 2 0.002% Wholesale $ 0 0.003% Total $ 532 0.027% 2 J Notice To Govern` _at Officials May 10, 1996 Page 3 1997 Annual Cost of Capital Proceeding FOn May 8, 1996, PG&E filed Application No. 96-05-022, a part of a yearly cost of capital proceeding in which the CPUC evaluates PG&E's cost of acquiring funds � & to finance PG&E operations and capital investments. PG&E is requesting a slight increase in the return on equity (ROE) to 11.85percent from. the currently authorized 11.60 percent to fairly compensate its shareholders for the risks of investing in PG&E's traditional non-nuclear electric and gas utility operations. PG&E is also requesting a slight change in its currently authorized capital structure, maintaining 48 percent equity, but increasing its preferred stock level from 5.50 to 5.80 percent, with an equal decrease in its debt level from 46.50 to 46.70 percent for 1997. Accordingly, PG&E asks that its traditional utility rate of return be increased to 9.56 percent from the currently authorized level of 9.49 percent. If this Application is approved by the CPUC, PG&E's cost of capital proposals for its traditional utility operations, standing alone, would result in an electric revenue requirement deferral of $13.3 million (02 percent) and a gas increase of $4.1 million (0.21 percent) for 1997. On a stand-alone basis, the proposals for its traditional utility operations in this Application would affect gas and electric rates by less than 1 percent (0.2 percent) as shown in these tables: 3 Revenue Change Percent Electric Customer Class ($000's) Increase Residential $ 5,478 0.2% Agricultural $ 710 0.2% Streetlighting $ 47 0.1% Small L&P $ 1,636 0.2% Medium L&P $ 1,910 0.2% E-19 Class $ 1,509 0.2% E-20 T $ 589 0.2% E-20 P $ 772 0.2% E-20 S $ 665 0.2% Total E-20 Tariff $ 2,027 0.2% Contracts $ 0 0.0% Total E-20 $ 2,027 0.2% Standby $ 22 0.2% Total Revenue Change $13,339 0.2% 3 Notice To Governmen fficials May 10, 1996 Page 4 L, Revenue Increase Percent Gas Customer Class ($000's) Increase . Residential $2,549 0.21% Small Commercial $ 968 0.22% Large Commercial $ 88 0.14% Industrial $ 298 0.23.% Cogeneration $ 71 0.16% UEG $ 144 0.16% Wholesale $ 6 0.23% Revenue Before Unbundled Non-core Storage $ 4,124 0.21% Unbundled Noncore Storage $ 13 0.20% Total Revenue Change $ 4,137- 0.21% Included as part of this Cost of Capital Application is a request for an increase in PG&E's Cost of Capital for its Pipeline Expansion (Expansion). PG&E is proposing an increase in 1997 for its return on equity for the Expansion to 13.50 percent from the currently adopted 12.10 percent level. This results in an overall 1997 Expansion rate of return of 9.66 percent and an Expansion revenue requirement increase of $9 million in 1997. PG&E also proposes to change its Expansion capital structure by increasing the Expansion's common equity level to 36.00 percent. If the Commission adopts PG&E's uncontested Pipeline Expansion Project Reasonableness (PEPR) case (A.94-09-056) proposal, for a three-year period of flat rates (from 1996 - 1998) for the Expansion, this would supercede PG&E's Expansion cost of capital proposals, and there would be no Expansion revenue requirement increase. The following table illustrates the effect of PG&E's Expansion Cost of Capital proposal (if PG&E's uncontested three-year flat rate cycle proposal is not adopted in the PEPR case): 4 L1 Notice To Govern _.it Officials May 10, 1996 Page 5 Revenue Increase Percent Class of Customer ($000) Increase Energy Public Utility Shippers G-XF $2,818 8.0% G-XA $ 125 8.0% All Other Shippers G-XF $ 418 8.G% G-XA $5,598 8.01 Total $8,959 8.0% To accomplish its proposed rate freeze, PG&E requests that the electric revenue requirement increases described above be consolidated with other applications previously filed. ELECTRIC RATES HELD CONSTANT Based on rates and tariffs in effect on January 1, 1996, PG&E proposes that the electric rates for all customers be held constant through 2001. EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS Before acting on each of these Applications, the CPUC will hold evidentiary hearings, expected to begin within the next several' months. At these hearings, which are open to the public, the CPUC will receive the testimony of PG&E, the CPUC's Division of Ratepayer Advocates and other interested parties. Participants at these hearings may offer proposals that differ from those of PG&E. After considering these proposals, the CPUC will issue several decisions. The actual plan adopted by the CPUC may differ from what is requested by PG&E in its several applications, and may result in an increase or decrease in your individual rates. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION If you need more information or if you want to get copies of the Division of Ratepayer Advocates' rate proposals when they are available, please write to: The Division of Ratepayer Advocates California Public Utilities Commission 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 5303 San Francisco, CA 94102 5 .I - Notice Notice To Governmen. ,fficials May 10, 1996 Page 6 Mention which application you are writing about and indicate if you would like a written response, otherwise no reply will be sent. Your letter will be sent to the Commissioners and will become part of the formal correspondence file for the relevant application. i You can get more information from PG&E by calling 415-973-6699 or writing to Barrett W. Young PG&E P.O. Box 7442 San Francisco, CA 94120. You may review a copy of any of the PG&E Applications at our corporate headquarters (77 Beale Street, Room 3120, San Francisco, CA 94105), any of our division offices, or at the San Francisco office of the CPUC. Mention the name of the application about which you are inquiring. This notice is given in accordance with the requirements of Rule 24 of the CPUC's Rules of Practice and Procedure. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Robert B. McLennan Attorney N. Pacific Gas and Electric Company April 5, 1996 77 Beale Street San Francisco, CA 415/973-2768 Telecopier 415/543-7813 Aladurg A&lr= P.O. Box 7442 San Francisco; CA 94120 TO STATE, COUNTY AND. CITY OFFICIALS: William H. Edwards Attorney at Law APR a 1996 CITY CLERK SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA NOTICE OF PROPOSED ELECTRIC RATE APPLICATIONS RESULTING IN OVERALL RATE FREEZE Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) recently filed three applications with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC or Commission) which ask that electric rates remain unchanged through 2001. Each of the applications, described below, asks for increases or decreases in rates because they address different types of our costs. However, we are asking that the CPUC combine the requests in all three of these applications, along with two others we will file in May, so that there will be no change in electric rates through December 31, 2001. On March 29, 1996, PG&E filed Application No. 96-03-054 to Modify Diablo Canyon Pricing and Adopt a Customer Electric Rate Freeze. This filing asks to modify the ratemaking mechanism for power from the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant and to adopt a customer electric rate freeze, effective January 1, 1997. The increase related to this change in Diablo Canyon pricing is $372.2 million (or 4.9 percent) in 1997 over currently authorized rates. Under PG&E's rate freeze proposal, rates will not increase over current levels as a result of this application. The customer electric rate freeze will result from the combination of electric rate increases and decreases proposed by PG&E. The proposed change in the Diablo Canyon pricing will recover the remaining Diablo Canyon costs by 2001 while reducing Competition Transition Costs (CTCs or transition costs) associated with the plant. CTCs from Diablo Canyon will be reduced by over $3.7 billion (net present value) compared to the existing Diablo Canyon pricing method, and the remaining Diablo Canyon and other utility generation transition costs will be recovered by the end of 2001, instead of the end of 2005 as contemplated by the Commission's Electric Restructuring Decision. By this change, PG&E intends to accelerate the transition to greater competition and customer choice in California's electric industry. Here is how this application, standing alone, could affect each customer class: Revenue Change % Change ($000s) 1 Residential $148,897 4.9% 2 Agricultural $19,738 4.9% 3 Streetlighting $1,161 2.8% 4 Small UP $44,536 4.9"/0 5 Medium UP $53,590 4.9% 6 E-19 Class $43,188 4.9% 7 Total E-20 $60,405 5.0% 8 Standby $634 4.9"/0 Total Revenue Change $372,150 4.9"/0 On April 1, 1996, PG&E filed Application No. 96-04-001 requesting a reduction in electric rates of $404.8 million (or -5.3 percent) below currently authorized rates for the combination of the Energy Cost Adjustment Clause (ECAC), Annual Energy Rate (AER), Energy Revenue Adjustment Mechanism (FRAM), and the California Alternative Rates for Energy (CARE) program. This case primarily addresses the costs of fuel and purchased power. Here is how this application, on a stand alone basis, could affect each customer class: Revenue Change % Change On April 1, 1996, PG&E filed Application No. 96-04-002 requesting an increase in electric rates of $156 million (or 2.1 percent) over currently authorized rates.. Under PG&E's rate freeze proposal, rates will not increase over current levels as a result of this application. The costs requested in this application are for electric system reliability and customer service. The request funds jobs for approximately 1200 workers needed to perform additional levels of electric maintenance work, to assist in handling customer calls at our call centers, and to read and maintain meters. To make sure rates do not increase, we have asked that only $32.7 million (or 0.4 percent) , be reflected in rates effective January 1, 1997, with recovery of $123.3 million being deferred until January 1, -2- 0000s) 1 Residential -$161,686 -5.3% 2 Agricultural -$21,467 -5.3% 3 Streetlighting -$1,252 3.0% 4 Small UP 448,362 -5.3% 5 Medium UP -$58,319 -5.3% 6 E-19 Class -$47,064 -5.30/6 7 Total E-20 -$66,009 -5.4% 8 Standby -$690 -5.36/a Total Revenue Change -$404,849 -5.3% On April 1, 1996, PG&E filed Application No. 96-04-002 requesting an increase in electric rates of $156 million (or 2.1 percent) over currently authorized rates.. Under PG&E's rate freeze proposal, rates will not increase over current levels as a result of this application. The costs requested in this application are for electric system reliability and customer service. The request funds jobs for approximately 1200 workers needed to perform additional levels of electric maintenance work, to assist in handling customer calls at our call centers, and to read and maintain meters. To make sure rates do not increase, we have asked that only $32.7 million (or 0.4 percent) , be reflected in rates effective January 1, 1997, with recovery of $123.3 million being deferred until January 1, -2- 1998. PG&E will seek to recover the deferral in 1998 without raising rates. PG&E plans to recover these costs in advance of recovery of utility generation assets other than Diablo Canyon. If by the end of the rate freeze in 2001, PG&E has not recovered this $123.3 million deferral proposed here, then PG&E will not seek to recover any remaining portion of this deferral from its customers. To the extent the costs in other cases PG&E is filing this year are reduced, the amount we ask to defer until 1998 will also be reduced. Here is how this application, on a stand alone basis could affect each customer class in 1997: Revenue Change % Change I Kesiaentiaai $52,500 2.1% 2 Agricultural $8,276 2.0% 3 Streetiighting $490 1.2% 4 Small UP $18,694 2.1% 5 Medium UP $22,460 2.1•% 6 E-19 Class $18,082 7 Total E-20 $25,240 2.1.% 8 Standby $266 2.1•% Total Revenue Change $156,008 2.10/6 To accomplish a rate freeze, PG&E proposes that the increases and the decrease, described above, be consolidated with two applications to be filed in May 1996. These latter two filings, the Annual Earnings Assessment Proceeding (to be filed May 1, 1996) and the Cost of Capital Application. (to be filed May 8, 1996) will be more fully described in an upcoming notice. In the event the Commission does not adopt either the proposed Diablo Canyon ratemaking treatment or rate freeze proposal, PG&E will re-evaluate its recommended allocation of any increases or decreases in rates to the various customer classes. ELECTRIC RATES HELD CONSTANT Based on rates and tariffs in effect on January 1, 1996, PG&E proposes that the electric rates for all customers be held constant through 2001. EVIDENTIARY HEARINGS Before acting on each of these Applications, the CPUCwill hold evidentiary hearings, expected to begin within the next several months. At these hearings, which are open to the public, the CPUC will receive the testimony of PG&E, the CPUC's Division of Ratepayer Advocates and other interested parties. -3- Participants at these hearings may offer proposals that differ from those of PG&E. After considering these proposals, the CPUC will issue several decisions. The actual plan adopted by the CPUC may differ from what is requested by PG&E in its several applications, and may result in an increase or decrease in individual rates. INFOR FURTHER INFORMATION If you need more information, or if you want to get copies of the Division of Ratepayer Advocates' rate proposals when they are available, please write to: The Division of Ratepayer Advocates California Public Utilities Commission 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 4202 San Francisco, CA 94102 Mention which application you are writing about and indicate if you would like a written response, otherwise no reply will be sent. Your letter will be sent to the Commissioners and will become part of the formal correspondence file for this Application. You can get more information from PG&E by calling 415-973-6699 or writing to Barrett W. Young PG&E P.O. Box 7442 San Francisco, CA 94120. You may review a copy of any of the PG&E Applications at our corporate headquarters (77 Beale Street, Room 3120, San Francisco, CA 94105), any of our division offices, or at the San Francisco office of the CPUC. Mention the application of which you are inquiring. This notice is given in accordance with the requirements of Rule 24 of the CPUC's Rules of Practice and Procedure. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY By: wars 1 Attorney -4- a BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Application of Pacific Gas and ) Electric Company For Approval of ) Application Demand Side Management Shareholder ) No. 95-04-041 Incentives for 1994 Program Year ) Accomplishments ) (U 39 M) ) NOTICE OF FILING TO: THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES, COUNTY AND CITY OFFICIALS AND INTERESTED PARTIES Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) filed Application No. 95-04-041 on April 25, 1995 with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). PG&E's Application, which is part of the Annual Earnings Assessment Proceeding (AERP), requests authority to recover shareholder incentives related to 1994 Demand Side Management (DSM) program accomplishments. In total, PG&E is requesting a pre-tax DSM shareholder incentive -of $19.4 million: $16.0 million for the Shared Savings Programs and $3.4 million for .the Performance Adder Programs. Under the recovery procedures set forth in Decision No.93-05-063 and Decision. 94-05-063, one fourth, or $4.9 million ($4.4 million electric and $0.5 million gas) would be recoverable in calendar year 1996. The remaining three-fourths would be subject to adjustments resulting from measurement and RECEIVED MAY � 1995 CITY CLERK SAN LUIS OBISPO. rA J evaluation studies and recoverable during the years 1997 through 2005. The 1996 electric shareholder incentive request produces an electric Customer Energy Efficiency (CEE) shareholder incentive revenue requirement decrease of $12.8 million. This decrease is primarily due to the fact that as of December 31, 19951 PG&E will no longer collect shareholder earnings related to its 1991 DSM program, and to adjustments made to reflect the results of an audit of prior years' DSM expenditures. The gas CEE shareholder.incentive revenue requirement would decrease by $3.8 million. as a result of this filing. The revenue requirement changes proposed in PG&E's application would not increase PG&E's:rates for any of its electric or gas customer classes. PG&E's AEAP application requests that, consistent with the proposed 1996 electric rate freeze, the decrease in the electric revenue requirement that would result from this application be offset by an equal increase in PG&E's 1996 Electric Revenue Adjustment Mechanism (ERAM) balance. This ratemaking treatment would decrease the 1996 ERAM revenue requirement. PG&E's.AEAP application proposes that the resulting gas revenue requirement changes be consolidated with those from other gas proceedings held in 1995. The state, counties, and municipal corporations, and any other parties interested in the above-mentioned filing can obtain a copy of Application No. 95-04-041 and related testimony upon written request made to Pilar Garcia, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, P.O. Box 7442, San Francisco, CA 94120-7422. This notice is given in accordance with the requirements Of Rule 24 of the CPUC's Rules of Practice and Procedure. Dated this 5th day of May, 1995 at San Francisco, California. HARRY W. LONG, JR. PILAR GARCI,A� By:_�f%'�Q..6 1_ GARCIA Attorneys for PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 77 Beale Street P.O. Box 7442 San Francisco, CA 94120 Telephone: (415) 973-2036 Law Department PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY Pacific Gas and Eli—O mpa y 77 Beale Street San Francisco, CA 415/973-2768 Telecopier 415x43-7813 P.O. Box 7442 San Francisco, CA 94120 William H. Edwards Attorney at Law April 11, 1995 APP 1 ; 1995 CITY CLERK SAN LUIS OBISPO. CW TO: THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES, COUNTY AND CITY OFFICIALS AND INTERESTED PARTIES Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) filed Application No. 95-04-002 on April 3, 1995, with the California Public Utilities commission (CPUC or Commission) requesting a continuation of PG&E's electric rate freeze though 1996. To achieve this result PG&E proposes a net zero revenue change from revenues at present rates for the combination of the Energy Cost Adjustment Clause (ECAC), Annual Energy Rate (AER), the Electric Revenue Adjustment Mechanism (ERAM), and the California Alternative Rates for Energy (CARE) account (CARE replaces the Low Income Ratepayer Assistance (LIRA) program) for the forecast period January 1, 1996 through December 31, 1996. PG&E's proposal defers.cost recovery of approximately $85 million of the 1995 ERAM balancing account revenues until 1997. In accordance with an order in last year's ECAC case which concluded that deferred costs would not receive interest, PG&E's application does not request interest on the deferred ERAM revenues during 1996. Based on rates in effect on January 1, 1995, PG&E proposes that the electric rates for all customer classes be held constant through 1996. The Commission will hold hearings on this Application. Parties at those hP,a.rb-kgS may offer prt�rros is tC +1.e VDTT0 :�hiC.7,. di icr o1LStauWIly L -Com those requested in the application. After considering all proposals presented during the formal hearing process, the Commission will issue a decision. The actual rates and revenue requirement adopted by the Commission may differ significantly from PG&E's original request and may result in an increase or decrease in rates. If you wish to participate in the hearings or need advice, please write to the Public Advisor, California Public Utilities Commission at 505 Van Ness Avenue, Room 5303, San Francisco, CA 94102; or by electronic mail to "public.advisor@cpuc.ca.god'. Inquiries about the date, time, and place of hearing on the. Application may be directed to the Public Advisor. 0 : I A copy of the Application and related exhibits may also be examined at the Commission, as well as the offices of Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 77 Beale Street, Room 3120, San Francisco, CA 94105; or at PG&E's division offices. If you desire a copy of the Application and related exhibits, please write me at the above mailing address and mention that you are writing about Application No. 95-04-002 This notice is given in accordance with Rule 24 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the California Public Utilities Commission. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY By WILL H. EDWARDS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE ISSUE DATE: 03/19/93 PRODUCER THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS Sedgwick James of CA, Inc. NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, Post Office Box 7601 EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. San Francisco, CA 94120 COMPANY LETTER A INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST 415/983-5600 INSURED COMPANY LETTER B CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO MEMBER OF CCCSIF COMPANY LETTER C P. 0. BOX 8100 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93403 COMPANY LETTER D COMPANY LETTER E COVERAGES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERN OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCI..t' ENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS, AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY CLAIMS. CO POLICY EFF. POLICY EXP. ALL LIMITS IN THOUSANDS LTR TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER DATE DATE GENERAL LIABILITY GENERAL AGGREGATE S 5,000, A COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CSR 116 4219-02 07/01/92 07/01/93 PUBLIC ENTITY E&O AGGR. S 1,000, CLAIMS MADE ❑X OCCURENCE PERSONAL & ADV. INJURY S OWNER'S & CONTRACTOR'S PROT. EACH OCCURRENCE* S 1,000, X EXCESS PUBLIC ENTITY L1AB. FIRE DAMAGE (Any 1 fire) $ MEDICAL EXP. (Any 1 pers.) $ AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT* S 1,000, A X ANY AUTO HIRED AUTOS CSR 116 4219-02 07/01/92 07/01/93 BODILY INJURY (Per Person) S NON -OWNED BODILY INJURY (Per Acc.) S ALL OWNED AUTOS AUTOS GARAGE PROPERTY DAMAGE S SCHEDULED AUTOS LIABILITY EXCESS LIABILITYIrRIM.-MM-MORM -•- -_ =:=- .._.. EACH AIx UMBRELLA FORM ESR 116 4220-02 07/01/92 07/01/93 _ _ :_-:;-_ '_-;;:-_:_..- OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE _€'€€=:_ S 4,000, S 4,000, OTHER THAN UMBRELLA FORM WORKERS' WORKERS' COMPENSATION STATUTORY ....�Ei —:"---------- -::: _ $ (EACH ACCIDENT) $ (DISEASE -POLICY LIMIT) (DISEASE -EACH AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITYC I 12 p a V LEMPLOYEE) D * OTHER EXCESS OF SIOO,000 SIR f1 AR 2 6 1993 $ S CITY CLERK N LUIS SISPO.A S S DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS/LOCATIONS/VEHICLES/SPECIAL ITEMS PACIFIC GAS 8 ELECTRIC COMPANY IS NAMED AS ADDITIONAL INSURED WITH RESPECT TO THE FACILITY LOCATED AT 108 OLD CREEK ROAD IN THE CITY OF CAYUCAS, POSSESED BY THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO; PG&E LOG N0. 189093. CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING COMPANY WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAIL 30 PACIFIC GAS 0 ELECTRIC COMPANY OF CONTRACTS DEPARTMENT - B23C DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT, BUT FAILURE TO MAIL SUCH A NOTICE SHALL IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY OF ANY KIND UPON THE COMPANY, ITS AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES. P.O. BOX 770000, RM. 2354 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94177 Attn: MANAGER OF POWER CONTRACTS DEPARTMENT _ Q? ? Ref. 25 SEP -10-1992 09:29 SEDGWICK JRMES 415 397 1322 P.002/002 /41 CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE ISSUE DATE: 09/10/92 PRODUCER Sedswick James of CA, Inc. Public Entity Group THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. Post Office Box 7601 4151983.5600 San Francisco, CA 96120 COMPANY LETTER A INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST INSURED COMPANY LETTER B CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO MEMBER OF CCCSIF COMPANY LETTER C P. 0. Box 8100 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93403 COMPANY LETTER D COMPANY LETTER E COVERAGES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REOUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAT BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS, AMD CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY NAVE BEEN REDUCED BY CLAIMS. CO POLICY EFF. POLICY EXP. All LIMITS IN THOUSANDS LTR TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER DATE DATE GENERAL LIABILITY GENERAL AGGREGATE S 5,000, PUBLIC ENTITY E8O AGGR. S 1,000, A COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CSR 116 4219-02 07/01/92 07/01/93 CLAIMS MADEDX OCCURENCE PERSONAL 8 ADV. INJURY S EACH OCCURRENCE• S 1,000, OWNER15.8 CONTRACTOR'S PRO T. FIRE DAMAGE (Any 1 fire) S X EXCESS PUBLIC ENTITY LIAR. MEDICAL EXP. (Arty 1 pers.) S AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT* S 1,000, A AUTOHIRED AUTOS CSR 116 4219.02 07/01/92 07/01/93 BODILY INJURY (Per Person) S NON-OWNEO jAKY ALL OWNED AUTOS AUTOS BODILY INJURY (Per Ace.) S PROPERTY DAMAGE S GARAGE SCHEDULED AUTOS LIABILITY AUMBRELLA hEXCESS LIABILITY FORM OTHER THAN UMBRELLA FORM ESR 116 4220-02 07/01/92 07/01/93 amm�mi MEME-. �iw'um W "`�Ig'"` EACH OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE i� —!� s 4,000, s 4,000, STATUTORY netmmmn OwUnn03l'i;::::::mr..mamem��nn WORKERS' COMPENSATION AND S (EACH ACCIDENT) EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY S (DISEASE -POLICY LIMIT) S (DISEASE -EACH EMPLOYEE) . OTHER • EXCESS OF -S100,000 SIR S S S i DESCRIPTIDN OF OPERATIONS/LDCATIONS/VEHICLES/SPECIAL ITEMS PACIFIC GAS lE ELECTRIC COMPANY IS NAMED AS ADDITIONAL INSURES SOLELY AS RESPECTS THE USE OF THE STENNER CANYON HYDRO, PG&E LOG NUMBER 18X054. CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING COMPANY WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAIL 30 PACIFIC GAS d ELECTRIC CCHIP ANY DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT, BUT OF CONTRACTS DEPARTMENT - B23C FAILURE TO MAIL SUCH A NOTICE SMALL IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY 77 BEALE STREET OF ANY KIND UPON THE COMPANY, ITS AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES. . P.O. BOX 770000 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94177 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTAT Attn: MS. CHERYL L.P. WILLIAMS n n/,�ef. 16 .` JUL 18 Jul CERTIFICATE OF INSURANN ISSUE DATE: 07/01/91 PRODUCER THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS Sedgwick James of California NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, Public Entity Group 415/983-5600 EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. P.O. Box 7601 COMPANY LETTER A INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST San Francisco, CA 94120 INSURED COMPANY LETTER B CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO MEMBER OF CCCSIF COMPANY LETTER C P. 0. BOX 8100 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93403 COMPANY LETTER D �r COMPANY LETTER E ff �f. > ff££:fsEE£E£ES..ui........... 5£Sif::i,SEfEYr.:S; �•<E�.....,, ..<Si ;.E.S;..., . ..5 .sf<.s^.M•xsi55<...,..5 .<. , >} }.>.. ..S .5:+ :•.,f<.n } #=i COVERAGES ••ys� �}.,k�- >, s..s:`i:i#::###'•.' ##::#...3 't# ��` iJ 70 GER FI�Y HAT THE PISLIG`tES 0f INSURANCE � f :.�0i `»>> i, • ::»#::'•» }#>� >3 >:s l' >.,# a€»�� # 's3�'s'��:� b� 55�• #P. � Ss :#t:5>;£ Lb ��L�IW HAVE BEN ��@D 1`d'�HE �N�Uk�� W47E� A9UVE� PdLi�Y PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPEC� T TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSUkANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS, AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY CLAIMS. CO LTR TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER POLICY EFF. DATE POLICY EXP. DATE ALL LIMITS IN THOUSANDS GENERAL LIABILITY GENERAL AGGREGATE $ 5,000, A COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CSR 116 4219-01 07/01/91 07/01/92 PUBLIC ENTITY E&0 AGGR. $ 11000, CLAIMS MADE ❑X OCCURENCE PERSONAL & ADV. INJURY $ OWNER'S & CONTRACTOR'S PROT. EACH OCCURRENCE* $ 1,000, X EXCESS PUBLIC ENTITY LIAB. FIRE DAMAGE (Any 1 fire) $ MEDICAL EXP. (Any 1 Pers.) $ AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT* $ 1,000, A X ANY AUTO'HIRED AUTOS NON -OWNED CSR 116 4219-01 07/01/91 07/01/92 BODILY INJURY (Per Person) $ BODILY INJURY (Per Ace.) $ ALL OWNED AUTOS AUTOS GARAGE PROPERTY DAMAGE $ SCHEDULED AUTOS LIABILITY EXCESS LIABILITY EACH A UMBRELLA FORM ESR 116 4220-01 07/01/91 07/01/92 OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE $ 4,000, $ 4,0009 X OTHER THAN UMBRELLA FORM WORKERS COMPENSATION COMPENSA IO STATUTORY €.' $ (EACH ACCIDENT) $ (DISEASE -POLICY LIMIT) $ (DISEASE -EACH EMPLOYEE) AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY OTHER ° EXCESS OF $100,000 SIR $ DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS/LOCATIONS/VEHICLES/SPECIAL ITEMS PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY IS NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED SOLELY AS RESPECTS TO THE ENDORSEMENT ATTACHED. CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING COMPANY WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAIL 30 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT, BUT FAILURE TO MAIL SUCH A NOTICE SHALL IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY OF ANY KIND UPON THE COMPANY, ITS AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOUR EMBARCADERO CENTER ROOM E-280 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94106 I Pacific Gas and Electric Company City of San Luis Obispo City Clerk P.O. Box 8100 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 Los Padres Division 406 Higuera Street P.O. Box 592 San Luis Obispo, CA 93406 805/595-6326 January 10, 1991 NOTICE OF AGREEMENT TO SELL FACILITIES Bill Hoppert Marketing Manager C�C % -�7 D>, /Zome7-p PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY (PG&E) hereby notifies you of a pending sale of certain (electric/gas) facilities to a Buyer. PG&E believes that upon the completion or the sale of the (electric/gas) facilities to the Buyer, such facilities may fall under your jurisdiction for such items as property taxes, safety inspections, etc. This NOTICE OF AGREEMENT TO SELL FACILITIES refers to a proposed bill of sale agreement between American Medical International, Sierra Vista Regional Medical Center (Buyer) and PG&E to assume all responsibilities for said facilities when the sale to Buyer is fully consummated. The (electric/gas) facilities to be sold under such Agreement and thereafter operated by Buyer are described as follows: See Attached Materials List and Map Buyer's mailing address is: 1010 Murray Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 PACIFIC GAS HnAND ELECTRIC COMPANY BY: lk ITS: RECEIVED 4 1991 J � SAN Luis 05150. CA LUIS lisBISPO T30S,R12E i row sl•srdr }� Nlls r. s ,� EBIT "A �•�rti•i lira. PL. 6 �y� f� ,r SIERRA VISTA .0:64 MOSP. p par aur oai1? Pill -• o ?luSir N "! D. E .. .' LIST OF MATERIALS 1 BRKT TRI -MOUNT 18-1180 71 1 GR -1 ASSY 71 1 GR -3 ASSY 71 3 L.A.s 15KVA 73 128 CONDUIT 3ABS 71 .10 CONDUIT 3IN PL 71 260 CONDUIT 4ABS 71 3 PORCELAIN 71 1 U MLDG 31N PVC ASSY 71 360 1/C 2 3OrPE 15KV 71 320 3/C 1000. XIYE 600V 71 3 CABLE TERM KIT 600V 71 3 CONNECTORS 71 3 ELBOW ASSY 15KV 71 1 1000KVA PM TX 71 Bill No. ❑ In- EDRegis-I§ C* o Returned Ei sured tered f COD's No. of Article * Office of Origin Code Use ONLY for International 1 um man ror i �D eipt for •chandise No. of Article* Office of Origin Code Use ONLY for International - , - --�=oto-�--------=--------- ------------------ ------------------------------------ ----------------------------------- ----------------- ---------------= -74--------------- -- 5 --------------- ----------------- - 15 --------------- ----------------- g --------------- -- ----------------- - E- FV E 1) ----------------- 17_ 8 ------------ 19--------------- - - --------------- 9 -----JAN d 1` 11 _ — ---------------19--------------- ------------------------------------- i-C ------- CWA'-ARK ---------------------- sD -------=-------- -- --------------- SAN LUIS OBISPO, GA *CODE: R=Return Receipt Requested. OS=Officially Sealed. RE=Re-enveloped. SD=Special Delivery. Postmark- RW=Returned to Writer. DC=Received in damaged condition - Date of Delivery Delivered by 0 PS Form 38M, April 1988 Received the Pieces ---� Described O U.S.G.P.O. I '1 z� s 3-093 �ni7 CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCIS OCT 0 6'6C .. ISSUE DATE: 09/19/90 PRODUCER THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS Sedgwick James of California Public Entity Group 415/983-5600 NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE -AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. P.O. Box 7601 COMPANY LETTER A INSURANCE• COMPANY OF THE WEST San Francisco, CA 94120 INSURED COMPANY LETTER B CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO MEMBER OF COCSIF COMPANY LETTER C P. 0. BOX 8100 SAN LUIS OBISPO. CA 93403 COMPANY LETTER D ��[[ COMPANY LETTER E H 5 �1A : € INSURANCE L T HAV I`UED € €1`H N PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS, AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY CLAIMtS. CO POLICY EFF. POLICY EXP. ALL LIMITS IN THOUSANDS LTR TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER DATE DATE GENERAL LIABILITY GENERAL AGGREGATE $ 4,000, A COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CSR 116 4219 07/01/90 07/01/91 PUBLIC ENTITY E&O AGGR. $ 1,000, CLAIMS MADE ❑X OCCURENCE PERSONAL & ADV. INJURY $ OWNER'S & CONTRACTOR'S PROT. EACH OCCURRENCE* $ 1,000, X EXCESS PUBLIC ENTITY LIAR. FIRE DAMAGE (Any 1 fire) $ MEDICAL EXP. (Any 1 Pers.) $ AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT* $ 1,000; A X ANY AUTOHIRED AUTOS NON -OWNED CSR 116 4219 07/01/90 07/01/91 BODILY INJURY (Per Person) $ BODILY INJURY (Per Acc.) $ ALL OWNED AUTOS AUTOS GARAGE PROPERTY DAMAGE $ SCHEDULED AUTOS LIABILITY EXCESS LIABILITY EACH A UMBRELLA FORM ESR 116 4220 07/01/90 07/01/91 OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE $ 4,000, $ 4,000, X OTHER THAN UMBRELLA FORM WORKERS' COMPENSATION -,..,,.... ................,.;..,,,.....», $ (EACH ACCIDENT) $ (DISEASE -POLICY LIMIT) $ (DISEASE -EACH EMPLOYEE) AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY OTHER * EXCESS OF $100,000 SIR $ DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS/LOCATIONS/VEHICLES/SPECIAL ITEMS PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY IS NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED SOLELY AS RESPECTS TO THE ENDORSEMENT ATTACHED. CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING COMPANY WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAIL 30 DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT, BUT FAILURE TO MAIL SUCH A NOTICE SHALL IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO OF ANY KIND UPON THE COMPANY, ITS AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOUR EMBARCADERO CENTER ROOM E-280 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94106 r, 1 �} 4 S �— UL ENDORSEMENT INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST ENDORSEMENT NO.: 6 POLICY NO. CSR 116 4219 I•` EFFECTIVE DATE 07/01/90 ISSUED TO CENTRAL COAST CITIES SELF-INSURANCE FUND MEMBER CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ADDITIONAL INSURED ENDORSEMENT IN CONSIDERATION OF THE PREMIUM CHARGED, PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY IS ADDED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED WITH RESPECT TO ALL LIABILITIES ARISING OUT OF WORK PERFORMED BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE INSURED. THE INCLUSION OF MORE THAN ONE INSURED UNDER THIS POLICY SHALL NOT OPERATE TO IMPAIR THE RIGHTS OF ONE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER INSURED AND THE COVERAGES AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY SHALL APPLY AS THOUGH SEPARATE POLICIES HAD BEEN ISSUED TO EACH INSURED. THE INCLUSION OF MORE THAN ONE INSURED.SHALL NOT, HOWEVER, OPERATE TO INCREASE THE LIMIT OF THE COMPANY'S LIABILITY. IT IS UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED THAT ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY WHICH MAY BE APPLICABLE, SHALL BE DEEMED EXCESS AND THE INSURED'S INSURANCE IS PRIMARY NOTWITHSTANDING ANY CONFLICTING PROVISIONS IN THE INSURED'S TO THE COMPANY. IT IS UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED THAT ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY SHALL NOT, BY REASON OF ITS INCLUSION UNDER THIS POLICY, INCUR LIABILITY FOR PAYMENT OF PREMIUM FOR .THIS POLICY. IN THE EVENT OF REDUCTION IN COVERAGE OR CANCELLATION OF THIS INSURANCE, TH13 COMPANY AGREES TO MAIL THIRTY (30) DAYS ADVANCE NOTICE OF SUCH REDUCTION OR CANCELLATION TO THE PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, FOUR EMBARCADERO CENTER, ROOM E-280, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94106. THE ADDITIONAL INSURED COVERAGE DOES NOT EXTEND TO.PROVIDE COVERAGE OR DEFENSE OF THE PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY FOR THE SOLE AND INDIVIDUAL ACTS OF NEGLIGENCE OF THE PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY. 1ND 0095A 10/01/90 Of ISSUE DATE (MM/DD/(Y) PRODUCER r '• FRED. S. JAMES & CO. THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATESBELOW AMEND, OR ALTER _ EXTEND THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLI ESN P. 0.:Bm 7601 San Francisco,, Calif. 94120 COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE COMPANY A Public Entity Division. LETTER PTAMPT T T.T rnMPAMV COMPANY LETTER s INSURED COMPANYLETTER C MEMBER OF CCCSIF CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COMPANY p P. 0. BOX 8100 LETTER COMPANY E A N D LETTER THIS IS TO CERTIFY THALPDCICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. FICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAYPERTAIRIN THERE INSURANCE AFFORDED BYOR NOF ANY TH POL C EN 016ED IW jS ENT WITH ECT TO AELLPECT TO THE TERMS, EXCLUSIIONSH THIS !AND CONDI. TIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. �O 1IN �1 CO LTR TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER CV FFFFECTIVE I IgIM,�lyynry POLICY EXPIRATION LIABILITY LIMITS IN THOUSANDS EACH OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE v 1 T 199 DATI (MMIDDNYI GENERAL LUU31LJTY COMPREHENSIVE FORM �!v BODILY s—iain $ PREMISES/OPERATIONS AN U S 08ZM- UNDERGROUND EXPLOSION & COLLAPSE HAZARD DAMAGE DAMAGE D $ $ PROOUCTSICOMPLETED OPERATIONS CONTRACTUAL KZ 074 7724 / 07/01/89 07/01/90 COMBINED $ 900► $ 900 INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS BROAD FORM PROPERTY DAMAGE J 0 J PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY $ 900 Xg AUTOMOBILE LMM31L - BWLY I ANY AUTO (PER pTISOBl $ ` ALL OWNED AUTOS (PRIV. PASS.) MMY /OTHER THAN ALLO OWNED (OTHER PASS KB 124 2758 07/01/89 07/01/90 I'LURY (PER AMOOM $ HIRED NON -OWNED AUTOS PROPERTY DAMAGE $ GARAGE LIABILITY 8I8PO COMBINED $ EXCESS LIABILITY i ► UMBRELLA FORM OTHER THAN KR 133 833 0 8 07/01/ 07/01/90 BI & PD D $ 4►000► $ 4►000 UMBRELLA FORM n, WORKERS' COMPENSATION STATUTORY Is (EACH ACCIDENT) AND $ (DISEASE -POLICY LIMIT) EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY $ (DISEASE -EACH EMPLOYEE) OTHER DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONSILOCATIONSIVEHICLES/SPECIAL ITEMS ADDITIONAL INSURED AS RESPECTS: PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY IS NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED SOLELY AS RESPECTS TO THE ENDORSEMENT ATTACHED. PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO Y OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EX- DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING COMPANY WILL ENDEAVOR TO FOUR EMBARCADERO CENTER �p AYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE MOLDER NAMED TO THE AILURE TO rAUTrOR ROOT•? E-280 MAIL SUCH NOTICE SH MPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY D UPON THE COMPANY IT AG NTS R REPRESENTATIVES. SAIL FRANCISCO, CA 94106 REPflES NTATIVE �.(� -: AMENDING ENDORSEMENT Company Numb`er5 If this endorsement is Issued concurrently with the policy. pie Attaching Clause need not be completed. Endt. No 3 1 = Reliance Insurance Company 7= Planet Insurance Company United Pacific Insurance Company issued by Co. No 2 Effect Dote 05/29/90 Insured Addmonal Premium CCCSIF/CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO s Reliance Insurance Co. of Illinois Premium ❑ to audit Attached to and forming part IN Policy No KZ 074 77 24 Coun by (Aut nzed ntntlYel Retum Premium ' • s All terms and conditions of the policy remain unchanged except as amended by this endorsement. unsameo Promium Factor, ADDITIONAL INSURED ENDORSEMENT IN CONSIDERATION OF THE PREMIUM CHARGED, PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY IS ADDED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED WITH RESPECT TO ALL LIABILITIES ARISING OUT.OF WORK PERFORMED.BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE IIJSURED. THE INCLUSION OF MORE THAN ONE INSURED UNDER THIS POLICY SHALL NOT OPERATE TO IMPAIR THE RIGHTS OF ONE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER INSURED AND THE COVERAGES AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY SHALL APPLY AS THOUGH SEPARATE POLICIES HAS BEEN ISSUED TO EACH INSURED. THE INCLUSION OF MORE THAN ONE INSURED SHALL NOT, HOWEVER, OPERATE TO INCREASE THE LIMIT OF THE COMPANY'S LIABILITY. IT IS UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED THAT ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY THE PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY WHICH -MAY BE APPLICABLE, SHALL BE DEEMED EXCESS AND THE INSURED'S INSURANCE PRIMARY NOTWITHSTANDING ANY CONFLICTING PROVISIONS IN THE INSURED'S POLICY TO THE COMPANY. THE PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY SHALL NOT, BY REASON OF ITS INCLUSION UNDER THIS POLICY, INCUR LIABILITY FOR PAYMENT.OF PREMIUM FOR THIS POLICY. IN THE EVENT OF REDUCTION IN COVERAGE OR CANCELLATION OF'THIS INSURANCE, THE COMPANY AGREES TO MAIL THIRTY (30) DAYS ADVANCE NOTICE OF SUCH REDUCTION OR CANCELLATION TO THE PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, FOUR EMBARCADERO CENTER, ROOM E-280, SAN FRANCISCO,. CALIFORNIA 94106. THE ADDITIONAL INSURED COVERAGE DOES NOT EXTEND TO PROVIDE COVERAGE OR DEFENSE OF THE PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY FOR THE SOLE AND INDIVIDUAL ACTS OF NEGLIGENCE OF THE PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY. aTHE PREMIUM FOR THIS ENDORSEMENT IF ON INSTALLMENTS IS PAYABLE AS FOLLOWS: ADDITIONAL RETURN REVISED ANNIVERSARY PREMIUM AT DATE OF ENDORSEMENT S S (NOT APPLICABLE) FIRST ANNIVERSARY S S S SECOND ANNIVERSARY S S S .� REQUEST FOR INSURANCE DOCUMENTS VA $: � 1 City.of:San Luis Obispo Date: May 14, 1990 P.O. Box 8100 Log Number: 18HO54 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 In order to comply with the insurance requirements of the referenced agreement, please forward insurance documents evidencing renewal coverage for the items checked below: COVERAGE COVERAGE LETTER TYPE OF COVERAGE -LETTER TYPE OF COVERAGE A J Commercial/Comprehensive General Liability (Occurrence Form) B _ Umbrella Liability (Occurrence Form) 1. Insurance cov raexpired ges) on file will e:pir follows: A / 9 B A 2. Specify that policy includes coverage for: Premises/Operations Broad Form Property Damage, including Completed Operations I.C.U. Independent Contractors Products/Completed Operations Personal Injury �[ Con'.ractual Liability _ Other A 3. Limits of liability must be identified as follows: 1l Each O:currence x General Aggregate AVAILABLE Products/Completed Operations Aggregate AVAILABLE Personal Injury Aggregate AVAILABLE A X 8 _ 4. Specify that policy(ies) have been endorsed as follows: �G PHE as additional insured PG&E shall not incur liability for payment of premium Coverage provided is primary Policy(ies) contain a severability of interest clause (See Iter Nos. 3a through 3d on the attached instruction sheet.) A XB _ 5. Specify that policy(ies) have been endorsed to provide 30 days` prior written notice of cancellation or mdterjdl change in coverage. (See Item 4 on the attached instruction sheet.) Instructions for submifting insurance documents are att+shed. If you have any questions, please call (415) 472-6867. cc: Eric Cutter FOR PG&E USE ONLY Sincerely, S in a insurance Department Date: _ Seller has complied with the insurance requirements of the referenced agreement. _ Seller has not complied with the insurance requirements indicated above. As Project Coordinator, it is your responsibility to obtain the required insurance documents. -- PG&E INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMITTING INSURANCE DOCUMENTS 1. All required insurance documents shall be signed by an authorized representative of the insurance company(ies) and shall be issued and submitted to: Pacific Gas and Electric Company Attention: OF Project Four Embarcadero Center, Room E-290 San Francisco, CA 94106 2. Questions regarding the submittal of insurance documents should be directed to the Insurance Department at (415) 972-6867. 3. Certificates cf irs:rarce evidencing all coveragEs required shall stat: 40'a' policies have bier. endorsed in accordance with the contract insurance requirements isuggested wording below): a) Additional Insured: 'Such insurance as is afforded by this policy shall apply to PG&E as an additional insured insofar as work performed by the insured for, and/or agreement between the insured, and PG&E is concerned.' b) 'PG&E shall not by reason of its inclusion as an additional insured incur liability to the insurance company for payment of premium for such insurance.' ci 'Coverage is primary and is not excess or contributing with any insurance or self-insurance maintained by PG&E.' d) Severability of interest: 'The term 'insured' is used severally and not collectively, but the inclusion herein of more than one insured shall not operate to increase the limit of the company's liability.' 4. Certificates of insurance evidencing all coverages required shall state that policies have been endorsed in accordance with the contract insurance requirements (suggested wording below): Notice of Cancellation or Change in Coverage: 'This policy(ies) may not be cancelled nor the coverage materially changed by the company(ies) without 30 days prior ;ritten notice n -f such cancellation or material change in coverage to P61E, Attention: OF Project, Four Embarcadero Center, Room E-280, San Francisco, CA 94106.' 5. Please submit one (1) certificate of insurance for 'All Operations/All Locations.• 6. Certificates evidencing replacement or renewal coverage(s) shall be submitted prior to expiration date of current policy(ies). 7. A copy of this instruction form, along with a copy of the insurance requirements contained in the agreement, should be forwarded to Seller's insurance broker(s). Pacific Gas and Electro' °ompany REQUEST FOR INSURANCE , ,JMENTS City of San Luis Obispo Department of Public Works Post Office Box 8100 San Luis Obispo, CA 93403 Date: March 23, 1989 Log Number: 18H054 (Standard Offer 2) In order to comply with the insurance requirements of the referenced agreement, please forward insurance documents evidencing the items checked below: COVERAGE COVERAGE LETTER TYPE OF COVERAGE LETTER TYPE OF COVERAGE A X Commercial/Comprehensive General Liability (Occurrence Form) B _ Umbrella Liability (Occurrence Form) A I. Specify that policy includes coverage for: I Premises/Operations X Broad Form Property Damage, including Completed Operations 7 X.C.U. 7 Independent Contractors X Products/Completed Operations X Personal Injury X Contractual Liability _ Other A 2. Limits of liability must be identified as follows: I Each Occurrence X General Aggregate AVAILABLE 7 Products/Completed Operations Aggregate AVAILABLE X Personal Injury Aggregate AVAILABLE A X B_ 3. Specify that policy(ies) have been endorsed as follows: X PG&E as additional insured X P6&E shall not incur liability for payment of premium F Coverage provided is primary X Policy(ies) contain a severability of interest clause (See Item Nos. 3a through 3d on the attached instruction sheet.) A X B _ 4. Specify that policy(ies) have been endorsed to provide 30 days' prior written notice of cancellation or material change in coverage. (See Item 4 on the attached instruction sheet.) A X B _ 5. Insurance coverage(s) on file will expir zpired s follows: A 7/1/88 B Instructions for submitting insurance documents are attached. If you have any questions, please call (415) 972-6867. cc: Michael J. Ammann FOR PG&E USE ONLY Sincerely, Insurance Department Date: _ Seller has complied with the insurance requirements of the referenced agreement. _ Seller has not complied with the insurance requirements indicated above. As Project Coordinator, it is your responsibility to obtain the required insurance documents. RECEIVED APR 7 J%9 CITYCLERK SAN LUiSOMCP0. CA .14 a PB&E INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMITTING INSURANCE DOCUMENTS 1. All required insurance documents shall be signed by an authorized representative of the insurance company(ies) and shall be issued and submitted to: Pacific Gas and Electric Company Attention: OF Project Four Embarcadero Center, Room E-280 San Francisco, CA 94106 2. Questions regarding the submittal of insurance documents should be directed to the Insurance Department at (415) 972-6867. 3. Certificates of insurance evidencing all coverages required shall state that policies have been endorsed in accordance with the contract insurance requirements (suggested warding below): a) Additional Insured: 'Such insurance as is afforded by this policy shall apply to PG&E as an additional insured insofar as work performed by the insured for, and/or agreement between the insured, and PG&E is concerned.' b) 'PG&E shall not by reason of its inclusion as an additional insured incur liability to the insurance company for payment of premium for such insurance.' c) 'Coverage is primary and is not excess or contributing with any insurance or self-insurance maintained by PG&E.' d) Severability of Interest: 'The term 'insured' is used severally and not collectively, but the inclusion herein of more than one insured shall not operate to increase the limit of the company's liability.' 4. Certificates of insurance evidencing all coverages required shall state that policies have been endorsed in accordance with the contract insurance requirements (suggested wording below): Notice of Cancellation or Change in Coverage: 'This policy(ies) may not be cancelled nor the coverage materially changed by the company(ies) without 30 days prior written notice of such cancellation or material change in coverage to PG&E, Attention: OF Project, Four Embarcadero Center, Room E-280, San Francisco, CA 94106.' 5. Please submit one (1) certificate of insurance for 'All Operations/All Locations.' 6. Certificates evidencing replacement or renewal coverage(s) shall be submitted prior to expiration date of current policy(ies). 7. A copy of this instruction form, along with a copy of the insurance requirements contained in the agreement, should be forwarded to Seller's insurance broker(s). i PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY S 1�-." -1 77 BEALE STREET, 31ST FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94106 [ (415) 781.4211 JOHN C. MORRISSEY VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL COUNSEL MALCOLM H. FURBUSH ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL CHARLES T. VAN DEUSEN PHILIP A. CRANE. OR. HENRY J. La PLANTE RICHARD A. CLARKE JOHN B. GIBSON ARTHUR L. HILLMAN. UP. ROBERT OHLBACH CHARLES W. THISSELL ASSISTANT OINERAL C ... SOL J. H. Fitzpatrick, City Hall 990 Palm Street City Clerk San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Sir: plla[eT L. XAeq.CY E..... J. MCG.N u[r O L[XN W. T. Jp. BANGIIAr[RN L ..... A DANIEL E. CI[PON Ja[EPn I. ..LL' JA'. F. PALL. N. IN.B V. OLVe BERNARD J. DELu9ANT. JAN.. C. L...... eLn.Rp CDN .[CL JD[nVA GAP.L[V RDDEAT L. 0...B. J. PETER OAUNDARTN[R STEVEN P. U. PEE LEON0. CAS RIOT BRMx 0. D[NTon P.uE1- CN.PVCLLE X. COWARD[ p.pT P. C...... DONALD ERICK[oN JDY[P. D. ENot[RT. JR. Jon. N. PR,. D.V IS C. 0.1... I........ o PAT.... B. a C ONCEN .....T L. X PTEA W. X [ ... J.A. M. JATD KERn.T R. Kue.piz F. RONALD LA IPn[IUER [[90. JP. ....... .... ... Loc.[ DB. AN.' w . Lox D.•JR. RpRCw MCL.—AN RIC.... ...... RICNAPR L. MEI[[ CBURLA[ A. CBL ... I R ODER J. PETERS Ron CRT R. RII:.Crt J. MI..A.L R[I....... R E. CA.... SHIRLEY A. SANOERBON Bu[ ANN L.— BCNI— JACKW. O.L.E CU'. LE. A. WOO DAVIo J. WILE....... BRUCE R. WORTnINBTDN August 24, 1978 Re: Ordinance No. 767 - Electric Franchise Enclosed for filing are an original and one copy of the Acceptance of the electric franchise granted by Ordinance No. 767 of the City of San Luis Obispo, as adopted by the Council of said City on August 1, 1978. Please return a filed copy to this office in the enclosed envelope. BJD/da Enclosures Very truly yours, 1-11 / 0! BEARD J. D /LA SANTA Ac2s1g7a CITY CLERK SAN LUIS OSIS!?a, CA ORDINANCE NO. 767 (1978 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO GRANTING TO PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, THE FRANCHISE (1) TO USE, FOR TRANSMITTING AND DISTRIBUTING ELECTRICITY SUITED FOR LIGHTING BUT FOR USE BY CONSUMERS FOR ANY AND ALL LAWFUL PURPOSES OTHER THAN LIGHTING, ALL POLES, WIRES, CONDUITS AND APPURTENANCES WHICH ARE NOW OR MAY HEREAFTER BE LAWFULLY PLACED AND RMINTAINED IN THE PUBLIC STREETS AND PLACES WITHIN THE CITY OF SAD? LUIS OBISPO, UNDER THAT CERTAIN FRANCHISE OF GRANTEE AC- QUIRED PURSUANT TO SECTION 19 OF ARTICLE XI OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SAID SECTION EXISTED PRIOR TO ITS AMENDMENT ON OCTOBER 10, 1911; (2) TO CONSTRUCT, MAINTAIN AND USE IDI SAID PUBLIC STREETS AND PLACES ALL POLES, WIRES, CONDUITS AND APPURTENANCES WHEN- EVER AND WHEREVER SAID CONSTITUTIONAL FRANCHISE IS NOT NOW NOR SHALL HEREAFTER BE AVAILABLE THEREFOR, NECESSARY TO TRANSMIT AND DISTRIBUTE ELECTRICITY SUITED FOR, AND FOR USE BY CONSUMERS FOR, ANY OR ALL LAWFUL PURPOSES; AND (3) TO.UTILIZE SAID POLES, WIRES, CONDUITS AND APPURTENANCES IN SAID PUBLIC STREETS AND PLACES FOR TRANSMITTING ELECTRICITY FOR USE OUTSIDE THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY FOR ANY ARID ALL LAWFUL PURPbSES, AND PROVIDING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE FRANCHISE SO GRANTED. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: AG:ktm 3/8/78 rev.61S17$ 0 767 rev. ///14//78 SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS. Whenever in this ordinance the words and phrases herein- after in this section defined are used, they shall have the respective meanings_assigned to them in the following definitions: (a) The word "grantee" shall mean Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and its lawful successors or assigns; (b) The word "city" shall mean the City of San Luis Obispo, a municipal corporation of the State of California, in its present incorporated form or in any later reorganized, consolidated, enlarged or reincorporated form; (c) The word "streets" shall mean the public streets, ways, alleys and places as the same now or may hereafter exist within city, including State highways, now or hereafter established within city, and freeways hereafter established within city; (d) The phrase "poles, wires, conduits and appurtenances" shall mean poles, towers, supports, wires, conductors, cables, guys, stubs, platforms, crossarms, braces, transformers, insulators, conduits, ducts, vaults, manholes, meters, cut- outs, switches, communication circuits, appliances, attach- ments, appurtenances and, without limitation to the foregoing, any other property located or to be located in, upon, along, across, under or over the streets of city, and used or useful in transmitting and/or distributing electricity. (e) The phrase "construct, maintain and use" shall mean to construct, erect, install, operate, maintain, use, repair, or replace; AG:ktm 3/8/78 -2- rev.6/5/78 (f) The phrase "constitutional franchise" shall mean the right acquired through acceptance by grantee or its prede- cessor in estate of the offer contained in the provisions of Section.19 of Article XI of the Constitution of the State of California, as said section existed prior to its amendment on October 10, 1911. SECTION 2. GRANT OF FRANCHISE. The franchise '(1) to use, for transmitting and distributing electricity suited for lighting but for use by consumers for any and all lawful purposes other than lighting, all poles, wires, conduits and appurtenances which are now or.may hereafter be lawfully placed and maintained in the streets within city under the constitutional franchise of grantee; (2) to construct, maintain and use in said streets all poles, wires, conduits and appurtenances whenever and wherever the constitutional franchise of grantee is not now nor shall hereafter be available therefor, necessary to transmit and distribute electricity suited for, and for use by consumers for, any or all lawful purposes; (3) to utilize said poles, wires, conduits and appurtenances in said public streets and places for transmitting electricity for use outside the boundaries of city for any and all lawful purposes is hereby granted to Pacific Gas and Electric Company, its successors and assigns. AG:ktm 3/8/78 -3- rev.6/5/78 rev.7/24/78 SECTION 3. RELOCATION OF FACILITIES. Grantee of this franchise shall relocate, without expense to city, any poles, wires, conduits and appurtenances theretofore installed, and then maintained or used under this franchise, if and when made necessary by any lawful change of grade, alignment or width of any streets by city, including the construction of any subway or viaduct, or any other conflict with a municipal govern- ment purpose. SECTION 4. TERM. Said franchise shall be indeterminate, that is to say, said franchise shall endure in full force and effect until the same shall, with the consent of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, be voluntarily surrendered or aban- doned by grantee, or until the state or some municipal or public corporation thereunto duly authorized by law shall"purchase by voluntary agreement or shall condemn and take under the power of eminent domain, all property actually used and useful in the exercise of said franchise and situate in the territorial limits of the state, municipal or public corporation purchasing or con- demning such property, or until said franchise shall be forfeited for noncompliance with its terms by grantee. SECTION 5. CONSIDERATION. Grantee of said franchise shall during the term thereof pay to city a sum annually which shall be equivalent to two percent (2%) of the gross annual receipts of grantee arising from the use, operation or possession of said franchise.; provided, in case the AG:ktm 6/5/78 -4- State Legislature raises the minimum percentage allowable, the new rate shall apply; and provided, however, that such payment shall in no event be less.than a sum which shall be equivalent to one-half percent (1/20) of the gross annual receipts derived by grantee from the sale of electricity within the limits of city under said franchise and said constitutional franchise. In addition to the foregoing, grantee shall pay to city within thirty (30) days of the issuance by the Public Utilities Commission of a certificate of convenience and necessity to exercise the franchise the sum of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00). If, at any time after the payment of said sum, it shall be adjudged that said franchise did not become effective or was or is invalid, or if the grantee shall, at any time, be prevented by the city or by judgment procured by any other person from exercising the same for any reason other than noncompliance with its terms by the grantee, then said sum of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) shall be forthwith repaid by the city to the grantee. SECTION 6. REPORTS. Grantee shall file with the City Clerk within three (3) months after the expiration of the calendar year, or fractional calendar year, following the date of the granting hereof, and within three (3) months after the expiration of each and every calendar year thereafter, a duly verified statement showing in detail the total gross receipts of grantee during the preceding calendar year, or such fractional calendar.year, from the sale of energy within city. Grantee shall pay to city within fifteen (15) days after the time for filing such statement, in lawful AG:ktm 3/8/78 -5- rev. 6/5/78 money of the United States, the aforesaid percentage of its gross receipts for such calendar year, or such fractional calendar year, covered by such statement. Any neglect, omission or refusal by grantee to file such verified statement, or to pay said percentage at the time and in the manner specified, shall be grounds for the declaration of a forfeiture of this franchise and.of all rights of grantee hereunder. SECTION 7. AUTHORITY FOR GRANT. This franchise is granted under the Indeterminate Franchise Act of 1937 and pursuant to Article XIII of the Charter of the City of San Luis Obispo, adopted in 1955, and no other authority. SECTION 8. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. All facilities or equipment of grantee that grantee shall construct, maintain and use or remove, pursuant to the provisions of the franchise granted herein shall be accomplished in accordance with the ordinances, rules and regulations of city now or as here- after adopted or prescribed which are not in conflict with the paramount authority of such rules, regulations and orders as are promulgated or approved by or are filed with the Public Utilities Commission or other governmental authority having jurisdiction in the premises. SECTION 9. ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICES. Grantee is herewith charged with the responsibility of preparing, with the cooperation of city; a manual of administrative AG:ktm 6/5/78 =6- practices which shall govern the installation and removal of grantee's facilities in the streets of city which shall include, but not be limited to, cathodic protection practices'.. Once each year, com- mencing with the first full calendar year of the franchise granted herein, it is to be the joint responsibility of grantee and city. to review and update such administrative practices. Both grantee and city are charged with the duty to review and update such admin- istrative practices by a method of mutual cooperation which shall take into consideration the reasonable needs and convenience of each party; provided that said administrative practices and the terms and conditions thereof shall be at all times subject to approval of the City Council as expressed.by appropriate legis- lative action, and shall not conflict with the paramount authority of such rules, regulations and orders as are promulgated or approved by or are filed with the Public Utilities Commission or other govern- mental authority having jurisdiction in the premises. Following the preparation of said manual, and its approval by the City Council, it shall govern the practices of the grantee in its installation and removal of grantee's facilities in the streets of city. SECTION 10. CITY RESERVED POWERS. (a) City reserves the right for itself to lay, construct, erect, install, use, operate, repair, replace, remove, relocate, regrade or maintain below surface or above surface improvements of any type or description in, upon, along, across, under or over the streets of the city. City further reserves the right to re- locate, remove, vacate or replace the streets themselves. If the AG:ktm 6/5/78 -7- i r - necessary exercise of the aforementioned reserved rights is made necessary in order to accommodate a municipal government purpose and conflicts with any poles, wires, conduits and appurtenances of grantee constructed, maintained and used pursuant to the pro- visions of the franchise granted hereby, whether previously con- structed, maintained and used or not, grantee shall, without cost or expense to city after written notice from the City Administative Officer, or his designated representative, and request to do so, begin the physical.field construction of changing the location of all facilities or equipment so conflicting. Grantee shall proceed promptly to complete such required work. (b) Irrespective of any other provision of this ordinance, grantee''s right to construct, maintain and use, or remove poles, wires, conduits and appurtenances thereto shall be subject at all times to the right of city, in the reasonable exercise of its police power in response to a. direct and immediate threat to the health or safety of the public ...... to require the removal or relocation of said poles, wires, conduits and appurtenances thereto at the sole cost and expense of grantee. SECTION 11. REPAIR COSTS. Grantee shall pay to city on demand the cost of all repairs to city property made necessary by any of the operations of grantee under the franchise granted hereby; provided, however, that grantee may make repairs to streets, sidewalks, curbs and gutters itself at its own cost in accordance with city specifi- cations if the same can be done without undue inconvenience to the public use of the streets. AG:ktm 6/5/78 -8- SECTION 12. FORFEITURE. This franchise is granted upon each and every condition herein contained, and shall be strictly construed against grantee. Nothing shall pass by the franchise granted hereby to grantee unless it be granted in plain and unambiguous terms. Each of said conditions is a material and essential condition to the granting of the franchise. If grantee shall fail, neglect or refuse to comply with any of the conditions of the franchise granted hereby, and if such failure, neglect or refusal shall continue for more than thirty (30) days after written demand by the City Administrative Officer for compliance therewith, then city, by_the City Council, in addition to all rights and remedies allowed by law, thereupon may terminate the right, privilege and franchise granted in and by this ordinance, and all the rights, privileges and the franchise of grantee granted hereby shall thereupon be at an end. Thereupon and immediately, grantee shall surrender all rights and privileges in and to the franchise granted hereby. No provision herein made for the purpose of securing the enforcement of the terms and conditions of the franchise granted hereby shall be deemed an exclusive remedy or to afford the ex- clusive procedure for the enforcement of said terms and conditions, but the remedies and procedure outlined herein or provided, including forfeiture, shall be deemed to be cumulative. SECTION 13. ACQUISITION AND VALUATION. Nothing in this ordinance or in the franchise granted hereby shall be construed as in any way impairing city's rights AG:ktm 6/5/78 -9- v to acquire property of grantee through the exercise of city's power of eminent domain, or through voluntary agreement between city and grantee. In the event that city chooses to exercise. its power of eminent domain, it shall do so in accordance with the procedures provided by the general law of the State of California for the condemnation of public utility property. The valuation of such property for condemnation purposes shall be made in accordance with such general law. SECTION 14. UNDERGROUNDING. (a) It is the city's intent to underground all utilities as expeditiously as possible. (b) Presently, grantee is engaged in a program of con- verting to underground certain of its facilities in accordance with Decision No. 73078 of the California.Public Utilities Com- mission. At this time, said decision requires grantee to budget prior to the end of each calendar year, certain sums of money for said program for the next succeeding year and allocate these sums to undergrounding projects in the various governmental juris- dictions throughout grantee's entire service territory on the basis of the number of customers in each governmental jurisdiction. Grantee shall at all times use its best efforts to accomplish as much conversion in the city as may be accomplished through the allocation or reallocation of funds by the California Public Utilities Commission pursuant to Rule 20. AG:ktm rev. 7/24/78 -10- A I q (c) In addition to the foregoing, grantee agrees to per- mit city to install its conduits in grantee's trenches upon pay- ment of city's proportionate share of trenching costs. Said conduits shall include, but not be limited to, conduits for street lighting, traffic signals and fire alarm systems. SECTION 15. HOLD HARMLESS. Grantee of the franchise granted hereby shall indemnify, save and hold harmless, city and any officers and employees thereof against and from all damages, judgments, decrees, costs and expen- ditures which city, or such officer or employee, may suffer, or which may be recovered from, or obtainable against city, or such officer or employee, for, or by reason of, or growing out of or proximately resulting from the exercising by grantee of any or all of the rights or privileges granted hereby, or by reason of any act or acts of grantee or its servants or agents in exercising the franchise granted hereby, and grantee shall defend any suit that may be instituted against city, or any officer or employee thereof, by reason of or growing out of or proximately resulting from the exercise by grantee of any or all of the rights or priv- ileges granted hereby, or by reason of any act or acts of grantee, or its servants or agents, in exercising the franchise granted hereby. SECTION 16. EFFECTIVE DATE. This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after its final passage unless suspended by a referendum petition filed as provided by law. AG:ktm 6/5/78 -11- r SECTION 17. WRITTEN ACCEPTANCE. The franchise granted hereby shall not become operative until written acceptance thereof shall have been filed by the grantee with the City Clerk. SECTION 18. PUBLICATION AND PUBLICATION COSTS. This ordinance, together with the ayes and noes, shall be published once in full, at least three (3) days prior to its final passage in the Telegram -Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in said city. The grantee of said franchise shall pay to the city a sum of money sufficient to reimburse it for all publication expenses incurred by it in connection with the granting thereof; such payment to be made within thirty (30) days after the city shall have furnished such grantee with a written statement of such expense. INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo at a regular meeting thereof held on the 18th day of July 1978, on motion of Councilman Jorgensen, seconded by Councilman Settle and on the following roll call vote.: AYES: Councilmen Dunin, Jorgensen, Petterson, Settle & Mayor Schwartz NOES: None ABSENT: None ATTEST: C' lerc 40 AG:ktm 3/8/78 rev.6/5/78 -12- Approved as to form: Approved as to content: WENDT, MITCHELL, SINSHEIMER, de la MOTTE & LILLEY City Attorney } By Allen Grimes 1 City Administrate Officer Director of Public Services 1 . �-D Cit En y gtneer erector inanc AG:ktm 6/5/78 -13- --4 ORDINANCE NO. 767 FINALLY PASSED this 1st day of August 1978 , on motion of Councilman Settle seconded by Councilman Jorgensen on the following roll call vote: AYES: Councilmen Jorgensen, Petter.son, Settle and Mayor Schwartz NOES: None ABSENT: Councilman Dunin ATTEST: J itz a rick, CITY CLERK PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY FREDERICK W. MIELKE, JR. EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT 77 BEALE STREET • SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94106 August 23, 1978 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO State of California and its Honorable City Council PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY hereby accepts that certain electric franchise granted to it \ by the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO under Ordinance No. 767 (1978 Series) adopted by the Council of said City on August 1, 1978. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY i BY s,N:xecutive Vice Pre)gi ent And by -*fe Its ecretary AUG28197�F CITY CLERIC SAN LUIS OBISPOz CA ... July 6 1944. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, State of Californiag.and its HONORABLB CITY COUNCIL PACIFIC GAS AND WACTRIC COMPANY hereby accepts that certain electric franchise granted to it by the CITY.OF SAN LUIS OBISPO under Ordinance No. 248 (New Series) passed by the Council of said city on the 16th day of August, 1943. PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY By 21 Its ce- Aen an General Manager and by rL s Secretary. I follows: 0?..iiINkNf;r. NO. `�4$ _;Ale-, Serics) !=i "• "''' C GR�'NTING _O Pnut_ IC G S E P.T T ^^-F "_ F.;iP t:�ICT C CO`+"tPaNY7 T Ta SUC., 'C, amu.. i iv i�.:IGIV� TE1T ndi rC'.i �_V V.W ., CHISE iO LSL OR TF,A;uS- .V.- -? : TnPvTC �N� i1T' ,:IBUT g- _t7 LUIS ,T,TTuIIv T� CITY OF &QN1 �- L7Jla OBIa?0 r']� ;+NY L'1,D kLL DU*,.POSrCT''"I, T=111 T.i05F E_L'- •JJ -T Mr=-mi 19 OF AIRTIME :_I Or THE: CONSTITi,T'TION OF TIM, STATE OF CFI.IFOPKI AS S."^._TD SN:CTION `-, ISTEIj PRIOR TO ITS AM:r .��,'Dal+ti_ ON OCTOB tt 10, 1911, LL ?OLDS, ��T'-�i�5, CORT- D.'IT° . rax;- ,. �_ : ?,D ».. ..T ,NGS 1; lu k"RE `0:' 0' :7 _� :-J .'FR 3F LA► r' LLY PLACED IN TA PUBLIC 1 ;'TS, KAYS AND PLACES .IT!M.; SAID CITY, AND TO CONSTRUCT AND USE' IN SAID PUBLIC STREETS, ;-FSS Pl�i� PL, CSS «LL PJI.LS, §iPeS, CO?vDTJITS AND i1PPU;HTE?CWICN S, !NCLUDING COW"�I TNIC_4TL N CIRCUITS, NECESSARY OR PROPER rOR SAID PT�POSES. Be it ordained by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as SECTION ON tanev :r ir: this orr.ir..nce the v:ords or ,unrzses hereinafter in this section defined are used, they shall have the respective meanings assigned to them in the follomine definitions (unlcss, in the given instance, the context wherein they are used shall clearly im_-jort a different meaning): (a) The word "grantee" shall mean the corporation to which the franchise contemplated in this ordinance.is:gra.ntec.and its. . lawful successors or assigns; (b) The ;cord "city" shall mean the City of San Luis Obispo, a munici_xl corporation of the State of California, in it present incorporated _'orm or in any later ,� reorganized, con- solidated, enlarged or reircorooreted farm; ( m' i �c, The Ford "streets" shall mean. the public streets, 'VS, alleas and Ce plc"t S c:S he S£u-12 nor- c.'=y=-r hereafter am ri..a GtEr Cill$t �—Ztrl_ri said city; (c) The phrase Ilp:les, wires , CCIIC. ilia` IId a 7 p'ur'l cn_ testi mea Jo1a:., towers., SupDOrts c :,^'•u., -tors y i17.L:. rT5 y .. >: s =..rms; o•a!_��:":.y ^o*.• iii �5 :�i�CZ3 '7_L'lt3y tiL-^_-"�. JlrSy M'ELer.o.7 u" _ t.•s _1- + .:'J;�.:!ancCti, r`:.i.tE'C::'.:EY:moi, Lcic. , coru,,:s is ,n c s, aplyar'Lenances and any other property located or to be located in, upon, alon;;, across, under or over the streets in the City., and used or useful in the transmitting and/or distributing of electricity; (e) The phrase "construct and use" shall mean to con- struct, erect, install, lay operate, maintain, use, repair or replace; . (f) The phrase "constitutional franchise" shall mean the right acquired through acceptance by said grantee or its predecessor in estate of the offer contained in the provisions of Section 19 of Article XI of the Constitution of the State of California, as said section existed prior to its amendment on October 10, 1911. SCTION T710 The franchise (s.) t'o use, for transmitting and distributing electricity v.ithin the City of San Luis Obispo for any and all purposes other than those authorised under said constitutional franchise, all poles, wires, conduits and appurtenances which nom are or may i:ereafter be law- fully- placed in the streets within said cit;, and (b) to construct and use in said streets all _Doles, wires, conduits and appurtenances, inclIaling communication circuits, necessary or proper for said psrposes, is hereby granted to Pacific Gas _'M Elactric Company for cin indeterminate term not exceeding thirty five (35) years from and after the effective date of this ordinance upon the terms and conditions set forth in the Franchise =,ct of 1937 and in the Charter of said city. SECTION T:M.cE The grantee of said franchise shell during the term thereof + S -i'" Ci''. -=-:_r•� =1'.: il' i:.n..Ch shall be equivalent t-) ,,:70 per cent r y o l ._. .0 �•`� ^;,^ a.•'.CC''l'S 7 $c_Q grantee err Y, rJm Vie Se, one_a- L _.e V + s tion, or 0 shall in nu event be if. ':h Ct OJ tfc.n .. ,.'::::� ? sh< 11 be :ll i�::1Cnt tv per cent O_' the gross a=7kl recei_nts derived b1,' blantee from the sale of electricity within the limits of such 'ity under Goth said franct:i.se and said constitutional franchise. SECTION FOUR The ==nttee shFil file .:ith the clerk Of said city, Tithin three months after the expiration of the calendar year, or fractional calendar year, f011oviing the date of the granting hereof, and within three months after the expiration of each and every calendar year thereafter, a statement or report duiy verified by the Treasurer, Secretary, Assistant Treasurer or As sistant Secretary of said grantee, shoving in detail the total gross receipts of such grantee arising from all the business done by said grantee within the City of San Luis Obispo in the distribution and sale of electricity for the calendar year immediately preceding such statement or report, or for such fractional calendar year. Such grantee shall pay to said city at the time of filing such statement, in lawful money of the United States, the aforesaid percentage of its gross receipts for such calendar year, or such fractional calendar year, covered by such statement. fz* neglect, omission or refusal by said grantee to file such vsri=ied state- ment, or to pay said percentage at the time and in the manner specified., shall be grounds for the declaration of a forfeiture of this franchise and of all rights of grantee hereunder. SECTION FIVE At the expiration of the period for which the franchise herein described is granted, or at any time prior thereto, the city may at its election and upon the payment of a fair valuation therefor, as determined by the Railroad Commission of the State of California in the manner provided I y the Public Utility Act Of the State of California, which determination shall include a value based upon severance damaorres _._..sed the r_e,air_; .:s- prOPerties Of sai� „fi -".e ?ur C_^..'_se and sake Over cO _ ::ate= the .property an -L' Plant .._ the its nti—t . wit"Ir the_ San Lits U^_j 0, .".i. no case o^Y.-'il -he vaiue Of � 'n -;-i . sidered or tnkon into account in fixing such valu^.tion, except to the ex- tent of the amounts (1) paid to the city as reimbursement for any expendi- tures for publication of notice or ordinance in connection with the brant of said franchise, ar.3 (2) constituting a prorata of the sum initially paid for said franchise based on the ratio of the number of years remaining on the unexpired term of said franchise to the full term thereof; which amount=_ may be tla":er. into account in fixing such valuation. Upon such payment by the city the plant and property of grantee thus to be acquired shall become the property of the city by virtue of the grant in payment thereunder and without the execution of any instrument or conveyance. SECTION SIX The franchise granted hereby shall not be leased, assigned or otherwise alienated without the express consent of the City, but no such . lease, assignment or other alienation shall constitute a forfeiture or termination of this franchise, except at the option of the City, expressed I y resolution of its City Council. Such resolution declaring the forfeiture or termination of this franchise may be adopted by the City Council at any time subsequent to any such lease, assignment or other alienation, and irrespective of the length of time between such lease, assignment or other alienation, and the adoption of such resolution. No dealinC s with a lessee or assignee of the grantee on the part of the City to :ecuire the performance or any act or payment of any com- pensation by such lessee or assignee shall be deemed to operate as such consent; provided that nothing herein shall be construed to prevent the grantee of such franchise from including the franchise in a mortgage or trust deed executed for the purpose of obtaining money 'or corporate objects. SECTION SEVEN LL -1Z franchi-se is Granted under and in accordance with the orov%Lsions oif t:_E F—I-EnCnise `-t of 1937 and of the Charter of the City Of S_- L Luis, JJ;.soo. -4- This franl—b1;e is granted subject to tL11 the ri;;hts, powers and privileges reserved to the. City of San Luis Obisao, or to the City Council of said city, by the Charter of the City of San Luis Obispo, whether the reservation of any such right, power or privilege be expressed in this ordinance or not. SECTION EIGH The grantee of this franchise shall (a) construct, install and maintain all pipes, conduits, poles, wires and appurtenances in accordance and in conformity with all of the ordinances, rules and regulations here- tofore or hereafter adopted by the City Council of said city in the exer- cise of its police powers and not in conflict with the paramount authority of the state, and, as to State highways, subject to the provisions of general laws relating to the location and maintenance of such facilities. therein, (b) pay to the city on demand the cost of all repairs to public property made necessary by any of the operations of the grantee of this franchise, (c) indemnify and hold harmless said city and its officers from any and all liability for damages proximately resulting from any operations under this franchise, (d) remove or relocate ^ithout expense to..the city aziy facilities installed, used and maintained under tkis franchise if and when made necessary by any lawful change of grade, alignment or width or amy public street, way, alley or place, including the construc- tion of any subway or viaduct, by said city. SECTION NINE If the grantee of this franchise, its successors or assigns, shall fail, neglect or refuse to comply with arW of the terms, limita- tions, provisions or conditions of this franchise or of the Charter of the City of San Luis Obis.0o, and shall not within ten (10) days after written demand for compliance made upon order of the City Council of said city, begin the work of compliance or, after such beginning, small not prosecute the same with. due diligence to completion, then said city, by resolution adopted and passed by its City Council, may declare tris francilise for- feited. The city may sue, in its ovrn name and in any court of competent =7- 0 ju` is i.i( tion, for t%e forfeiture of this frznchise ir; tine event of any ftiilul-o, nctic;et or refust.1 by tinei,runtoe, its; ;;uec.e.a:^nrc or• assfgns, to comply with any of the terms, limitations, ..provisions or conditions of this franchise. SLCTION TEN The provisions contained in Section 101. of the Charter of the city providing that no _;wyment shall be made by the grantee of a franchise until after five years from the granting thereof are.specifical:- ly vraived by the grantee, and all payments shall be made as hereinbefore provided. In determining the payment to be made to the City annually, the City Council 'hereby declares that it has taken into consideration the pro- visions of the Franchise Act of 1937 adopted by the Legislature of the State of California in which Act the minimum annual payment to be made by the grantee of any electric franchise issued under the provisions of said Act is fixed at one-half per cent of the gross annual receipts derived from the sale of electricity within the limits of the City by the grantee. In the event that the Legislature of the State of California hereafter and during the life of this franchise adopts a new act regulating or providing for the grant of franchises by municipalities, or any act. similar to said Franchise Act of 1937, or ark• amendment to said Franchise Act of 1937, and, in said act or amendment, provides for a minimum payment to be made to municipalities in a sum greater than one-half per cent of the gross annual receipts derived from the sale of electricity within the limits of the City by the grantee, then this ordinance shall be deemed to be amended, and from and after the effective date of such action on the part of the Legislature I of the State of California the payment thereafter to be made to the City shall be the minimum payment specified in such act of the Legislature of the State of California; provided, however, that it no event shall such payment exceed one per cent of the gross annual receipts derived from the sale of electricity within the limits of the City, irrespective of the fact that, such le�i.slative act may contain a provision for the payment of a -6- r greater percentage. SECTION ETA" (SEN The grantee of the franchise granted hereunder shall, on or before the effective date of this ordinance, file with the city a good and sufficient bond, with a good and sufficient surety, to be approved by the City Council, in the penal sum of 42,500.00, conditioned that the grantee shall well and truly keep and perform each and every term and condition of said franchise, and that in case of any breach of condition of Bach bond-, the whole amount of the penal sum shall be taken and deemed to be liquidated damages and shall be recoverable from the principal and surety upon said bond. Said bond shall be kept in full force and effect during the entire term of said franchise. SECTION TNELVE The grantee of the franchise granted hereunder shall pay to the city a spm sufficient to reimburse it for all publication expenses in— curred by it in connection with the granting of the said franchise, such payment to be made within thirty (30) days after the city shall have furnished such grantee with a written statement of such expenses; and, within such time, shall'also'pay to said City the sum of 45,000.00, plus 1/2% of the grantee's gross receipts from sales of electricity within the City from January 1, 1943 to the effective date of such franchise. SECTION THIRTEEN This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after its final passage, unless suspended by a referendum petition filed as pro— vided by law. SECTION FOURTEEN The franchise granted hereby shall not become effective until written acceptance thereof shall have been filed by the grantee with t'r_e City Clers. SECTIG2i FIPTrPd ^_is b !l, !%wring been first passed to print on Jure .7, 19433 and raving been publls ed as originally passed with the eyes and noes thereon -7- I for tro drys, and having thereafter been amended before the final adoption thereofV shall be passed to print and republished as amended,, for one day in the Telegram—Tribune, a daily newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in said City, before final action is taken Hereon. First introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City and passed to print on the .7th. day of June,, 1943, and thereafter pe -.sed to print as amended, on the 6th. day of July, 1943, by the -Following vote.-:. -4YES:.-.Ho-,-;e -1-1 $Ra I Dh C . "enll edy , F. 0. H'iffu all , Clyde T. 0 1 Nan P: m: Joseph Le.ry - ABSEhT. None ,MEST. City ty Clerk I i 'PA JVI M dM 'Mayor ki 3ed this u-on roll call vot-: R a I ph C .'Ll-'en nedy F.C, eC n I 1,11 0 3 • C' 0 JE 1 717 r,03 :�ZT: None Cit,%r Clerk � � J i BOND NO. 1333-81043 Premium charge for this bond is $ $s KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, a corpo- ration duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California and having its office and principal place of business in'the City and County of San Francisco, as Principal, and SEABOARD SURETY COMPANY, a corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation duly created and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California, in the penal sum of two thousand five hundred dollars ($29500), for the payment whereof well and truly to be made to said City of San Luis Obispo, said Principal and Surety bind them-' selves, their successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. THE CONDITION of the above obligation is such that WSEREAS the City Council of said City of San Luis Obispo under and pursuant to the laws of the State of California relating to the granting of franchises by muni. Cipalities, uni- cipalities, did, on the 16th day of August 1943 by ordinance, duly and regularly adopted by said Council, grant to said Pacific Gas and Electric Company, its successors and as a franchise in said -city to use the streets of said city for the transmission and•distr'ibution=of electricity fbr ail purposes other than those authorized under Section 19 of Article %I of the Constitution of the State of California as said section existed prior to its amendment.on October 10, 19119 for an indeterminate term.not exceeding 35 years from 1: l7 BOND NO. 1333-81043 Premium charge for this bond is $ $s KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, a corpo- ration duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California and having its office and principal place of business in'the City and County of San Francisco, as Principal, and SEABOARD SURETY COMPANY, a corporation duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York, as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, a municipal corporation duly created and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California, in the penal sum of two thousand five hundred dollars ($29500), for the payment whereof well and truly to be made to said City of San Luis Obispo, said Principal and Surety bind them-' selves, their successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. THE CONDITION of the above obligation is such that WSEREAS the City Council of said City of San Luis Obispo under and pursuant to the laws of the State of California relating to the granting of franchises by muni. Cipalities, uni- cipalities, did, on the 16th day of August 1943 by ordinance, duly and regularly adopted by said Council, grant to said Pacific Gas and Electric Company, its successors and as a franchise in said -city to use the streets of said city for the transmission and•distr'ibution=of electricity fbr ail purposes other than those authorized under Section 19 of Article %I of the Constitution of the State of California as said section existed prior to its amendment.on October 10, 19119 for an indeterminate term.not exceeding 35 years from 1: l7 and after the effective date of said ordinance and upon the terms and conditions; as more fully set forth in said ordinance, which is now on file in the office of the City Clerk of said City of San Luis -Obispo, and to which refer. ence is hereby made fora more particular statement of said terms and conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, 'if 'Said.Pac-if ic Gas and Electric Company, its successors and assigns, shall well and truly observe, fulfill and perform each and.every term and condi. tion of said franchise,.-then'Ue`above obligation shall be void, but otherwise shall remain in full force and effect, and in case of.any breach of condition of this bond occurring the whole amount of the penal sum herein named.shall be taken and deemed to be liquidated damages and shall be recoverable from the Principal and Surety upon this bond. IN WITNESS 1EME0F. said Principal and said Surety have executed these presents this 16th day of August, 1943s PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY UZ STATE OF CALIFORNIA ss. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO I ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF ATTORNEY-IN-FACT On this 16th day of tn&Ust 194 3 before me, a Notary Public within and for the said City, County and State, personally appeared EDWARD J. TORNEY, to me personally known, who being duly sworn, upon oath did say that he is the Attorney -in -Fact of and for SEABOARD SURETY COM- PANY, a corporation, organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New York; that the corporate seal affixed to the foregoing within instrument is the seal of the said company; that the seal was affixed and the said instrument was executed by the authority of its Board of Directors, dated June 10, 1935, which has not been revoked and still is in full force and effect. Also, he acknowledged that he executed the said instrument as the free act and deed of said corporation- _ it Nomry Public in and for th ity nd County of san Francisco, Sou of California. My commission expires: ET'ch 15, 1945. N TRO$. J. STRAER GILsERAL ATCORxRy City Clerk of the San Luis Obispo California Dear Sir: 246 NIARH£T STF21•:ET \r. II. nrwes.n w r. W. 11. UI:rY GO.0✓1LIFORN IA J IIus C. \\•o.�n SAON mpcNcIS J.11.1 J. nutty rtL F. IL. YRw Lzuv r• c.. \TeLrnx LAW DEPARTMENT AVYC MLD O.^.ALn' F. T, wLA1eLY N. It. IMML. AMFUCIw T4 A'CTOKr L"TS September'2$ 1943 City of San Luis Obispo Enclosed find check No. 79431 of Pacific Gas and Electric Company drawn in favor of the City of San Luis Obispo in the sum of $194.25 covering publication and printing expenses in connection with the granting of electric franchise to said company, a's enumerated in your bill of August 26 1943 to us. We have not yet received the affidavits of the newspapers for the various publications as requested in our letter to you of September 14 1943 but presume they will soon reach us. Yours very truly, PES:F ' cc: TJS c c : DRAW Enc. A. EMORY W ISHON Vt=.PRESIPENT & ASSISTANT GENERA. MANAGER 245 Sl"REET tiA\ FRA1 C! 1 CO. C,%1,IF0 R\ IA August 12 1943 City of San Luis Obispo and its Honorable City Council San Luis Obispo California Gentlemen: The enclosed check of Pacific Gas and Electric Company drawn in favor of the City of San Luis Obispo in the sum of $5983*26 is tendered herewith in payment for an electric franchise in said city complementary to our constitutional franchise thereine This payment is tendered subject to said franchise hereafter becoming effective and to the city's acceptance thereof in payment for said franchise,and its agreement that this company's acceptance of and operation under said franchise shall be deemed consideration for the city's waiver of any claim for past use of the streets by this company, as set forth.in a form of reso- lution to be adopted by your City Council. Yours -very truly, PACIFIC Ma AND ELECTRIC COMPARY i By � Via. itV-91fle-Frilsident an Assistan General Managers RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO GRANT ELECTRIC FRANCHISE WHEREA9 Pacific Gas and Electric Company, a California utility corporation, has filed with the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo an application requesting that a franchise be granted to it of the character and for the purposes mentioned in the form of notice hereinafter set forth; and VMEREAS in the opinion of said Council the public good requires that said franchise be granted; NOVP, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that said Council intends to grant said franchise, that hearing of objections to the granting thereof will be held at the time and place specified in the form of notice hereinafter set forth which the Clerk of said City is hereby directed to publish at least once within fifteen days after the passage of this resolution in a newspaper of general circulation within said City, and that said notice shall be in the following words and figures: "NOTICE OF INTENTION TO GRANT FRANCHISE. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Pacific Gas and Electric Company, a California utility cor- poration, has filed its application with the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo requesting said Council to grant it a franchise in accordance with the provisions of the Franchise Act of 1937 and of the Charter of the City of San Luis Obispo, (a) to use, for transmitting and distributing electricity within said City for any and all purposes other than those authorized under 1: Section 19 of Article XI of the Constitution of the State of California, as said section existed prior to its amend- ment on October 10, 1911, all poles, wires, conduits and appurtenances which now are or may hereafter be lawfully placed in the public streets, ways and places within said city and (b) to construct and use in said public streets, ways and places all poles, wires, conduits and appurtenances, including communication circuits, necessary or proper for said purposes. If said franchise shall be granted to it, said Pacific Gas and Electric Company, its successors and assigns, hereinafter designated grantee, shall during the life thereof pay to said city two per cent of the gross annual receipts of said grantee arising from the use, operation or possession of said franchise; provided, however, that such payment shall in no event be less than a sum which shall be equivalent to one- half per cent of the gross annual receipts derived by grantee from the sale of electricity within the limits of said city under both the franchise to be granted and the franchise now owned by said grantee by virtue of Section 19 of Article XI of the Con- stitution of the State of California as said section existed prior to its amendment on October 10, 1911. Said percentage will be paid annually from the date of the granting of the franchise applied for and in the event such.paynent shall not be made said franchise shall be forfeited. Said Council proposes to grant said franchise for a period of thirty-five (35) years. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that any and all persons having any objections to the granting of said fran- chise may appear before,said Council at the City Hall of said City at the hour of 8 p.m. on the day of 1939, and be heard thereon; and 2: n NOTICE I5 BOMM FURTM GIVW that at any time not later than the hour so set for hearing objections any person interested may make written protest stating objections against the granting or said.franchise which protest must.be signed by the protestant and delivered to the City.Clerk of said City, and the Council 'shall at the time set for hearing.said objections proceed to hear and pass upon ali.protests so made; and NOTICE IMHERIBY FURTHER GIVEN that the grantee of said franchise must Within give days after the date of granting same file with the Council of said City a bond in the penal sum of one thousand dollars ($1000.00) running to said dity with at -.east two good and sufficient sureties thereto to be approved by said Council conditioned that such grantee shall tell and truly observe fulfill and'perfors each and every term and condi- tion of said -franchise.and that in case. of- any breach of'conditioa di--said-boad.occurring the whole amount of the pend sun therein named shall be taken and deemed to be liquidated damages.and shall be recoverable from the principal and sure- ties upon said bond. For further particulars reference is hereby made to said application filed -as aforesaid in the orrice of said Council, and also to the resolution so adopted on the day of 193 declaring its intention to grant said franchiseo' 3 Dated: By order of the'Councilof the City of San. Luis Obispo# Clerk o the. City of San Luis Obispo." The foregoing resolution was duly passed and adopted by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo at a regular meeting of the said Council held on the day of 19 by the .following vote: AYS3: Couiicilmea DOSS: Councilmen ABSENT: Councilmen ATi'g&' 1: City of San Luis Obispoe City of San Luis Obispo. !e APPLICATION FOR METRIC FRANCSISB March 10, 1943 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, State of California, and its CITY COUNCIL Gentlemen: PACIFIC GAS AND TLIGMIC COMPANY, a California utility corporation, as applicant, hereby applies for a franchise pursuant to the Franchise Act of 1937 and the Charter of the City.of San Luis Obispo, and avers as follows: The purposes of said franchise shall be (1) to use, for transmitting and distributing electricity within the City of San Luis Obispo for any and -all purposes other than those authorized under Section 19 of Article II of the Constitution of the State of California as said section existed prior to its.amendment on October 10 1911, all poles, wires, conduits and appurtenances that now are or may hereafter be lawfully placed in the public streets, ways and places within said City, and (2) to construct and use in said public streets, ways and places all poles, wires, conduits and appurtenances, including communication circuits, necessary or proper for said purposes. The term of said franchise so requested shall be three (3) years. If said franchise shall be granted to it applicant will pay to said City during the term thereof two per cent of the gross annual receipts,of applicant arising from the use, operation or possession,of said franchise; provided, however, that such payment shall in no event be less than 1: a sum which shall be equivalent to one-half.per cent of the gross annual receipts derived by applicant from the sale of electricity within the limits of said City under both said franchises$ namelyt the franchise now owned by applicant by virtue of said Section 19 of Article %I of the Constitution* and the franchise for which application is hereby made. We request that said franchise be granted by ordinance in the form which we have prepared and submit herewith for your use should you elect to use same. Yours very trulys ...PACIFIC GAS AND ZZCTRIC COMPANY Of By Its V2*4wRXS81d6nt an Assistant General Manager 2; N"t '!i 1 7 " / ; s !'. 1. •moi 1! ! "' : �: 1 6 9:s$M M' 1"si: t ' VWN Ile t ?i! :i; :!: 1 ; 1 ' ! 'it • ' is i:.r 1 'dIs f W" � s�ff - "! ; tib ! � tt: ^ :► : ' ;i£ � 1 Eli � ' 4 ail :Iw •'1 :! � a: iii ' "�1t ' • y:>t1` i1 4 �. � f � ! `! ! "'if+ ii'.• .� �A 1 t Sit � .d ttl ! Be it ordained by the Couttoil. of the Citr of San Luis Obispo as foUms t Section I* Whenever in this: ordinance the Words or phrases hereimfter in this section defined are used$ they shall have the respecti" meanings assigned to them in the following definitions (unless, in the given instance, the context wherein they are used shall olearly import a different meaning)t (a) The word "granteew shall mean the corporation to whiah the franohise contemplated in this ordinam©e is granted and its -lawful. successors or assigns;. (b) The 'Word "olty" shall mean the City of San Luis Obispo, a u=Lcipsl corporation of the State of Califo=rnia, in Its present iaoar- porated Porro or in -any later reorganised.. con- solidatedt enlarged or re -incorporated form; it (o) The word shall mama► the publia streets, Ways, alleys and plOces as the some now or may heraaner exist withia said city; (d) The phrase."polaa, wires, conduits and appurtetaaces" Mall ern Doles, towers, sup;:arts, wires, aonduatora, cables, guyu, stubs, platforms, crossarms, braces; transfomars, insulators, conduits, duets, vaulte, manholes, Maters, out -outs, svitflhes, communication circuits, +appliances, ettacbroAta, appurte=mces. and any Other property located or to be located in, upon, along, across, under or over the streets is the city, and used or useful in the transmitting end/or dlatributing of electricity; (e) ;Its phrase "oonstraot and use° Shall menu to construct, erect,. iastaU, lay, operate, maistiAin, use, ropair or ropl.aae; (r) The phrase Ocon tituti6nal franchise° shall Mean the right acquired through acceptance by Bald grantee or its Predecessor in estate of the offar CoAtaUwd in the provision® of Section 19 of Article X[ of the Constitution of the =tat* of California, as said section eaietod prior to Ito mon4mnt On October 100 19111 ZeCtiou Ze The franchise (a) to Ue, for tsan muting and diotributing electricity within the City at San .line Obispo for W t►d all. ,purposee other than thOae authorized under said constitutional trwWhiee, all poles, Wires, conduits and appananances,vaca noir are or may hereafter be lawfully placed in the streets within said city, and (b) to construct and use in said strects all poles, wires, conduits and appurtenances, including communication circuits, necessary or proper for said purposes, is hereby granted to Pacific Gas and Electric Company for the terra of three (3) years from and after the effective date of this ordinance upon the terms and conditions set forth in the Franchise Act of 1937 and in the Charter of said city. Section 3. The grantee of said franchioe shall during the term thereof pay to said city a Bum annually which shall be equivalent to two per cent of the gross annual re- ceipts of said grantee arising from the use, operation or possession of said franchise; provided, however, that such payment shall in no event be lees than a sum which shall be equivalent to one-half per cent of the gross annual receipts derived by grantee from the sale -of electricity within the limits of such city under both said franchise and said con- stitutional franchise. Section 4. The grantee shall file with the clerk. of said city, within three months after the expira- tion of the calendar year, or fractional calendar year, following the date of the granting hereof , and within three months after the expiration of each and every calendar year thereafter, a statement or report, duly verified by the Treasurer, secretary, Assistant Treasurer or Assistant Secretary of said grantee, showing in detail the total gross receipts of such grantee arising from all the busi- ness done by said grantee within the City of San Luis Obispo in the distribution and sale of electricity for the calendar year imeediately preceding.auch'statement or report, or for such tractional calendar year. Such grantee shall pay to said city at the time of filing anch statement, in.lawful money of the United States, the aforesaid percentage of its gross re- ceipts for such calendar year, or such fractional calendar year, covered by such statement. .Any neglect, omission or refusal by said grantee to file such verified statement, or to pay said percentage at the time and in the manner specified, shall be grounds for the declaration or a forfeiture of this franchise and of all rights of grantee hereunder. Section 5. At the expiration of the period for which the franchise herein described is granted, or at any time prior thereto, the city may at its election and upon the payment of a fair valuation therefor, as determined by the Railroad Commission of the State of California in the matter provided by the Public Utility Act of the State of California, Which determination shall include a. value based upon severance damages caused to the remaining properties of said grantee,pur- chase and take over to itself the property and plant of the grantee in Its entirety within the limits of the City of San Luis Obispo, but in no case shall the value of said franchise be con- sidered or taken into account in fixing such valuation, except to the extent of the amounts (1) paid to the city as reimbursement for any expenditures for publication of notice or ordinance in connection With the grant of saidfranchise, and (2) constituting a prorata of the sunt initially paid .for said franchise based on. the ratio of the number of years remaining on the unexpired term of said franchise to the full term .thereof; which amounts may be taken into account in fixing such valuation. Upon such payment by the city the plant and property of grantee thus to be acquired shall become the property of the city by virtue of the grant in geyaent 4• zhereurAer an -1 Athout the execution of sn V' instrument Or eonvsyaa= • Saction. S, The f'ranablao greated horoby shall not be Jssaoesl, assLgng8 or otherwise alitated without tbs ezyms:3 coas3nt or tho oily, uzd no dealings AQ a less3ee or s3zigAea of grantee oa the part of tho city to require Us performanco of any iaet or payment OZ any coMpaA aetion by auah iessee or aosiamo shall be 6eomea to operate as such consent; provided that nothlsag herain shall be causatrued to provant the Srantee of said franahiae fram inciuding the fjranchleo in a tiortCage or deed of trust executed for the purpose tY obtaisaiQ honey for corporate objects* Zootian 7v This r=chice is granted ua&ar and I& aceordo=e Fritts the proviGlona of the r-sranchise Lat of 15.57 and of the Charter of thz City of &M W, z Obispo9 mala frmehise in grssa ted pub jeot ts; all the rights, goners cnd privileges reserved to the City or 5san Luis Obispo, or to the City Oounail of Said city. Dy the Charter of the City of can Lens Obispo, chother the rasferve- Sion or W such right, power or privilege be oaproased is this ordirance or not, Ssotion $. The grantee of this f'ranchiass shall (a) aoustruct, is3staU and maintain all pipes, oonduitag poles, vjires end appurtenances in accordance and in con- rorrAty cath all of the ordinanoes, rules and regulations heretofore or hereafter adopted by the City Counteil at said City 1Z the ozsroisete of itis police powerrs aad not in oon- fliot with the paramount authority of the state, and, as to State highways, subject to :tie pr0v1s1oas3 of general tam trclatiag t0'tie laUtion and :M3nteneaoe of such roollities taereein, (b) ped► to the city on demanA the cost of ell repairs to public property hada necessary by =y or the o" ,4tions or, the goatee of this Branchiae, (a) In. *. Muiry and hold harmless ecid city and its offlaers from aaiy and all liability for damages proximately rosultW from w' 8permti=* under thin franchise* (d) raw -7e or relocate vjittaut *knee to the city any facilities installed$ used and nalutained uad.er this franchise If and when made noc- eseary by any lawful change of grade, allgmmnt or width of any pubile street, vay, alley or place, including the eanstructioB of any subway or viaduct, by said city. u'ectioe 9• If the grantee of this franchise, Ito successors or assigns, shall..fail, taegieat or reftse to comply with any of the te=z, limitations, provisions or canditions of this frawhim or of ths Obamter of the City of ran Luis Obispo* and shall not wi titin ten (10) daya after written dw and for compliance made upon order of the City Couaoil of said city, begin the work of compliance or, after such beginning, shall act prosecute the sass with nue dil- ISenee to completion, than eaid pity, by roaalutiom adopted and passed by itra City Council, may declare this traachise forzoited s. The city may sum, in Its opm name Qnd in any court of oaspetenti juriadictinon, for the forfolture of thio fraaahise La tha event of any rallare, neglect or rofueal by the Cranteeo its successor® or assigsa, to comply .lith any of the teas limitations, provfeioas or conditions of this franchise. -6- Section 10. The provisions contained in section 101 of the Charter of the city providing that no payment shall be made by the grantee of a franchise until after five years from the granting thereof are specifically waived by the grantee, and all payments shall be made as hereinbefore provided. In determining the payment to be made to the City annually, the City Council hereby declares that it has taken into consideration the.provisions of the Franchise Act .of 1937 adopted by the Legislature of the state of California in which Act the minimum annual payment to be made by the grantee of any electric franchise issued under the provisions of said Act Infixed at one-half per cent of the gross annual receipts derived from the sale of electricity within the limits of the City by the grantee. In the event that the Legislature of the State. of California hereafter and during the life of this franchise adopts a new act regulating or providing for the grant of franchises by munieipalities, or any act similar to said Franchise Act of 1937, or any amendment to said Franchise Act of 1937• and, in said act or amendment,provides for a minimum payment to be made to mmnicipelities in a sum greater than one-half per cent of the gross annual receipts derived fromthe sale of electricity within the limits of the City by the graatee, then this ordinance shall be deemed to be amended, and from and afterthe effective date of sucb action on the part of the Legislature of the State of California the payment thereafter to be made to the City shall be the rInimuffi pay- ment specified in such act of the Legislature of the State of California; provided, however, that in no event shall 7: such payment exceed one per cent of the gross annual re- ceipts derived from the sale of electricity within the limits of the City, irrespective of the fact that such legislative act may contain a provision for the payment of a greater percentage. Section 11. Acceptance by the grantee of the fran- chise granted hereby' shall not be deeced a Waiver of any right that the grantee may now have under said constitution- al franchise or of any defense of estoppel that the grantee may, now have against the City in respect to the scope of said constitutional franchise, nor shall it be deemed a practical construction of said constitutional Franchise as limiting the use of electric Facilities installed in the streets of the City thereunder to the transmission of electricity which shall be used by consumers only.for lighting purposes, and in the event of the expiration or other termination of this franchise grantee shall not be estopped to then claim any right or defense that it may now have entitling it to continue to use under said constitutional franchise the electric facilities installed thereunder for transmitting and distributing elec- tricity capable of use,, and that may be used, by scam mars for purposes other than lighting, without procurement of any further franchise therefor, to the same extent as grantee could have asserted said right or defense prior to the adop - tion of this ordinance or to the Piling of grantee's applica- tion therefor. Section 12* in the event that the charter of the City of San Luis Obispo shall. be *winded prior to the expira- tion or other termination of the frmaehise granted hereby so 8s as to permit the granting of indeterminate electric fran- chises thereunder terminable at any time but without limita- tion to a specific term of yeare, as in said Branchiae Act of 1937 provided, then the grantee shall forthwith make applica- tion for such an indeterminate electric franchise under the provisions of the City Charter and said Franchise Act of 1937. and sUall, upon being granted said electric franchise, pay as consideration therefor the snuff of five thousand dollars Q5000) whereupon the City shall waive any and al.l claims against the grantee for the past use of the streets of San Luis Obispo for the distribution of electricity in said city* section 13. The.grantee of the franchise granted hereunder shall, on or before the effective date of this ordinance, file with the city a.gaod and sufficient bond, with a hood aid sufficient .surety, to be ayproved by the S-00 c� City Councils Sri the penal sum of O0: ;, conditioned that the grantee shall well and truly keep and perform each and every team and condition of said franchise, and that in ease of any breach of condition of such bond, the whole amount of the genal am shall be taken and deemed to be liquidated dowges and shall be recoverable from the prin- cipal and surety upon said bond. Said bond shall be kept in full force and effect during the entire term of said franchise. section 14. The grantee of the franchise grained hereunder shall pay to the city a sum sufficient to reim- burse it for an publication expenses incurred by it in connection with the granting of the said franchise, such Mment to be made within thirty, (30) days after the city shall have furnished such grantee with a written statement of such expenses. 9: Section 15. This- ordinance shell become effec- tine. thirty 130) days after its final passage., unless. suspended by a referendum petition. filed as provided by law. Section 16. The franchise granted hereby shall not become effective until written acceptance thereof shall. have been filed by the grantee with the City Olerk. Section .17. To coastitritce this bill an ordi- nance it shall, before final action is taken hereon, be passed to print and published with the ayes and noes there- on for two (2) successive days is the a daily newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in said city@, pirst introduced at a regular nesting of the City Council of said city.held on the day of , and passed to print upon the day of 19__.r_0 by the foll.owiAg vote: AYES: MBS: BnuLI.Y passed mA adopted on the day of (more than thirty (30) dabs after the introduction. hereof) ' by the fallotvi,dg vote i AYES: ABSENT • - - -- or ol the C ty 37 San sPo ATTEST: plerk of the City of San L s 0 Bo 243 MARKET STREET A. EMORY WISHON VICE-PRESIDENT & ASSISTANT SAX M%XCISC0,CJ% iF0RN1A GENERAL MANAGER March 15 1943 Honorable City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo California Gentlemen: In reply to the request of your Mayor and certain members of your Council that we consent to the submission to the electorate of the question of granting the application of Pacific Gas and Electric Company for a complementary electric franchise in your city, please be advised that we will raise no objection to such a procedure if the Council desires to use for that purpose our application now on fileeACvt d T2.7, E9301, Certain revisions of the proposed ordinance heretofore requested by your attorney are acceptable, except as hereinafter mentioned. We will agree to pay for such franchise 15000.00 together with a further sum computed for the period from January 1 1943 to the effec- tive date of the franchise, on the percentage basis called for in such franchise, subject however to the following conditions: (1) The proposition placed on the ballot shall clearly disclose that our company already possesses a valid per- petual constitutional franchise in your city whereunder it now has and heretofore has had, without obligation to pay the city therefor, the right to install, maintain and operate its electric facilities on the public streets. The proposition should read substantially as follows: "Shall the City Council grant to Pacific Gas and Electric Company a.35 -year franchise to use, for the purpose'of rendering any public electric service not already authorized, all electric facili- ties installed upon the streets of the city under that companyts existing free, perpetual, electric franchise, which was acquired pursuant to the State 1• �'d6�Y.rwr� Constitution, such 35 -year franchise to be granted under the provisions of the Franchise Act of 1937 and to provide for an annual payment equal to 2� of gross receipts arising from the use, operation or possession thereof, but not less.than 1/2� of the gross receipts from sales of electricity by the company within the city, and upon payment of $5,000 pins 1/2° of such latter gross receipts from Xanuaiy 1, 1943 to the effective date of such franchise? YES NO (2) The proposed provision in such franchise respecting increased franchise payments, in the event future legislation is enacted providing for such increase, shall in no event require such payment to exceed 1� of the gross annual receipts derived from the sale of electricity by grantee within the limits of your city. The reason for this 1� limitation is that our company already possesses said free constitutional franchise* ' This consent is given only in response to said request and without any undertaking on our part actively to campaign for a favorable vote on this proposition, in as much as it is this company's position that it does not need this additional franchise and has only applied therefor to eliminate any uncertainty in respect to the technical legal question as to the scope of said constitutional franchise. A3W :F Very truly yours, PAC ELECTRIC COJAPAn s s en an Assistant General Mangers 2: VPAC[F[�C GAS AND E LEC1sTRI� COMPANY �) ? 4S :eL\RKET'STREE:T TRos. J. S�BAEY Aca � SAN FR, CLSCO.CALIFOPUNIA GENEfRAL TTORN LAW DEPARTMENT �. Mr. Miles Fitzgerald City Attorney San Luis Obispo California Dear Sir: March 2 1943 In re: Electric franchise City of San Luis Obispo W. 11. "YA1:1.111Vf. PA17L 1:. StOAl-L W. If. Dc.. JDD.v C. WOOD J.H.1-J. R111ADC Y. u. rluawuv P. t:. W NA'O1 A rn'L• TICDORALD W. u. I1ODc11 A..Ut AT6 ATSODYCY9 The problems that we discussed with you last week have received extended consideration by our manage- ment and it has been suggested that, if we could procure a franchise that would help qualify our bonds, then the submission of our application to the electorate and the payment of $5000 for the franchise would be justified, To accomplish that however would require the submission to the electoratewithin the next two years of a proposal to amend the Charter so as to permit the granting of electric and gas franchises for a period that would be terminable either by the city's purchase of the utility's system within San Luis Obispo, or by the for- feiture of`the franchise through non-compliance of the utility with its provisions --in other words, an indeter- minate franchise. Many cities and counties have preferred that franchises be granted without specifying any definite term, but terminable at any time in this manner. Even a 35 year franchise, as permitted by your City Charter, has seemed to many cities too long a term, On our side the definite term franchise of 35 years is also valueless to qualify our bonds, Both the Municipal League and the Railroad commission, and all the cities granting us franchises under the Franchise Act of 19379 of which there have been 65, have gone on record as favor- ing the indeterminate franchise. If the Council is of the opinion that such an amendment to the Charter could be submitted to the elec- 1: torate within the next two years we could then follow the plan which we have pursued in the City of Modesto of making application at this time for a short-term, say three-year,franchise under the Charter, and commence franchise payments thereunder as of January 1 1943, with the further provision therein that if the Charter is amended in respect to term as above suggested the company would then make application for an indeterminate electric franchise with annual payments as provided under the Franchise Act of 1937 and pay therefor the sum of $59000. The short-term franchise would set forth all these con- ditions - not the charter amendment itself•- but the contingency of such charter amendment within two years - and the entire matter could be submitted to the electorate at this coming election. Kindly let us know if there is any possibility of approaching the problem from this angle. If desired we will be pleased to present our suggestion as to how the matter should be submitted on the ballot at the coming election, and a copy of the proposed franchise granting ordinance for a three-year term setting forth these conditions. PES : F cc: WS, AEW 2: Yours very truly, W -oil APPLICATION FOR ELECTRIC FRANC_-gISE :27,,/gO� CITY OF SAA? LUIS OBISPO, State of California, and its City Council. Gentlemen: Pacific Gas and Electric Company, a California utility corporation, as applicant, hereby applies for a franchise pursuant to the Franchise Act of 1937 and the Charter of the City of San Luis Obispo, and avers as follows: The purposes of said franchise shall be (1) to use, for transmitting and distributing electricity within the City of San Luis Obispo for any and all purposes other than those authorized under Section 19 of Article XI of the Constitution of the State of California, as said section existed prior to its amendment on October 10, 1911, all poles, wires, conduits and appurtenances that now are or may hereafter be lawfully placed in the public streets, ways and places within said City, and (2) to construct and use in said public streets, ways and places all poles, wires, conduits and appurtenances, including communication circuits, necessary or proper for said purposes. The term of said franchise so requested shall be thirty-five (35) years, as provided in the Charter of said City. If said franchise shall be granted to it anplica.nt Will pay to said City during the term thereof two per cent of the gross annual receipts of applicant arising from the use, operation or possession of said franchise; provided, however, that such payment shall in no event be less than a sum which shall be equivalent to one-half per cent of the gross annual receipts derived by applicant from the sale of electricity within the limits of said City under both said franchises, namely, the franchise now owned by applicant by virtue of said Section 19 of Article XI of the Constitution, and the franchise for which application is hereby made. We request that said franchise be granted by ordinance in the form which accompanies the form of reso- lution which we have prepared and submit herewith for your use should you elect to use same. Yours very truly, _-.PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY EY Its Vice residen and Assisit�Cene�eli 'M'anager i w --rte and s-Assrstan`t Sectetarv. ---- APPROVEn As TO FORA! 2' • ATTO RN EY 1 AZ' •IC 707 FOR MZMFIC FRAMEES-.q City of San Luis Obispo, State Of California, and.its City comail. Gentlemen-.: MIDLAND COMMS PUBLIC SER I -CE CORPORATION, a California utility corporation-, as applicant.. hereby applies for a. franchise pursuant to the Franchise Act of 1837 and the Charter of the. City of San Luis Obispo, and. avers as follcma : The purposes of said' franchise shall be (1) to use, for transmitting and distributing. electricity within. the City of San Luis Obispo for any and all purposes other than those authorized under Section 1-8 of Article XI of the Constitution of the State: of California:, as said section existed prior to its amendment. on October 10, 1811, al1 poles, wires, eoactuits.and appurtenances that now are or may hereafter be. Iawl%al placed in the public streets, ways. and places within said. City, and (al to construct and use is saidpublic streets: mays and' placss all poles, wires, conduits: and appurtenances,. including ..communication circuits, necessary or proper for said Purposes. The term. of said, franchise sa requested shall be. thirty-five. (351 years, as provided. in the charter of said City. If said franchise shall be granted to it applicant gill pay to said City during the term thereof two. per cent of the gross annual receipts of applicant arising from the use, operation or Possession_of said f*anchise= provided, however, that such payment shall in no event be.less than l: rl�5 a- am wh'iah shall be, equivalent tO anew Per cent of the gross anmal receipts dariveci by applicant from the sale Of 81-actriefty within the. ' limits Of said City under b0I said frzmahlaasj, i8mMly... the franchise n owned by applicant by virtue of . said. Section 19 of trticle. X1. of the: ConstittIII and- the franc is EL for which application is hereby ma"* We request: that :said fra3ichlse. be granted by - Ordinance in the form -Which- accompanies the form of reso— 7-utiOn which we have prepared. and: submit herewith for- your use should you. elect to use same, Yours very truly, Me fit! 111111111111 arill I I I I I I I 111 1111111111 1111111111111illillillill •)+1 Ties a.-. ;IPA Certified Copy Power of Attorney—Individual. so. 958 own of Attormy KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: That the SEABOARD SURETY COMPANY, a corporation of the State of New York, by _ r sin IN, Wr�Z_._` — its Aft= President, hath made, constituted and apppointed and by these resents does make, constitute and appoint........ -- PAZ- T_ Tornay or Gh�r1 es _ G._ 1Vichol st er Pim j j��j� its true and lawful Attorney -in -Fact, at -82" V ^ sA^ _ —�, in the State of �es1,1 4T'LI, to make, execute and deliver on its behalf as Surety, bonds and undertakings, the penal sum of no one of which is, in any event, to exceedTrro M drad TheuRand — — — — — v — — — — (t2QQ 000 00 ) dollars and to be given for the following purposes only, to wits guaranteeing the fideli of pereone holding places of public or private trust; guaranteeing the performance of contracts other than insurance policies; and executing or guaranteeing bonds and undertakings requiredor permitted in all actions or proceedings or by law allowed. Such bonds and undertakings for said purposes, when duly executed by the aforesaid Attorney -in -Fact, shall be binding upon the said Company as fully and to the same extent as if such bonds and undertakings were signed by the President and Secretary of the Company and sealed with its corporate seal. ' This appointment is made under and by authority of a certain By -Law duly adopted by the Board of Directors of the said Company at a regular meeting of that body duly called and held on the 8th day of December, 1927, a duly certified copy of which By -Law is hereto attached, and is subject to revocation as therein provided In Witness Whereof, the SEABOARD SURETY COMPANY has caused these presents to be signed by its i t: -President, and its corporate seal to be hereunto affixed duly attested by its Amgi a e^— Secretary, this 10th day of ZQ—.._....19 55 , at -AM York a E - Y . Attest: SEABOARD SURETY COMPANY, By (Seal) Flenry G. Thole C. W. French _.._._ ......_......... _ Assistant Secretary Yj=Presideut STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK On this da ofr _ _..___, _ _ lil#__._.._.---- 7 nth y e ..—., 19 55 v before me personally appeared C. Til. French __.__,_,_--„712=.President of the SEABOARD SURETY COMPANYwith h I am personally acquainted who, being by me duly sworn, said that he resides in the State of 1401w 4For� ; that he is President of the SEABOARD SURETY COMPANY, the corporation described in and which executed the foregoing instrument; that he knows the corporate seal of the said Company; that the seal affixed to said instrument is such corporate seal; that it was so affixed by order of the Board of Directors of said Company; and that he signed his name thereto asft-President of said Company by like authority. Lillian Miller ®r LILI.L91% MILLER (Seal). NOTARY PUBLIC BE IT REMEMBERED That at the regular meeting of the Board of Directors.9f Ae” p. �jr COMPANY, duly called and held in the Borough of Manhattan, City of New York, FiK`ih�"13f1i`'Day' �- i 1927, a quorum being present, the following By -Laws were duly adopted and are still lu folice!and iegeei. ARTICLE XI. Paragraph 8: \'e%s, `'.irk C �xity Ret!;ter's No. 7 -DI -376 Uanuriesiun expires Alarch 30, 1437 •�• "Attorneys -in -Fact, Departmental Managers, Branch Managers, Agents, Clerks, and other employees may be appointed or engaged by the President or a Vice -President, subject to the; control of the Directors, upon such terms and with such powers and duties as he may prescribe." Article XVII, Paragraph I. "All policies, bonds, recognizances, stipulations and all underwriting undertakings shall be valid: (a) When signed by the President, or the First Vice -President, or a Vice -President, or a Resident Vice -Presi- dent, or a Departmental Manager and the Secretary, or an Assistant Secretary, or a Resident Assistant Secretary, or other duly authorized official or agent of the Company, and when sealed with the seal of the Company where required by law; or (b) When executed by an Attorney -in -Fact" STATE OF NEW YORK I COUNTY OF NEW YORK ss.: - I HeIlY L G.,—' qle____...Assi8tant, __ _Secretary of the SEABOARD SURETY COMPANY, have compared the foregoing By -Laws with the originals thereof, as recorded in the Minute Book of the said Company and do hereby certify that the same are correct and true transcripts therefrom. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said Company, at New Yorks N. Ltthis 10th day of Jtme 19JZ_ (Seal). liam.i " }g .8— Asaiatant Secretary STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK I ss.: I A. G. Podlea+ey ............... _ _ Asst. Secretary of the SEABOARD SURETY COMPANY, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of a power of attorney executed by said SEABOARD SURETY COMPANY, which is still in full force and effect In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the sa. mpany, at the City of New York, this I fith day of August _ .19 u I n Eo W o �d ct N (I 148 I� I� c2 L, m 0 E