HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-21-2017 Item 11 - Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant-Joint Proposal-Proposed Decision
Meeting Date: 11/21/2017
FROM: Derek Johnson, City Manager
SUBJECT: DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT- JOINT PROPOSAL
PROPOSED DECISION
RECOMMENDATION
Receive a report on the Administrative Law Judge’s Proposed Decision for the Joint Proposal
(Attachment A) to close the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant and authorize the City to advocate
for legislation if necessary to fund the Community Impacts Mitigation Program (CIMP).
DISCUSSION
On November 8, 2017, Administrative Law Judge Peter V. Allen released the Proposed Decision
(Attachment A) regarding the Joint Proposal to close Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant (DCNPP).
Until the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”) hears the item and votes to approve it,
modify it, or reject it; the Proposed Decision has no legal effect. The CPUC is scheduled to hear
arguments on November 28, 2017 in San Francisco. City representatives are scheduled to attend this
hearing. Addressing the CPUC is typically limited to authorized parties1 and public comment is not
scheduled and present oral argument. No public comment has been scheduled as the purpose of t he
two hearings held in Fall 2016 & 2017 were meant to provide a local forum for public input.
The various parties to the Joint Proposal include PG&E, International Brotherhood of E lectrical
Workers Local 1245, Coalition of California Utility Employees, Friends of the Earth, Natural
Resources Defense Council, California Energy Efficiency Industry Council and Alliance for Nuclear
Responsibility, County of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Coa stal Unified School District and the
Coalition of Cities. Appendix A of the Proposed Decision lists over 80 parties that were either
signatories to the Joint Proposal or have been granted party status to the proceedings. The broad
range of interests is clearly an indication of the far-reaching implications of the Joint Proposal and
the potential impacts on local communities, energy production, economy and the environment.
Reaching agreement on the Joint Proposal was remarkable feat given the broad and competing
interests. There is generally broad consensus that the Joint Proposal and Settlement Agreement
provides the most comprehensive example and perhaps a best practice in terms of shuttering a
nuclear power plant.
Background
On August 11, 2016, PG&E filed its application proposing to retire DCNPP upon the expiration of
applicable licenses to allow for the continued operation of the plant. In addition to retiring DCNPP,
PG&E’s application requested approval of: 1) procurement of three tranches of greenh ouse gas-free
resources to partially replace the output of DCNPP; 2) retention, retraining, and severance programs
for DCNPP employees; 3) a program that would provide funding to the local community to mitigate
the economic impact of the plant’s retirement; and 4) rate recovery of various costs, including
amounts spent for environmental reviews and PG&E’s now-suspended NRC license renewal
1 Parties approved by the CPUC through the adjudicatory process or parties to the Joint Proposal.
Packet Pg 189
11
application. PG&E’s original application was supported by a broad list of signatories2.
Protests and responses to the Joint Proposal were filed and ultimately the Joint Proposal was
amended with a partial settlement. This partial settlement was reached with many parties and locally
included San Luis Coastal Unified School District, County of San Luis Obispo and the Coalition of
Cities. This partial settlement adjusted the Community Impacts Mitigation Program (CIMP).
Attachment B provides an overview of the changes to the CIMP and the related terms.
Proposed Decision
The Proposed Decision accepts, modifies and rejects ce rtain portions of the Joint Proposal.
Specifically, and locally most relevant, the Proposed Decision rejects the proposed Community
Impact Mitigation Program (CIMP) citing concerns over fairness to the community and ratepayers,
and is based on the ALJ’s conclusion that the CPUC lacks statutory authority to approve ratepayer
funding of the mitigation funds and concerns about characterization of the payments as in-lieu of tax
payments, which are concerns that the ALJ believes would need to be addressed through the State
Legislature.
The CPUC’s Proposed Decision indicates that the County, School District and Coalition of Cities can
pursue two options in the future, assuming the Commission adopts the Proposed Decision. Those
options include a legislative approach, working with the State of California to create legislation that
expressly authorizes and/or directs this Commission to approve ratepayer funding for the Community
Impact Mitigation Program, or PG&E can pledge shareholder funds to support the Communit y
Impact Mitigation Program. Staff is seeking support from Council and will be requesting that the
Coalition of Cities concurrently support legislation to secure CIMP funds, as well as negotiation of
alternate funding mechanisms, including PG&E allocation of shareholder funding. While legislative
advocacy is underway, the Coalition of Cities will also make arguments before the CPUC that the
proposed settlement agreement is within their current statutory/regulatory authority and should be
approved in its negotiated form.
Lastly, the Proposed Decision also seeks to limit or reduce funding in other areas of the Joint
Proposal. In particular, there is strong concern that the curtailment of the employee incentive
program could jeopardize the retention of critical PG&E employees to operate the plant until 2025.
Employees at DCNPP are highly trained and technical and losses of employees could compel PG&E
to shutter the plant sooner, thus accelerating and concentrating economic impacts.
Other areas of the Joint Proposal (i.e. Retirement of DCNPP, Proposed Replacement Procurement,
Recovery of License Renewal Costs, Proposed Ratemaking and Cost Allocation Issues, Additional
Issues) are discussed in the Proposed Decision and will be covered in Staff’s presentation on
November 21st.
CONCURRENCES
The proposed action is consistent with the Guiding Principles (Attachment C) which were approved
by the City Council on July 19, 2016.
2 Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Friends of the Earth (FOE), Environment California, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers Local 1245 (IBEW 1245), Coalition of California Utility Employees (CCUE), and the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility (A4NR),
Packet Pg 190
11
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Receiving a report on the Proposed Decision is not subject to t he California Environmental Quality
Act.
FISCAL IMPACT
According to a 2013 report prepared in coordination with the Nuclear Energy Institute, Cal Poly’s
Orfalea College of Business and Productive Impact, the DCNPP impact on the county is nearly $1
billion annually, encompassing jobs, schools, infrastructure and other businesses. When DCNPPs
shutter, according to the study, the county would lose over 3,200 jobs in virtually every sector and
the San Luis Coastal School District would lose 11.6 percent of it s annual budget.
Today’s impacts quantified in 2017 is unknown at this time. Senate Bill 968 (Monning) requires the
CPUC to analyze the 1) Economic and Fiscal Impacts of DCNPP’s closure 2) Other comparable
recent nuclear power plant closures and its social and financial impacts on affected communities 3)
Economic impacts of the closure of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS). Cal Poly is in
the process of securing a contract with the CPUC to complete this work by December 2018.
The settlement agreement includes $400,000 to leverage the analysis from SB 968 and develop a
regional economic development strategy to focus economic development activities so that there is
more of an orderly economic transition to a future without DCNPP. Those funds would be
eliminated under the Proposed Decision.
The settlement agreement also includes a $10 million3 payment by PG&E to the County ($3.8
million) and to the Coalition of Cities ($5.7) to establish a fund for implementation of regional
economic development and job creation programs. The loss of these funds would mean that the
region would not have funding to implement key actions to address economic impacts.
Equally important to our region is the proposed $75 million, of which $10 million will be dedicated
to an educational foundation to be designated by the San Luis Coastal Unified School District
(“District”). The loss of these funds would likely have a significant impact the quality of K -12
education.
Finally, the Joint Proposal includes emergency planning and response readiness funding to address
the continued risk to operate and close a nuclear power plant and the potential to storage of onsite
spent nuclear fuels. The loss of funding could impact the capabilities of local responders to address
any nuclear related incidents.
3 The $400,000 to develop the regional economic development strategy came out of the $10 million.
Packet Pg 191
11
ALTERNATIVES
The Council could direct Staff not to work with the Coalition, County, and/or School District to
pursue legislation to address arguments that the Community Impacts Mitigation Program is not
permissible under statute and enabling legislation must be passed to authorize such payments. While
arguments will be made that the CIMP is allowed under existing statutes, specific legislation will
make it abundantly clear that the CIMP is permissible and good public policy.
Attachments:
a - DCPP Proposed Decision
b - Settlement Agreement Terms
c - Guiding Principles
Packet Pg 192
11
STATE OF CALIFORNIA EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
505 VAN NESS AVENUE
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298
November 8, 2017 Agenda ID #16094
Ratesetting
TO PARTIES OF RECORD IN APPLICATION 16-08-006:
This is the proposed decision of Administrative Law Judge Peter V. Allen. Until and
unless the Commission hears the item and votes to approve it, the proposed decision has
no legal effect. This item may be heard, at the earliest, at the Commission’s
December 14, 2017, Business Meeting. To confirm when the item will be heard, please
see the Business Meeting agenda, which is posted on the Commission’s website 10 days
before each Business Meeting.
Parties of record may file comments on the proposed decision as provided in Rule 14.3 of
the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.
The Commission may hold a Ratesetting Deliberative Meeting to consider this item in
closed session in advance of the Business Meeting at which the item will be heard. In
such event, notice of the Ratesetting Deliberative Meeting will appear in the Daily
Calendar, which is posted on the Commission’s website. If a Ratesetting Deliberative
Meeting is scheduled, ex parte communications are prohibited pursuant to
Rule 8.3(c)(4)(B).
/s/ ANNE E. SIMON
Anne E. Simon
Acting Chief Administrative Law Judge
AES:jt2
Attachment
198044682
FILED
11-08-17
08:00 AM
198044679 - 1 -
ALJ/PVA/jt2 PROPOSED DECISION Agenda ID #16094
Ratesetting
Decision PROPOSED DECISION OF ALJ ALLEN (Mailed 11/8/2017)
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Application of Pacific Gas and Electric Company
for Approval of the Retirement of Diablo Canyon
Power Plant, Implementation of the Joint Proposal,
And Recovery of Associated Costs Through
Proposed Ratemaking Mechanisms (U39E).
Application 16-08-006
(See Appendix A for Appearances)
DECISION APPROVING RETIREMENT OF
DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT
Packet Pg 194
11
A.16-08-006 ALJ/PVA/jt2 PROPOSED DECISION
- i -
Table of Contents
Title Page
DECISION APPROVING RETIREMENT OF DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR
POWER PLANT ................................................................................................................ 1
Summary ............................................................................................................................ 2
1. Background ............................................................................................................... 2
2. Issues Before the Commission ................................................................................ 6
3. Discussion and Analysis ......................................................................................... 8
3.1. Retirement of Diablo Canyon Power Plant .................................................. 8
3.2. Proposed Replacement Procurement .......................................................... 15
3.3. Proposed Employee Program ...................................................................... 22
3.4. Proposed Community Impacts Mitigation Program ................................ 31
3.5. Recovery of License Renewal Costs ............................................................ 41
3.6. Proposed Ratemaking and Cost Allocation Issues ................................... 45
3.7. Additional Issues ........................................................................................... 48
4. Comments on Proposed Decision ........................................................................ 49
5. Assignment of Proceeding .................................................................................... 49
Findings of Fact ............................................................................................................... 49
Conclusions of Law ........................................................................................................ 50
ORDER ............................................................................................................................. 51
Appendix A – List of Appearances
Packet Pg 195
11
A.16-08-006 ALJ/PVA/jt2 PROPOSED DECISION
- 2 -
DECISION APPROVING RETIREMENT OF
DIABLO CANYON NUCLEAR POWER PLANT
Summary
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) proposes to retire the Diablo
Canyon Power Plant in 2024 and 2025, when its federal Nuclear Regulatory
Commission operating licenses expire. PG&E requests Commission approval to
recover in rates over $1.76 billion in costs associated with the retirement of
Diablo Canyon. Those costs include $1.3 billion for energy efficiency
procurement to partially replace the output of Diablo Canyon, $363.4 million for
Diablo Canyon employee retention and retraining, $85 million for a Community
Impacts Mitigation Program, $18.6 million in costs previously incurred for its
Nuclear Regulatory Commission license renewal process, and an unspecified
amount for cancelled capital projects. (PG&E Opening Brief at i-ii.)
This order approves PG&E’s proposal to retire Diablo Canyon and
approves $190.4 million in rate recovery for costs associated with the retirement
of Diablo Canyon. Specifically, PG&E is authorized to recover in rates
$171.8 million for employee retention and retraining, and $18.6 million for its
license renewal activities, plus a portion of the cost of cancelled capital projects.
Rate recovery for the Community Impacts Mitigation Program requires
legislative authorization. Replacement procurement issues will be addressed in
the Integrated Resource Planning proceeding. This proceeding is closed.
1. Background
Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s (PG&E) Diablo Canyon nuclear power
plant is located in coastal San Luis Obispo County, and consists of two units that
have been operating since 1985 (Unit 1) and 1986 (Unit 2), with a combined
generation capacity of 2,240 megawatts (MW). The units are currently licensed
Packet Pg 196
11
A.16-08-006 ALJ/PVA/jt2 PROPOSED DECISION
- 3 -
by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to operate until 2024 (Unit 1) and
2025 (Unit 2).
On August 11, 2016, PG&E filed its application proposing to retire Diablo
Canyon upon the expiration of its NRC licenses. In addition to retiring Diablo
Canyon, PG&E’s application requested approval of: 1) procurement of three
tranches of greenhouse gas-free resources to partially replace the output of
Diablo Canyon; 2) retention, retraining, and severance programs for Diablo
Canyon employees; 3) a program that would provide funding to the local
community to mitigate the economic impact of the plant’s retirement; and 4) rate
recovery of various costs, including amounts spent for environmental reviews
and PG&E’s now-suspended NRC license renewal application. (PG&E
Application at 8-12.)
PG&E’s application was supported by the Natural Resources Defense
Council (NRDC), Friends of the Earth (FOE), Environment California,
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 1245 (IBEW 1245),
Coalition of California Utility Employees (CCUE), and the Alliance for Nuclear
Responsibility (A4NR), and the proposal in the application was referred as a
“Joint Proposal.”1
Protests to PG&E’s application were filed by the California Large Energy
Consumers Association (CLECA), Californians for Green Nuclear Power
(CGNP), the Energy Producers and Users Coalition (EPUC), Energy Users
Forum, Environmental Progress, LEAN Energy US, the Cities of Paso Robles,
1 The parties supporting the application are referred to as the “Joint Parties.” While generally
supporting the Joint Proposal, the A4NR did not support PG&E’s request for rate recovery of its
NRC license renewal costs.
Packet Pg 197
11
A.16-08-006 ALJ/PVA/jt2 PROPOSED DECISION
- 4 -
Morro Bay, San Luis Obispo, Arroyo Grande, Pismo Beach and Atascadero (filed
jointly), California Solar Energy Industries Association, Sierra Club, Shell Energy
North America (US), L.P. (Shell), City of Lancaster, Friends of Wild Cherry
Canyon, Central Coast Wave Energy Hub, The Utility Reform Network (TURN),
World Business Academy, the Commission’s Office of Ratepayer Advocates
(ORA), Sonoma Clean Power Authority, Marin Clean Energy, SolarCity
Corporation, City and County of San Francisco, A4NR, Women's Energy Matters
(WEM), and the Green Power Institute.
Responses to PG&E’s application were filed by OhmConnect, Inc, San Luis
Obispo Mothers for Peace, Inc. (Mothers for Peace), Independent Energy
Producers Association (IEP), South San Joaquin Irrigation District, Direct Access
Customer Coalition, Alliance for Retail Energy Markets, Large-scale Solar
Association, EnergyHub, CPower, EnerNOC, Inc., Comverge, Inc., California
Energy Storage Alliance, San Luis Coastal Unified School District (School
District), IBEW 1245, CCUE, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), FOE, NRDC,
Environment California, California Energy Efficiency Industry Council, Center
for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies (CEERT) and the County of
San Luis Obispo (County).2
The general timeline of the proceeding was:
August 11, 2016 – Application filed.
September 15, 2016 – Protests and Responses filed.
September 26, 2016 – PG&E Reply to Protests and Responses filed.
October 6, 2016 – Pre-hearing Conference held.
2 Some responses were filed jointly by multiple parties.
Packet Pg 198
11
A.16-08-006 ALJ/PVA/jt2 PROPOSED DECISION
- 5 -
October 20, 2016 – Public Participation Hearings held in San Luis
Obispo.
November 18, 2016 - Scoping Memo and Ruling issued.
January 27, 2017 - Intervenor testimony served.
March 17, 2017 - Rebuttal testimony served.
April 19 – 27, 2017 - Evidentiary hearings held.
May 26, 2017 - Opening briefs filed.
June 16, 2017 - Reply briefs filed.
September 14, 2017 – Public Participation Hearings held in San Luis
Obispo.
On December 28, 2016, PG&E filed a joint motion requesting approval of a
partial settlement between PG&E, the County of San Luis Obispo, the Cities of
Arroyo Grande, Atascadero, Morro Bay, Paso Robles, Pismo Beach, and San Luis
Obispo (collectively Local Cities), the School District, FOE, NRDC, Environment
California, IBEW 1245, CCUE, and A4NR. The proposed settlement modified the
Community Impacts Mitigation Program originally proposed by PG&E in its
application.
On February 27, 2017, PG&E notified the parties that it was withdrawing
its request for two of the three tranches of replacement procurement (and
associated cost recovery) that it had proposed in its application, and that this
change would be reflected in its rebuttal testimony.
On May 23, 2017, PG&E filed a joint motion requesting approval of a
partial settlement between PG&E, A4NR, TURN, ORA, Mothers for Peace, FOE,
NRDC, Environment California, IBEW 1245 and CCUE. This second proposed
settlement modified PG&E’s original request for rate recovery of its NRC license
renewal costs and its cancelled project costs.
Packet Pg 199
11
A.16-08-006 ALJ/PVA/jt2 PROPOSED DECISION
- 6 -
2. Issues Before the Commission
The Scoping Memo identified the following issues:
Retirement of Diablo Canyon Power Plant
PG&E has proposed to retire Diablo Canyon Unit 1 in 2024, and Unit 2 in
2025. Parties have proposed both earlier and later retirement dates. Parties may
present testimony in support of PG&E’s proposed dates, or earlier or later
retirement dates, including indefinite dates.
Proposed Replacement Procurement
PG&E has made a proposal for procurement of resources to partially
replace Diablo Canyon’s output. Parties may present testimony supporting
alternative procurement proposals, including proposals that all necessary
replacement procurement should be addressed in this proceeding, that no
replacement procurement should be addressed in this proceeding, or that some
replacement procurement should be addressed in this proceeding.
Proposed Employee Program
PG&E has proposed an employee retention, retraining and severance
program associated with approximately 1,500 employees at Diablo Canyon.
Parties have raised questions about the cost and funding of this program. Parties
may present testimony on the need for this program and its size, cost, structure,
timing and its source of funding.
Proposed Community Impacts Mitigation Program
PG&E has proposed a community impacts mitigation program to mitigate
some of the adverse economic impacts to the residents of San Luis Obispo
County as a result of the planned retirement of Diablo Canyon. Parties may
present testimony on the community impacts of the proposed retirement of
Packet Pg 200
11
A.16-08-006 ALJ/PVA/jt2 PROPOSED DECISION
- 7 -
Diablo Canyon, including economic and emergency response impacts, and on
proposals to mitigate those impacts.
Recovery of License Renewal Costs
PG&E has proposed that it be granted rate recovery for costs relating to
license renewal activities, including the filing of a license renewal application
with the federal NRC. Parties may present testimony on whether it is reasonable
for PG&E to recover some or all of these costs in rates.
Proposed Ratemaking and Cost Allocation Issues
PG&E has requested rate recovery for the costs of its proposals, including
costs of replacement procurement, its employee program and community
impacts mitigation program, and its license renewal activities, as well as other
costs relating to the operation of Diablo Canyon facilities. Parties may support or
criticize PG&E’s proposed rate design and cost allocation, or may present
alternative rate design and cost allocation proposals.
Additional Issues Not Addressed Above
Parties may present testimony on issues that are within the general scope
of the proceeding, as established by the record to date, that are not specifically
addressed in the above sections.
The Scoping Memo determined that it was premature to address land use,
facilities and decommissioning issues, and that specific recommendations on
those issues would not be considered at this time, but parties were allowed to
present testimony recommending how to best preserve these issues for future
consideration.
Packet Pg 201
11
A.16-08-006 ALJ/PVA/jt2 PROPOSED DECISION
- 8 -
3. Discussion and Analysis
3.1. Retirement of Diablo Canyon Power Plant
PG&E proposes to retire Diablo Canyon upon the expiration of its NRC
licenses, which expire on November 2, 2024 for Unit 1 and August 26, 2025 for
Unit 2. (Ex. PG&E-1 at 2-1.) PG&E’s forecasts and analysis indicates that in the
near future there will be a significantly reduced need for electric generation from
Diablo Canyon. (PG&E Opening Brief at 11-18.) Because of projected increases
in energy efficiency, distributed generation, renewable generation, and
customers moving to community choice aggregation (CCA) and direct access,
PG&E’s conclusion is that there is simply less of a need for Diablo Canyon. (Id.)
In fact, PG&E believes that the continued operation of Diablo Canyon beyond
2025 would exacerbate over-generation, requiring curtailment of renewable
generation. (Id. at 16-17; Ex. PG&E-1 at 2-20.) PG&E’s analysis indicates that
there is no need to replace Diablo Canyon in order to maintain system reliability.
(Transcript Vol. 6 at 957-958.)
PG&E has also been unequivocal that the retirement of Diablo Canyon will
not have an adverse impact on local reliability. According to PG&E, because
Diablo Canyon’s output is exported on the bulk transmission system, Diablo
Canyon is considered a system resource only, and is not needed for local
reliability:
DCPP [Diablo Canyon Power Plant] is located in the Los Padres area
of PG&E’s service territory, which includes the cities of: San Luis
Obispo, Divide, Santa Maria, Mesa, Templeton, Paso Robles, and
Atascadero. […] [M]ost of DCPP’s generation is exported to the
north and east of the Los Padres division through 500 kilovolts (kV)
bulk transmission lines, which includes a transmission connection
between the Diablo Canyon and Midway substations. [fn. omitted]
Los Padres customer demand is served through a network of 115 kV
and 70 kV circuits and does not include DCPP as part of the local
Packet Pg 202
11
A.16-08-006 ALJ/PVA/jt2 PROPOSED DECISION
- 9 -
installed generation capacity as DCPP does not serve load within the
division. As such, DCPP is not needed for local reliability. Unlike
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, DCPP is considered as a
system resource only and is not needed to provide support for local
reliability. (Ex. PG&E-1 at 2-20 to 2-21; see also PG&E Opening Brief
at 17.)
A number of parties support PG&E’s determination that Diablo Canyon is
not needed; in addition to the parties supporting the Joint Proposal3, other
parties also agree that it is appropriate to retire Diablo Canyon:
IEP concurs with PG&E’s decision not to renew the licenses of the
two units of the Diablo Canyon Power Plant. Replacement resources
that are both less expensive and better able to fit the needs of
PG&E’s customers and the electric grid are available. (IEP Opening
Brief at 7.)
TURN’s economic analysis demonstrates that ratepayers would
benefit from retiring Diablo Canyon and satisfying customer need
with incremental renewable resources. This analysis, along with the
recognition that continued operations at Diablo Canyon involve the
potential for a catastrophic accident or unexpected premature
shutdown, affirms the reasonableness of PG&E’s decision to
permanently retire the plant by 2025. (TURN Opening Brief at 2.)
The City of San Francisco supports shutting down Diablo Canyon, and
states:
PG&E has persuasively demonstrated that Diablo Canyon is a no
longer a good fit for PG&E’s bundled customers. PG&E has shown
that Diablo Canyon should be closed because of the high cost of
operating Diablo Canyon, potential regulatory requirements
regarding the once through cooling technique used by Diablo
Canyon, and system over-generation problems related to Diablo
3 Those parties are: NRDC, FOE, Environment California, IBEW 1245, CCUE and A4NR.
Packet Pg 203
11
A.16-08-006 ALJ/PVA/jt2 PROPOSED DECISION
- 10 -
Canyon’s constant operation. [fn. omitted] PG&E showed also that
continued operation of Diablo Canyon is a bad fit in the context of
California’s goal of reducing GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions in
part by increasing use of renewable energy resources. This is
because Diablo Canyon is a baseload, relatively inflexible resource
that would exacerbate overgeneration and would result in continued
curtailment of renewable resources. PG&E also admits that Diablo
Canyon is no longer necessary for reliability. [fn. omitted]
PG&E also projects that its load will shrink considerably by the time
Diablo Canyon closes. Between 2017 and 2025, PG&E forecasts that
approximately 20,000 GWh [gigawatt hours] of load will migrate to
CCAs . [fn. omitted] This is comparable to the amount of bundled
customer load (18,500 GWh) Diablo Canyon currently serves. In
PG&E’s own words “whether CCA loads depart somewhat sooner
or later than expected does not change the overall conclusion that
DCPP is not needed for PG&E’s customers after the expiration of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission licenses in 2024 and 2025.”
[fn. omitted] (City and County of San Francisco Opening Brief at 3.)
Other parties, while not actively supporting PG&E’s proposal, do not
oppose it, including: ORA (ORA Opening Brief at 4),4 Alliance for Retail Energy
Markets, the California Clean DG Coalition, CLECA, the Direct Access Customer
Coalition, the Energy Users Forum, Marin Clean Energy, Peninsula Clean
Energy, Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority, and Sonoma Clean Power
Authority (Joint Opponents Opening Brief at 2).
4 Elsewhere, however, ORA states: “ORA supports PG&E’s proposed retirement of the DCPP
units at the end of their respective operating license periods in 2024 and 2025.” (Ex. ORA-2
at 4.)
Packet Pg 204
11
A.16-08-006 ALJ/PVA/jt2 PROPOSED DECISION
- 11 -
Only one active party, CGNP, argues that Diablo Canyon should continue
to operate beyond 2025.5 CGNP makes three substantive arguments for keeping
Diablo Canyon operating: Diablo Canyon is more cost effective than the
alternative sources of supply, retiring Diablo Canyon would diminish system
reliability, and retiring Diablo Canyon would have an adverse impact on GHG
emissions. (CGNP Opening Brief at 5.)
On the issue of the cost effectiveness of Diablo Canyon, TURN identified
significant flaws and omissions in CGNP’s cost calculations and estimates.
(See, TURN Reply Brief at 1-7; Transcript, vol. 8 at 1,302-1,318.) The record of this
proceeding undercuts, rather than supports, CGNP’s argument that continued
operation of Diablo Canyon would be cost effective. Accordingly, CGNP’s
testimony on this issue is given little weight.
CGNP’s argument that retiring Diablo Canyon would be detrimental to
grid reliability seems to be based on the fact that Diablo Canyon has been a
reliable resource, and that other generation resources have been less reliable.
(CGNP Opening Brief at 40.) The reliability of the plant and the reliability of the
system are separate things, and there has been clear testimony that the
retirement of Diablo Canyon would not adversely affect the reliability of the
system. (Transcript Vol. 6 at 957-958.)6 As Joint Opponents unequivocally state:
“Diablo Canyon, an inflexible resource, is not needed either for system or local
5 One other party, Environmental Progress, made a similar argument in its protest of the
application, but did not present testimony or file briefs.
6 For example, if a person owned 12 cars, but never used more than three cars at one time,
selling cars 11 and 12 – even if they were more reliable than cars 9 and 10 – would not
significantly change the ability to have three operable cars.
Packet Pg 205
11
A.16-08-006 ALJ/PVA/jt2 PROPOSED DECISION
- 12 -
reliability. [fn omitted] It can be retired without impacting grid reliability.”
[fn. omitted] (Joint Opponents Opening Brief at 3.)
CGNP’s reliability argument also appears to assume that Diablo Canyon
could operate as a flexible resource that could ramp up and down to meet
changing daily demand, rather than how it has been operated, as a constant-level
baseload resource. (CGNP Opening Brief at 40.) PG&E points out that this is a
speculative and unrealistic assumption, and would make Diablo Canyon even
less cost effective:
Operating in load-following mode7 would take Diablo Canyon
outside of the currently authorized NRC license conditions and
would require extensive technical feasibility studies, redesign of
procedures, processes and systems, maintenance practices and
nuclear fuel redesign. […] It is unclear if Diablo Canyon could be
retrofitted to safely and reliably operate in a different operating
mode, whether the NRC would approve it, and whether it would be
cost-effective to do so given the reduction in capacity factor that
would result if Diablo Canyon were to be frequently ramped down
to minimum operating levels during the daytime hours when solar
power is prevalent. (PG&E Reply Brief at 7.)
Finally, CGNP argues that retiring Diablo Canyon will make it
“impossible” for the state to meet its GHG reduction goals, and accordingly it
should be relicensed and kept available. (CGNP Opening Brief at 41-42.) CGNP
claims that the retirement of Diablo Canyon would result in California importing
large amounts of fossil fuel generated electricity from PacifiCorp. (Id.)
While the specific arguments made by CGNP are not well supported by
the record, the GHG impact of Diablo Canyon’s retirement (and any replacement
7 In this mode Diablo Canyon would ramp up and down to meet daily variations in load.
Packet Pg 206
11
A.16-08-006 ALJ/PVA/jt2 PROPOSED DECISION
- 13 -
procurement) does need to be considered. This issue is discussed in more detail
below in the section addressing replacement procurement, which finds that the
question of the GHG impact of Diablo Canyon’s retirement should be addressed
in the Commission’s Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) proceeding.
Two parties – WEM and Mothers for Peace - argue that Diablo Canyon
should be shut down earlier than PG&E’s proposed 2024/2025 timing. WEM
argues that Diablo Canyon will become “commercially unreasonable” to operate
well before 2024/2025, that replacement energy is also available before then, and
given the risks associated with nuclear power, Diablo Canyon should be shut
down no later than 2020. (WEM Opening Brief at 1-2.) Mothers for Peace
similarly recommends a shutdown date of 2019/2020. (Mothers for Peace
Opening Brief at 3.)
WEM and Mothers for Peace base their arguments in part upon the
potential dangers of nuclear power. While this Commission has broad authority
over PG&E and Diablo Canyon (including non-nuclear safety), the Commission’s
authority over nuclear safety is less clear; accordingly, the Commission’s decision
on this issue is not based on nuclear safety.
But the economics of Diablo Canyon can provide a basis for this
Commission’s decision, and WEM and Mothers for Peace also argue that
Diablo Canyon will be uneconomic to operate well before 2025. WEM points out
that as PG&E’s bundled load decreases, more of Diablo Canyon’s output will
need to be sold at a loss on the wholesale market, and that: “This foreseeable
development will make continued operation of Diablo Canyon increasingly
uneconomic and dysfunctional, and this will likely begin to happen before 2020,
not 2025.” (WEM Opening Brief at 12.)
Packet Pg 207
11
A.16-08-006 ALJ/PVA/jt2 PROPOSED DECISION
- 14 -
Similarly, Mothers for Peace argues that Diablo Canyon costs are already
high:
[T]he costs of operating and maintaining Diablo Canyon are
disproportionately high for the contribution the power plant makes
to PG&E’s electrical generation capacity and, therefore, further
investment in the continued operation of Diablo Canyon is not a
prudent economical capital expense for the utility. (Id. at 8.)
Mothers for Peace also raises the additional concern that PG&E will need
to spend increasing amounts of money on maintenance and repair of Diablo
Canyon due to its age, particularly because of the degradation of a number of
major plant components. (Mothers for Peace Opening Brief at 6-9.)
WEM and Mothers for Peace raise valid concerns about the current cost of
operating Diablo Canyon, and the potential for significant costs that could be
incurred between now and 2024/25, but those concerns cannot be considered in
isolation. While shutting down Diablo Canyon in 2019/2020 might provide
some short-term cost savings, it would also provide less time for replacement
procurement to be considered in the IRP proceeding and for the development
and deployment of additional greenhouse gas-free resources.8 The balance of
facts and policy before this Commission tends to tip against a shutdown before
2024 and 2025.9
Based on the record of this proceeding, PG&E’s proposed 2024/2025
retirement schedule for Diablo Canyon provides a reasonable amount of time for
the transition process, including further examination of replacement
8 An early shutdown would also accelerate the impacts on plant employees and the local
community.
9 To the extent Diablo Canyon costs increase during the interim period, this balance could
change.
Packet Pg 208
11
A.16-08-006 ALJ/PVA/jt2 PROPOSED DECISION
- 15 -
procurement. Accordingly, PG&E’s proposed retirement schedule for Diablo
Canyon is approved. If in the interim period the facts change in a manner that
indicates Diablo Canyon should be retired earlier, the Commission may
reconsider this determination.
3.2. Proposed Replacement Procurement
In its initial Application, PG&E proposed to partially replace Diablo
Canyon with greenhouse gas-free resources in three tranches, consisting of:
1) 2,000 gross GWh of energy efficiency; 2) 2,000 GWh of GHG-free energy,
including energy efficiency and Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) eligible
energy resources; and 3) a voluntary 55 percent RPS commitment. (PG&E
Application at 9.) PG&E described these three tranches as “[A] first step towards
replacing Diablo Canyon with a portfolio of GHG-free resources.” (Id.)
While proposing this significant procurement of resources, PG&E noted
that:
Additional resources beyond those specified in the Joint Proposal
may be needed on a system-wide basis to replace the output of
Diablo Canyon. The Joint Parties envision that this issue will
primarily be addressed through the Commission’s Integrated
Resource Planning process (i.e., R.16-02-007). (Id.)
Multiple parties protested PG&E’s replacement procurement proposal,
including Shell, Sierra Club, SolarCity, TURN, and Marin Clean Energy. While
parties did not object to the idea of replacing Diablo Canyon with GHG-free
resources, they challenged the feasibility, effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, cost,
and cost allocation of PG&E’s specific proposal. (See, e.g. Shell Protest at 3-4,
Sierra Club Protest at 6-12, SolarCity Protest at 2-7, TURN Protest at 7-11, Marin
Clean Energy Protest at 7-10.)
Packet Pg 209
11
A.16-08-006 ALJ/PVA/jt2 PROPOSED DECISION
- 16 -
In their testimony, multiple parties expanded upon their criticisms of
PG&E’s replacement procurement proposal. Some raised procedural objections.
For example, ORA argued that no replacement procurement should be
addressed in this proceeding, but it should instead be addressed in the IRP
proceeding. (Ex. ORA-3 at 1-5, Ex. ORA-5 at 7-8.) Others, such as MCE,
questioned the need for any replacement procurement:
It is certainly possible that there is no need at all to replace the
generation that will be lost when PG&E closes Diablo Canyon.
…[D]iscontinued operation of the facility, from an operational
perspective, is likely a solution to PG&E’s declining energy
requirements in and of itself. (Ex. MCE-1 at 10.)
Subsequently, on February 27, 2017, PG&E provided notice to the service
list that it was withdrawing part of its replacement procurement proposal:
Specifically, after careful review of the important feedback provided
by parties in their January 27, 2017 opening testimony on the Diablo
Canyon replacement proposal, PG&E is withdrawing the Diablo
Canyon Tranches #2 and #3 replacement proposals, as well as the
proposal to implement the Clean Energy Charge to recover the costs
associated with Tranches #2 and #3. The Joint Parties believe that
these aspects of the Diablo Canyon replacement proposal are better
addressed in the Commission’s Integrated Resource Plan (“IRP”)
proceeding (Rulemaking 16-02-007). (PG&E February 27, 2017
e-mail.)
PG&E modified its direct testimony to reflect this change. Subsequently,
the other parties took a range of positions; some parties (primarily the Joint
Parties) supported PG&E’s new position, others proposed different partial
replacement procurement schemes, and still others recommended that all
replacement procurement be addressed in the IRP proceeding.
Packet Pg 210
11
A.16-08-006 ALJ/PVA/jt2 PROPOSED DECISION
- 17 -
Some parties recommended that the Commission approve partial
replacement procurement for Diablo Canyon in this proceeding, but in a form
different than that proposed by PG&E:
The GPI supports the authorization in this proceeding of an early
tranche of procurement of greenhouse-gas-free resources that can be
brought online prior to the retirement of DCPP, but only if the
procurement is primarily an all-source procurement. (GPI
Opening Brief at 19, emphasis in original.)
Thus, CEERT continues to strongly support the authorization of the
Tranche #1 and Tranche #2 competitive solicitations in this
Application, without deferral to the IRP Process, as critical “early action”
GHG-free energy procurement to meet PG&E’s bundled customer
need upon the retirement of Diablo Canyon and as a contingency
plan in the event of early retirement or shutdown, with cost
recovery approved according to existing ratemaking and cost
allocation mechanisms. (CEERT Opening Brief at 7, emphasis in
original.)
IEP similarly argued that PG&E should immediately be directed to do an
“all-source” solicitation in order to take advantage of federal tax credits for
renewable generation projects that are expected to expire or decline in the near
future. (IEP Opening Brief at 1-2, 11-12.)
Other parties recommend that the Commission NOT authorize any
replacement procurement in this proceeding, but instead advocate that the
Commission should do a need analysis (and any resulting authorization) in the
IRP proceeding. Those parties include Shell:
The appropriate forum for consideration of all Diablo Canyon
replacement procurement, including PG&E’s proposed first
“tranche” of procurement, is the IRP proceeding. Ex. Shell-i at
pp. 4-7 (Dyer). SB 350 provides that the investor-owned utilities’
(“IOU”) procurement planning decisions must be made in the
context of a comprehensive planning process. [fn. omitted] PG&E’s
Packet Pg 211
11
A.16-08-006 ALJ/PVA/jt2 PROPOSED DECISION
- 18 -
proposal in this proceeding, to replace a portion of Diablo Canyon
energy output with energy efficiency, interferes with the
Commission’s ability to establish a comprehensive procurement
strategy for PG&E in the IRP proceeding. (Shell Opening Brief
at 2-3.)
ORA makes a similar argument as well:
In its testimony, ORA recommended that no replacement
procurement be addressed in this proceeding. ORA continues to
make that recommendation since PG&E has not withdrawn its
Tranche #1 proposal, and other parties may seek Commission
approval of the Tranche #2 and #3 proposals even though PG&E has
withdrawn them.
As ORA noted in its testimony, R.16-02-007, the Commission’s
Integrated Resource Planning and Long-Term Procurement
Planning rulemaking (“Integrated Resource Planning proceeding”)
is the appropriate Commission proceeding to address all
replacement procurement associated with the closure of the Diablo
Canyon units. […]
PG&E will be required to perform portfolio optimization as part of
its IRP in 2017. PG&E has likely included Energy Efficiency as part
of its proposed preferred resources portfolio. The correct, optimized
levels of these resources will be determined in the Commission’s IRP
system plan.
PG&E’s proposal for replacement procurement outside of the IRP
portfolio optimization process creates the potential for
over-procurement in PG&E’s service territory, thereby leading to
higher costs for customers and resulting in a sub-optimal resource
plan. (ORA Opening Brief at 4-5, fn. omitted)
In addition to arguments that replacement procurement should be
addressed in the IRP proceeding rather than here, a number of parties argued
that PG&E’s remaining Tranche 1 proposal itself was flawed:
Packet Pg 212
11
A.16-08-006 ALJ/PVA/jt2 PROPOSED DECISION
- 19 -
TURN supports PG&E’s intention to dramatically scale up its
procurement of cost-effective EE [energy efficiency]. However, as
shown in TURN’s testimony and explained below, PG&E has not
met its burden of demonstrating that its Tranche 1 proposal offers
the right mechanism through which to do that. [fn. omitted] In
sum, Tranche 1 suffers from three fundamental design flaws: it may
not be feasible, it does not ensure that the EE savings will be
additional to the savings that would otherwise occur, and it does not
ensure that the EE savings will still be available when Diablo
Canyon comes offline. Moreover, the notion of a major EE
procurement outside of PG&E’s existing EE portfolio and its new EE
Business Plan is ill-conceived, and PG&E has not demonstrated that
the benefits of this separate procurement will exceed the costs.
(TURN Opening Brief at 20.)
While acknowledging that Tranche 1 may exacerbate conditions of
overgeneration and renewable curtailment, PG&E and the other
Joint Parties fail to address it: PG&E witness Strauss agreed that
procurement of just EE, as proposed in Tranche 1, may worsen
overgeneration issues. (Joint Opponents Opening Brief at 4-5,
fn. omitted.)
ORA similarly opposes PG&E’s request for $1.3 billion in customer
funding for its Tranche #1 EE procurement proposal and associated shareholder
incentive payments. According to ORA:
PG&E fails to demonstrate that its requested Tranche #1
procurement, which is an increase of more than 50% of the
currently-identified energy efficiency potential, would be cost
effective. (ORA Opening Brief at 10.)
As ORA points out, PG&E is already required under California’s loading
order for energy resources to first meet its resource needs through “all available
energy efficiency…resources that are cost effective, reliable, and feasible.”
(Id., quoting Pub. Util. Code § 454.5(b)(9)(C)(i).) According to ORA, PG&E has
acknowledged that in D.15-10-028, the Commission set a goal for PG&E to
Packet Pg 213
11
A.16-08-006 ALJ/PVA/jt2 PROPOSED DECISION
- 20 -
procure all cost-effective and feasible EE for the years 2016-2024. For 2018-2024,
the period corresponding to the Tranche #1 procurement proposal, that goal is a
total of 3,741 gross GWh savings. (Id., citing Ex. PG&E-1, at 4-3, Table 4-1,
lines 3-9.)
ORA concludes:
Yet, PG&E’s Diablo Canyon application proposes to procure an
additional 2,000 gross GWh installed in its service territory in the
same period 2018-2024. [fn. omitted] This represents an increase of
53.5% over currently approved goals for the years 2018-2024. Such a
substantial increase in the EE potential is only possible by lowering
the Commission’s threshold criteria for cost-effectiveness. Lowering
the cost-effectiveness standards would burden customers with the
cost of Energy Efficiency measures that provide insufficient value to
qualify under current standards . (ORA Opening Brief at 11.)
EPUC makes a similar argument:
While labor unions, local governments, environmental organizations
and shareholders all receive firm, defined benefits, there are no
benefits and no protections for ratepayers. Instead they shoulder
greater uncertainty and risks, and the revenue consequences as these
uncertainties are resolved. These include:
● whether any replacement of DCPP’s output is needed;
● when, if ever, that replacement should be procured;
● whether the quantity of energy efficiency (EE) to be procured in
Tranche 1 is feasible and whether it will be cost-effective, and
● whether the authorization of the Tranche 1 procurement will
conflict with and potentially impair the targets of the Rolling
Portfolio Business Plans filed by PG&E and the other utilities.
[fn. omitted] The ratepayers assume the risk that all cost effective
EE will have been procured through the Business Plan and each
of its annual updates, and that any EE authorized in this docket
will be more expensive and raise rates inefficiently. (EPUC
Opening Brief at 1-2.)
Packet Pg 214
11
A.16-08-006 ALJ/PVA/jt2 PROPOSED DECISION
- 21 -
ORA and EPUC make a good point – it is not clear that PG&E could
actually procure over 50% more energy efficiency than a goal that is already
supposed to include all cost-effective energy efficiency (unless PG&E procures
energy efficiency that is not cost effective). There is no reason to approve a
$1.3 billion rate increase for a proposal that will most likely either fail to achieve
its goal or will achieve a goal not worth reaching. Accordingly, PG&E’s
Tranche 1 proposal is not adopted.
While we are rejecting the specific replacement procurement proposed
here by PG&E, the larger question remains about what, if anything, should be
done here to ensure that the retirement of Diablo Canyon will not result in an
increase in GHG emissions. The answer to that is that we simply cannot tell
based on the record in this proceeding. Given the time between now and 2024
and 2025, the rapid changes in the California electricity market, and the growth
of renewable generation and CCAs, it is not clear based on the limited record in
this proceeding what level of GHG-free procurement (if any) may be needed to
offset the retirement of Diablo Canyon.
The IRP proceeding, however, is better equipped to make that
determination. The IRP is supposed to incorporate the analysis leading to an
optimized portfolio of resources, reflecting constraints such as GHG emissions,
reliability, cost, and RPS and energy efficiency requirements, while ensuring safe
and reliable electricity service at just and reasonable rates. (R. 16-02-007 at 13.)
In short, the IRP has the ability to look at a bigger picture than this proceeding,
and can better analyze the potential impacts of the retirement of Diablo Canyon
and its interaction with other dynamics in the electricity markets in a manner
consistent with state policies. PG&E’s previous Tranche 2 and 3 proposals would
better be considered in the IRP proceeding.
Packet Pg 215
11
A.16-08-006 ALJ/PVA/jt2 PROPOSED DECISION
- 22 -
Overall, practical and policy reasons indicate that it is better for potential
replacement procurement issues to be addressed in the Commission’s IRP
process, rather than addressing it in a more piecemeal fashion in this proceeding.
Accordingly, the need for and authorization of any replacement procurement
should be addressed in the IRP proceeding.10
3.3. Proposed Employee Program
PG&E proposes to implement an employee retention, severance and
retraining program for its Diablo Canyon employees, and requests three related
approvals from the Commission:
[1]. Recover $352.1 million in costs associated with retaining
approximately 1,500 employees at Diablo Canyon to ensure the
plant’s continued safe and efficient operation through the end of
each unit’s license in 2024 and 2025, respectively, over a 7-year
period through an annual expense-only revenue requirement of
$50.9 million beginning January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2024
through the Nuclear Decommissioning Non-Bypassable Charge
(NDNBC).
[2]. Implement the Employee Severance Program and authorize
PG&E to continue to forecast and recover the cost of the Employee
Severance Program in each subsequent Nuclear Decommissioning
Cost Triennial Proceeding (NDCTP).
[3]. Recover $11.3 million in costs associated with retraining eligible
employees at Diablo Canyon and to recover these costs over a 5-year
period through an annual expense-only revenue requirement of
$2.3 million from January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2025
through the NDNBC. (PG&E Opening Brief at i.)
10 Or in another proceeding as determined in the IRP proceeding.
Packet Pg 216
11
A.16-08-006 ALJ/PVA/jt2 PROPOSED DECISION
- 23 -
Starting with the last one, the retraining of Diablo Canyon employees is
intended to support the placement of Diablo Canyon employees who are
interested in transitioning to other employment roles within PG&E as a result of
the retirement of Diablo Canyon. (Ex. PG&E 1 at 7-8.) While the precise
components and details of this program have not been determined, PG&E
identifies possible elements of the program, including support for an internal
PG&E job search, limited wage protection, professional and technical training
and relocation assistance. (Id.)
PG&E forecasts the cost of the retraining program to be approximately
$11.3 million, to be recovered through the NDNBC. (Id. at 7-11.) PG&E also
requests a new two-way expense-only subaccount (the Employee Retraining
Program Subaccount) within the existing Diablo Canyon Retirement Balancing
Account.
The proposed retraining program is directly related to the retirement of
Diablo Canyon, and the cost of the program is recoverable in rates through the
NDNBC. (Pub. Util. Code sections 8322(g) and 8330.) PG&E’s request for the
retraining program, the new two-way expense-only subaccount, and associated
rate recovery through the NDNBC is approved.
PG&E has in place an Employee Severance Program, which provides
payments of specified amounts to employees whose jobs will be eliminated upon
the closure of Diablo Canyon. (Ex. PG&E -1 at 7-7.) The Employee Severance
Program is directly related to the decommissioning of Diablo Canyon, and
$148 million in estimated costs for the program are already incorporated into
Packet Pg 217
11
A.16-08-006 ALJ/PVA/jt2 PROPOSED DECISION
- 24 -
PG&E’s decommissioning estimate. (Ex. PG&E-1 at 7-11.)11 PG&E does not
request rate recovery for the severance program in this proceeding, as the
forecast and recovery of costs are being addressed in PG&E’s NDCTP. (Id.) A
severance program for Diablo Canyon employees is appropriate in light of the
plant’s pending retirement, and the cost and ratemaking for that program should
continue to be addressed in PG&E’s nuclear decommissioning proceeding.
PG&E’s proposed employee retention program, however, is not so clearly
related to the decommissioning of the plant. EPUC argues that the costs of the
retention program are not related to the decommissioning of the plant, but rather
to its continued operation:
The retention program is part of the operating costs of the plant,
incurred to ensure there are qualified employees to continue to
operate the plant. As Ms. King testified, it has been a regular
practice in the past to increase wages of plant employees to retain
them. [fn. omitted] Such operating costs have been, and should
continue to be, recovered through the energy rates charged to
bundled customers, who benefit from the operation of the plant.
(EPUC Reply Brief at 6.)
In response, PG&E argues that the retention program is related to the
retirement of the plant, as absent that there would not be a need for the retention
plan:
The only reason the Employee Program is necessary is due to the
announcement that PG&E would retire and decommission the plant.
Accordingly, there is a direct causal link between the closure of the
plant and the Employee Program, making it appropriate to recover
the costs of the Employee Program through decommissioning rates.
(PG&E Reply Brief at 66.)
11 PG&E’s more recent estimate of the cost of the program is $168 million.
Packet Pg 218
11
A.16-08-006 ALJ/PVA/jt2 PROPOSED DECISION
- 25 -
At the same time, however, PG&E acknowledges that it intends to
continue to operate Diablo Canyon for almost a decade before it plans to actually
retire the plant. (Ex. PG&E-1 at 7-2.) Looking at PG&E’s proposal, it appears to
confirm that EPUC’s position is correct: PG&E is proposing to keep operating
Diablo Canyon until 2024/2025, and is proposing the retention program for the
purpose of keeping the plant operating, not for the purpose of shutting it down.
(PG&E Reply Brief at 49.) This is further reinforced by the fact that the retention
program ends on August 31, 2023, but the plant will not completely retire until
2025. (Ex. PG&E-1 at 7-4.) Accordingly, rate recovery for the employee retention
plan should come through the existing ratemaking treatment for the operation of
Diablo Canyon, not through the NDNBC.
In addition, there are problems with the design and the resulting cost of
PG&E’s proposal. PG&E, with the support of the Joint Parties, proposes to pay
retention bonuses to every employee of the plant who continues to work through
specified time periods. PG&E proposes two “tiers” of retention payments. Tier 1
would run from September 1, 2016 through August 31, 2020, would provide a
retention payment to each employee of 25% of the employee’s base salary at the
end of each of the four years, and would cost $191.6 million. Tier 2 would run
from September 1, 2020 through August 31, 2023, would provide a retention
payment to each employee of 25% of the employee’s base salary at the end of
each of the three years, and would cost $160.5 million. (Ex. PG&E-1 at 7-4 and
7-6.) PG&E’s estimated $352.1 million cost for the retention plan assumes that
approximately 1,500 employees would be retained until August 31, 2023.
(Id. at 7-6.)
Packet Pg 219
11
A.16-08-006 ALJ/PVA/jt2 PROPOSED DECISION
- 26 -
ORA and CGNP oppose PG&E’s employee retention program as
proposed. ORA argues that ratepayers should not pay for the $191.6 million cost
of Tier 1, but generally supports rate recovery for the $160.5 million cost of Tier 2.
(ORA Opening Brief at 25.) CGNP argues that the entire retention program is
unnecessary (CGNP Opening Brief at 14-17), but does note that retention
payments may be necessary for a very limited set of hard-to-fill positions.
(Id. at 15.)
PG&E’s proposal appears to have a significant “free rider” problem that
PG&E does not address, and as such the proposal is overly generous with
ratepayer funding. The 1,500 employees eligible to receive the retention
payments include all active full-time employees working at Diablo Canyon, plus
those who support Diablo Canyon operations and those whose job or job
functions would be eliminated as a result of Diablo Canyon’s retirement.
Contractors and temporary or rotational employees would not be eligible.
(Ex. PG&E-1 at 7-4, fn. 1.) In short, PG&E is asking the ratepayers to pay for a
retention payment for every full-time PG&E employee at Diablo Canyon. As
PG&E puts it: “The Employee Retention Program is aimed to keep the entire
employee population retained until August 31, 2023.” (Id. at 7-6.)
PG&E’s testimony does not adequately address factual questions such as
how many employees would continue to work at Diablo Canyon (until it closes)
without a retention payment, or how many employees would leave their
employment at Diablo Canyon regardless of a retention payment. In both of
Packet Pg 220
11
A.16-08-006 ALJ/PVA/jt2 PROPOSED DECISION
- 27 -
those situations, the retention payment provides no benefit to ratepayers.12
PG&E has significant data about the Diablo Canyon workforce, including
retirement eligibility, and has done modeling of potential retirements (PG&E
Opening Brief at 45; Ex. PG&E-6), but has chosen to just pay every employee,
rather than using that information to more efficiently use ratepayer funds.
CGNP, on the other hand, has used PG&E’s data to support its analysis,
and comes to a more nuanced conclusion than that embodied by PG&E’s
broad-brush proposal:
In response to Commission_001-Q15, PG&E witness King stated that
there are 442 employees eligible for full retirement and 471 eligible
for retirement with partial benefits before 2024. [fn. Omitted] These
employees constitute 63% of the 1458 regular Diablo employees, and
it is highly unlikely they would be eager to leave when they could
continue to work towards retirement. Older workers face
well-known difficulties in finding new employment, thus given the
choice of transferring within PG&E vs. a severance package if their
job was eliminated, there would be little incentive for employees to
leave voluntarily. (CGNP Opening Brief at 15.)
In another area where there is a paucity of analysis, PG&E does not
address how many employees would continue to work at Diablo Canyon after its
retirement, on tasks such as decommissioning, nuclear fuel storage, maintenance
and security. In fact, PG&E states that it does not currently know how many
employees it expects will remain at Diablo Canyon after its retirement.
(Ex. PG&E-6 at 24.) Because these employees would have continuing
employment after the plant retires, they would presumably have less of an
12 There may also be employees who would continue to work at Diablo Canyon only because of
the retention payment, but are otherwise unhappy or unmotivated with their job, so their
retention would provide little or no benefit to ratepayers.
Packet Pg 221
11
A.16-08-006 ALJ/PVA/jt2 PROPOSED DECISION
- 28 -
incentive to leave because of the retirement. But under PG&E’s proposal, all of
these employees would still receive ratepayer-funded retention payments.
PG&E likewise does not address the potential employment prospects for
nuclear power plant employees. PG&E cites to CCUE witness Dalzell for the
argument that many Diablo Canyon employees are “high-skill, high-wage
workers and would be attractive candidates for other jobs.” (PG&E Opening
Brief at 46.) PG&E explains the basis for that argument:
The CCUE witness, Tom Dalzell, testified that based on his
experience with divestiture of PG&E’s fossil fuel and geothermal
generation facilities in the late 1990s, he was certain that absent an
employee retention package, employees would find jobs outside of
DCPP once a closure date was announced. (PG&E Opening Brief
at 46.)
This is not a valid comparison; there are many more fossil fuel plants than
there are nuclear plants, and the situation today is different from the divestiture
of plants in the 1990s. A better comparison would be to look at the relative
current and forecasted supply and demand of nuclear power plant jobs and
experienced nuclear power plant employees. These factors have a significant
impact on how likely Diablo Canyon employees will be to look for and obtain
outside employment. PG&E did not present such an analysis in this
proceeding.13
While there is certainly ratepayer benefit from Diablo Canyon being
operated in a safe and reliable manner until its retirement, PG&E has failed to
13 Nor did ORA or CGNP. One commenter at a public participation hearing stated: “Given the
current status of the nuclear industry, there is no need to pay Diablo Canyon employees an
additional $352 million in order to retain them for the eight years in question. The industry is in
serious decline.” (Transcript v. 9 at 1,446.)
Packet Pg 222
11
A.16-08-006 ALJ/PVA/jt2 PROPOSED DECISION
- 29 -
show that the amount of ratepayer dollars requested is necessary or reasonable.
Based on the record of the proceeding, the funding level recommended by ORA
is more reasonable, and we authorize rate recovery of $160.5 million for PG&E’s
employee retention program.
One aspect of PG&E’s proposed employee retention program is that PG&E
requested Commission approval of a very specific and detailed proposal,
including a payment schedule. (Ex. PG&E-1 at 7-5.)14 Under PG&E’s approach,
the specifics of the retention program would effectively be locked in place by a
Commission decision, meaning that neither employees, nor unions, nor PG&E
could renegotiate a new deal absent Commission approval. In essence, PG&E
has delegated management of the program to the Commission. ORA proposes to
provide PG&E a little more flexibility in implementing the retention program,
but limiting the payments to three years, similar to PG&E’s proposed Tier 2.
(ORA Opening Brief at 25-26.)
Because the level of funding authorized by this decision is significantly
different than the amount proposed by PG&E (and its unions), PG&E should
have the opportunity to consider (and negotiate with its unions) the best way to
implement the employee retention program. Accordingly, this decision
authorizes rate recovery for up to $160.5 million for an employee retention
program that is designed to provide incentives as needed for sufficient PG&E
employees to continue working at Diablo Canyon up until the date of its
retirement, but this decision does not specify a particular structure or schedule
for that program. PG&E is responsible for the effective management of Diablo
14 By comparison, the PG&E’s retraining program is only a general outline and an overall
budget.
Packet Pg 223
11
A.16-08-006 ALJ/PVA/jt2 PROPOSED DECISION
- 30 -
Canyon and its employees. PG&E shall file a Tier 2 Advice Letter no later than
six months from the date of this decision with a description of its employee
retention plan.
Finally, it appears that PG&E (with the participation of at least some of its
unions) has already executed retention agreements with its employees,
presumably incorporating the terms proposed by PG&E in this proceeding.
CCUE cites to these agreements, and the fact that 86% of IBEW 1245’s
represented employees15 at Diablo Canyon have signed them, as showing that
PG&E’s retention program is working. (CCUE Opening Brief at 13-14.) CGNP,
however, points out that: “[T]he 86% only means that workers will accept free
money until such times as they may quit.” (CGNP Reply Brief at 10.)
The retention payments negotiated and agreed to by PG&E and its unions
require funding from ratepayers, and accordingly require Commission approval
for their funding. Why PG&E and its unions executed these agreements with
individual employees in advance of Commission approval is unclear, as at the
time it entered into those agreements, PG&E did not have authority to make the
payments that the agreements (appear to) promise. This puts the Commission in
the position of potentially saying “no” to PG&E’s proposal, while the employees
may already be thinking that the answer is “yes.” PG&E should not be making
promises (even implied ones) to its employees that it does not know it can keep.
PG&E is not authorized to recover in rates the cost of the existing agreements.
15 410 out of 476 represented employees.
Packet Pg 224
11
A.16-08-006 ALJ/PVA/jt2 PROPOSED DECISION
- 31 -
3.4. Proposed Community Impacts Mitigation
Program
In its Application, PG&E proposed a Community Impacts Mitigation
Program (CIMP), which was described as follows:
Diablo Canyon is one of the largest employers, taxpayers, and
charitable contributors in the San Luis Obispo County area. Diablo
Canyon currently contributes approximately $22 million in property
taxes to the local community . With the retirement of Diablo
Canyon, this could decline to zero by 2025. The Parties will support
funding of continuing revenue streams to address community needs
and concerns. PG&E will propose to compensate San Luis Obispo
County for the loss of property taxes associated with the declining
rate base in Diablo Canyon through a transition period ending in
2025. The payment in lieu of taxes will be recovered through
nuclear decommissioning funding. PG&E estimates that the total
cost of the Community Impacts Mitigation Program is
approximately $49.5 million. As specified in Section 5.4.1, as a
condition of the program, PG&E will recover the costs of the
Community Impacts Mitigation Program through CPUC-approved
rates for nuclear decommissioning. (PG&E Application,
Attachment A (Joint Proposal) at 10-11.)
Later in the proceeding, PG&E entered into a proposed settlement with the
County, the Local Cities and the School District, along with the original Joint
Parties.16 This proposed settlement primarily addressed the Community Impacts
Mitigation Program, with PG&E agreeing to increase the payment to the
communities to a total $85 million, compared to the prior $49.5 million.
(Joint Motion re Settlement on Community Impacts at 2.)
16 PG&E filed a joint motion on December 28, 2016 with the County Of San Luis Obispo, the
Cities of Arroyo Grande, Atascadero, Morro Bay, Paso Robles, Pismo Beach, San Luis Obispo,
the San Luis Coastal Unified School District, FOE, NRDC, Environment California, IBEW 1245,
CCUE, and A4NR. (Joint Motion re Settlement on Community Impacts.)
Packet Pg 225
11
A.16-08-006 ALJ/PVA/jt2 PROPOSED DECISION
- 32 -
It is uncontested that the retirement of Diablo Canyon would result in
reduced local tax revenues and a loss of well-paying jobs, with a corresponding
potential for significant adverse economic impacts on the local area. The
question before this Commission is not whether there will be economic impacts,
or even the potential size and scope of those impacts,17 but rather whether PG&E
ratepayers should pay to mitigate these impacts.18
The parties presented a range of policy and legal arguments on this issue.
The policy arguments focus on issues of fairness: who benefitted from Diablo
Canyon, who bore the costs and risks of Diablo Canyon’s operation, and who
should bear the costs and risks of the plant’s retirement. (See, e.g. County
Opening Brief at 1-3, 16-17; TURN Opening Brief at 43-44.) While it is reasonable
for this Commission to consider whether the proposed payment to the
community is fair, the Commission must also consider whether that payment is
legal.
Consistent with this Commission’s decision in D.97-05-088, and in the
absence of legislative authorization, the CIMP is not approved. Utility rates
should be used to provide utility services, not government services, no matter
how beneficial those services may be. In addition, we have some concerns about
the fairness of the CIMP under the proposed settlement.
Looking first at whether the CIMP under the proposed settlement is fair to
PG&E, to the community, and to ratepayers, it is clear that the proposed
17 The economic impacts of the retirement of Diablo Canyon are to be studied pursuant to
Pub. Util. Code § 712.5, enacted in 2016.
18 Existing support for local emergency services provided through PG&E rates is not at issue in
this proceeding, and remains in effect.
Packet Pg 226
11
A.16-08-006 ALJ/PVA/jt2 PROPOSED DECISION
- 33 -
settlement on this issue is fair to PG&E. Because the cost of the payment would
be recovered in rates, PG&E itself bears no out-of-pocket costs.
ORA and TURN argue that PG&E’s willingness to provide funding to the
community is essentially a type of charitable giving, intended to enhance PG&E’s
goodwill in the community, and as such should be funded with shareholder
dollars, not ratepayer dollars. (ORA and TURN Joint Comments at 6-7.) PG&E,
the Local Cities and the County respond that the CIMP payments do not meet
the technical definitions of a charitable gift or a goodwill payment. (PG&E Reply
at 10-13; Coalition Cities19 Reply at 10-11; County Brief at 17-19.) While PG&E
and its supporters may be correct that the payments (in large part due to their
multiplicity of benefits) may not squarely fall into the technical definitions of
charitable giving or goodwill payments, ORA and TURN raise a fair point that as
a practical matter, PG&E will garner praise and enhance its reputation in the
community as a result of the CIMP. (ORA and TURN Comments at 6-7.)
PG&E also gets another benefit: the support (or at least non-opposition) of
the settling parties for its other litigation positions. The settling parties agreed to:
[S]upport the Employee Program as proposed by PG&E in its
Application initiating this proceeding, and the County, the Cities,
and the District agree not to oppose or to take no position on the
remaining relief requested in PG&E’s Application, as modif[i]ed by
the Agreement. (Joint Motion, December 28, 2016 at 2.)
19 The “Coalition Cities” are the same as the “Local Cities”: Arroyo Grande, Atascadero,
Morro Bay, Paso Robles, Pismo Beach, and San Luis Obispo.
Packet Pg 227
11
A.16-08-006 ALJ/PVA/jt2 PROPOSED DECISION
- 34 -
In short, this appears to be a very good deal for PG&E – it gains some
community goodwill, and gets support (or eliminates potential opposition) for its
litigation positions, and all at no financial cost.
The fairness to the community is less clear. While the proposed
settlement’s payment of $85 million is a clear benefit to the recipient community,
it is not clear that the payment is allocated fairly. The County, Local Cities, and
the School District, which are parties to the proceeding, negotiated the proposed
payment with PG&E, are getting a total of $85 million in funding. There are,
however, other cities and local districts that will be affected by the retirement of
Diablo Canyon that are not parties to the settlement, and do not receive direct
funding under the proposal.20 (See, Transcript vol. 9 at 1,389-91, 1,436-37.)
Overall, the amount and allocation of payments appears to have more to do with
PG&E’s litigation needs than the economic needs of the community. While the
community strongly supports the proposed settlement, we cannot tell from the
record whether the proposed payment, and particularly its allocation, is fair to
the affected communities. A clearer picture of the economic impacts on the
community should be available upon completion of the assessment required
under Pub. Util. Code § 712.5.
Finally, it is essential to consider whether the proposed settlement is fair to
PG&E’s ratepayers, who are being asked to pay the $85 million cost of the
payment program. ORA and TURN oppose the proposed payment. ORA
argues that the payments to be made “would effectively be a substitute for
20 They may, however, get funds allocated to them via the County.
Packet Pg 228
11
A.16-08-006 ALJ/PVA/jt2 PROPOSED DECISION
- 35 -
PG&E’s property taxes,” and should not be funded by PG&E customers. (ORA
Opening Brief at 29.)
In its reply brief, PG&E argues that the CIMP: “is not intended to be an
in-lieu or substitute tax.” (PG&E Reply Brief at 53.) According to PG&E: “The
decline in tax revenues is one measure of the magnitude of the direct fiscal
impacts to local governments, and it was therefore appropriate for the settling
parties to consider the size of those tax revenue declines in negotiating the
appropriate amount of mitigation,” but the payment should not be thought of as
a tax payment or a substitute for a tax payment. (PG&E Reply Brief at 53-55; see
also County Opening Brief at 19.)
One problem with this attempt to finesse the nature of the CIMP into
something other than a substitute for lost tax revenue is that it is contradicted by
other statements on the record:
With regard to economic and fiscal impacts, the Cities argued that,
at a minimum, PG&E should be required to make payments to the
Cities equal to their combined property, sales, and other local taxes
over the nine-year period to mitigate the decline in the taxes that the
plant’s operations have traditionally provided. (Joint Motion at 10,
citing to Protest.)
And: ”The District intervened in this proceeding because the property tax PG&E
pays for Diablo Canyon each year accounts for a significant portion of the
District’s annual funding.” (Id. at 10, citing to Response of School District.)
While all of the money at issue may not be specifically designated as a
substitute for tax payment, as a practical matter a significant amount of the
money to be collected from ratepayers is in fact a substitute for tax revenue.
Accordingly, we have to analyze whether it is appropriate to substitute
ratepayers for taxpayers, which raises legal as well as policy issues.
Packet Pg 229
11
A.16-08-006 ALJ/PVA/jt2 PROPOSED DECISION
- 36 -
The parties contesting this issue cite to Commission Resolution E-3535,
adopted in 1998, which addressed a similar issue, also for Diablo Canyon. The
parties are correct that Resolution E-3535 is on point here; but in order to
understand and apply the logic of Resolution E-3535, it is essential to consider
D.97-05-088, which led to the Commission’s adoption of Resolution E-3535. In
the proceeding leading to D.97-05-088, in the wake of electric restructuring:
The County of San Luis Obispo and the San Luis Coastal Unified
School District (County) seek protection against the risk that Diablo
Canyon-related property taxes will decrease precipitously and
jeopardize the ability of the County to provide basic public and
educational services. If the threat actually materializes, the County
wants to be made whole. By its recommendation, the County seeks
adoption by the Commission of a mechanism that insures that the
County has the opportunity to recover the property tax revenues
they had a reasonable expectation of receiving but for electric
restructuring. (D.97-05-088 at 91.)
In that proceeding, the Commission held that: “The County's proposal
that ratepayers pay for property taxes that PG&E does not incur is not permitted
under either general ratemaking principles or public utility law.” (Id. at 100.) As
a result, the Commission held that the County should direct its request for relief
to the Legislature, not the Commission.21 (Id.) The Commission reaches the same
result today.
Because the analysis set forth by the Commission in D.97-05-088 is directly
on point, we quote it here at length:
The County of San Luis Obispo and the San Luis Coastal Unified
School District (County) seek protection against the risk that Diablo
21 The County did so, and received limited relief, which was then implemented via Resolution
E-3535.
Packet Pg 230
11
A.16-08-006 ALJ/PVA/jt2 PROPOSED DECISION
- 37 -
Canyon-related property taxes will decrease precipitously and
jeopardize the ability of the County to provide basic public and
educational services. If the threat actually materializes, the County
wants to be made whole. By its recommendation, the County seeks
adoption by the Commission of a mechanism that insures that the
County has the opportunity to recover the property tax revenues
they had a reasonable expectation of receiving but for electric
restructuring.
The County recommendation is that this Commission should:
• Find that $ 158 million (NPV in 1999 dollars) represents a
reasonable estimate of the potential difference between property tax
revenues that the County would have received from PG&E in the
absence of accelerated recovery of Diablo Canyon depreciation and
what the County could actually receive given restructuring.
[…]
• Order that the $ 158 million in potentially forgone property taxes
be collected by PG&E as CTC at a rate of $ 39.5 million per year
during the CTC recovery period and held in a separate, segregated
interest-bearing account until 2026.
• Order PG&E, starting in 1999 and continuing thereafter on an
annual basis, to withdraw funds from the segregated CTC account
and to remit to the County the difference between the estimated tax
payments based upon straight-line depreciation of Diablo Canyon
through the year 2026 […] and any amount of property taxes
actually determinated [sic] to be due and payable by PG&E to the
County in each year, to the extent such actual taxes are less than the
estimated straight-line depreciation based property taxes […].
[…]
The County asserts that adoption of its recommendation will
provide protection against the possibility that the County will
experience drastic reductions in property tax revenues as a direct
result of electric restructuring. If the risk of property tax reductions
does not materialize or produces lower tax revenue losses than
predicted, any excess amounts otherwise reserved for payment to
the County will be returned to ratepayers.
The County contends that the evidence produced by it shows:
Packet Pg 231
11
A.16-08-006 ALJ/PVA/jt2 PROPOSED DECISION
- 38 -
• that the County enjoys unique status by reason of long-standing,
mutual commitments with PG&E relating to the location and
operation of Diablo Canyon within the County;
• that electric restructuring, and PG&E's related pricing proposal for
Diablo Canyon in particular, create the real possibility that the
County will suffer far greater negative consequences from
restructuring than any other similarly situated stakeholder,
primarily in the form of dramatic reductions in the level of
otherwise expected property tax revenues to be received from
PG&E;
• that the consequence for the County of any property tax revenue
reductions resulting from PG&E's Diablo Canyon pricing proposal
includes severe reductions in essential public services available to
the residents and schoolchildren of San Luis Obispo County;
• that the mutual commitments between the County and PG&E and,
in particular, the County's reliance on PG&E's promises to provide
identifiable economic benefits in exchange for siting and operating a
nuclear generation facility within San Luis Obispo County, create an
enforceable entitlement to a stable and predictable level of property
tax revenues for the County throughout the projected operating life
of Diablo Canyon; and
• that the difference between property tax revenues that the County
would have received from PG&E in the absence of accelerated
recovery of Diablo Canyon depreciation and what the County
actually receives given implementation of electric restructuring is
properly recoverable (by PG&E and payable to the County)[…].
This evidence, in the opinion of the County, leads to only one
conclusion of law: It is consistent with law, policy, and the public
interest for the Commission to adopt a mechanism that will provide
a safety net for the County by ensuring that the County's property
tax receipts are unaffected by any accelerated depreciation of Diablo
Canyon authorized by the Commission in conjunction with its
initiative to restructure the state's electric industry.
Packet Pg 232
11
A.16-08-006 ALJ/PVA/jt2 PROPOSED DECISION
- 39 -
PG&E and ORA oppose the County. […]
In addition to the problems in predicting the actual impacts of
restructuring on the County, PG&E asserts that the County's
proposal to recover lost property tax revenues is legally suspect.
AB 1890 contains no explicit provision to allow utilities to recover
costs or lost governmental revenues that they are not liable for but
which are incurred by third parties, such as counties, under
restructuring. In addition, as a general principle of ratemaking,
utilities are not permitted to include in their cost of service payments
which in fact they have not incurred or accrued, or forecast to incur,
and which they have not become legally obligated to incur or accrue.
ORA states that the County has not cited any statute or rule that
would support its position. ORA notes that there has never been
any guarantee that Diablo Canyon property tax revenues would not
decrease, even in the absence of electric restructuring and PG&E's
accelerated depreciation proposal. For example, if Diablo Canyon
continued to perform at current levels in the future such that PG&E
recovered more in revenues than intended under the original
ratemaking settlement, the Commission could require a reduction in
prices as was done in 1995, or the early termination of the
ratemaking treatment. This would impact San Luis Obispo tax
revenues, even in the absence of electric restructuring. In addition,
nothing in the existing Diablo Canyon ratemaking treatment
precludes the facility from shutting down, not just for catastrophic
failure, but for economic reasons as well. Under such circumstances,
regardless of electric restructuring, there would likely be no tax
revenues for San Luis Obispo. […]
[…]
Most telling is ORA's argument that San Luis Obispo would have
the Commission impose on ratepayers what is essentially a tax that
is entirely unrelated to utility service. The County's proposal that
ratepayers pay for property taxes that PG&E does not incur is not
permitted under either general ratemaking principles or public
utility law. Section 451 of the PU Code requires:
"All charges demanded or received by any public utility ... for any
product or commodity furnished or to be furnished or any service
rendered or to be rendered shall be just and reasonable. Every
Packet Pg 233
11
A.16-08-006 ALJ/PVA/jt2 PROPOSED DECISION
- 40 -
unjust or unreasonable charge demanded or received for such
product or commodity or service is unlawful."
A utility cannot charge ratepayers costs that are unrelated to the
provision of any product or commodity or service, and the
Commission cannot lawfully order such charges. [fn. omitted]
However, ORA supports San Luis Obispo's efforts to seek relief in a
more appropriate forum. It is within the state's powers, not the
Commission's, to levy taxes and to disburse tax revenues. […]
The arguments of PG&E and ORA are persuasive. There is no legal
basis for this Commission to authorize PG&E to include in its rates
and cost of service estimated property taxes which it is not lawfully
obligated or forecasted to pay. Taxes which are included in rates are
those in effect at the time the rates are approved, unless the existing
law provides for a change at a future date. (Re Pac. Tel. & Tel. (1954)
53 CPUC 276, 295.) Absent legislative change, or Board of
Equalization change, PG&E's taxes are what they are under existing
law and the County's proposal will not change that fact. The County
must direct its request for relief to the Legislature and the Board, not
this Commission. (D.97-05-088 at 91-100.)
As in 1997, this Commission is reluctant to require ratepayers to pay for
the cost of local government services that are typically paid for by taxpayers, no
matter how beneficial those services may be. Absent legislative authorization,
utility rates should be used to provide utility services, not government services.
While Resolution E-3535 subsequently did authorize ratepayer payment to the
County and the School District, it is important to take into consideration what
happened in between D.97-05-008 and Resolution E-3535. As described in
Resolution E-3535:
After the Commission's Decision was issued, the California
Legislature passed into law Chapter 282, section 8660-001-0462,
paragraph 3, of Statutes of 1997. This new law states that if PG&E
Packet Pg 234
11
A.16-08-006 ALJ/PVA/jt2 PROPOSED DECISION
- 41 -
and the County and School District enter into a settlement that
resolves claims by the latter parties relating to the effects of AB 1890
(Brulte), enacted 1996, Chapter 854, then PG&E may recover an
additional amount, not to exceed $ 10 million, through base rates in
1998. (Resolution E-3535 at 3.)
In short, there was express legislative authorization for rate recovery for a
payment to the community, which was implemented by Resolution E-3535.
Accordingly, ratepayer funding of the CIMP is not authorized. If
legislation specifically directs this Commission to provide ratepayer funding for
the CIMP (or a similar payment to the community), the Commission would do
so, as it did in 1998. PG&E may also choose to use shareholder funds to support
the CIMP.
3.5. Recovery of License Renewal Costs
In its Application, PG&E requested rate recovery for $52.688 million in
costs incurred for its efforts to renew the NRC operating licenses for Diablo
Canyon. (Ex. PG&E-1 at 9-1.) This request was opposed by TURN, ORA, A4NR
and Mothers for Peace, who argued that PG&E should not get rate recovery for
any of the costs associated with relicensing Diablo Canyon. (See, e.g. TURN
Protest at 4-6; A4NR Protest at 5-13.)
In late 2009, PG&E filed an application with the NRC to renew Diablo
Canyon’s operating licenses. In early 2010, PG&E filed an application with this
Commission requesting rate recovery for its estimate of $85 million in costs for
Diablo Canyon NRC license renewal and related activities. (Ex. PG&E-1 at 9-4.)
Packet Pg 235
11
A.16-08-006 ALJ/PVA/jt2 PROPOSED DECISION
- 42 -
In that proceeding (A.10-01-022), PG&E, the Commission’s Division of Ratepayer
Advocates (DRA)22 and TURN reached a tentative settlement. (D.12-02-004 at 2.)
In March, 2011, prior to a hearing on the settlement, an earthquake and
tsunami caused serious damage to a nuclear plant located at Fukushima, Japan,
and the NRC effectively halted the relicensing of Diablo Canyon pending further
seismic studies. (Id. at 2-4; Ex. PG&E-1 at 9-5 to 9-6.) The Commission then
closed A.10-01-022 without addressing the proposed settlement. (D.12-02-004
at 5-7.) The proposed settlement between PG&E, DRA and TURN would have
allowed PG&E rate recovery for $80 million in licensing renewal costs.
(Ex. PG&E-5-2 at 5-19.)
While the license renewal process at the NRC was suspended, PG&E
reduced its spending on license renewal activities, but continued with some
activities in order to keep its application up-to-date (Ex. PG&E-1 at 9-6) and to
retain the ability to re-start and complete the license renewal process in the
future. (Ex. PG&E 5-2 at 5-22.) PG&E’s license renewal spending ramped back
up significantly in 2014 (although PG&E’s testimony does not clearly identify
when it re-started active work on the license renewal). (Ex. PG&E -7 at 278.)
PG&E did not return to the Commission to request approval for rate recovery of
the license renewal costs it incurred until it filed the present application in
August 2016.
PG&E divides the costs it incurred for Diablo Canyon license renewal into
three time periods: Original LRA Review (2009-11), LR On-Hold (2012-13), and
LR Re-Start (2014-16). (Id.) PG&E’s request breaks down as follows:
22 Now ORA.
Packet Pg 236
11
A.16-08-006 ALJ/PVA/jt2 PROPOSED DECISION
- 43 -
Original LRA Review (2009-11) $23,651,457
LR On-Hold (2012-2013) $ 9,290,172
LR Re-Start $19,744,364
Total $52,687,764
For all three periods, PG&E’s original request included rate recovery for
Allowance for Funds Used During Construction (AFUDC), reflecting the
financing cost of the license renewal project. (Id.) TURN and A4NR questioned
PG&E’s request for recovery of AFUDC, given that the license renewal project
was abandoned or cancelled. (See, Transcript Vol. 8 at 1214-1246.)
Subsequent to evidentiary hearings, a joint motion for adoption of a
settlement agreement was filed by PG&E, A4NR, TURN, ORA, Mothers for
Peace, FOE, NRDC, Environment California, IBEW 1245, and CCUE (Settling
Parties). The proposed settlement addresses the costs incurred by PG&E for its
license renewal activities, and recommended that PG&E be granted $18.6 million
in rate recovery. (May 23, 2017 Joint Settlement Motion at 13, 15.) The motion
explained the basis for this number:
In approaching settlement on this issue, the Settling Parties desired
to identify a set of principles upon which to base that settlement.
One principle was that PG&E should recover its direct costs
incurred during the time that the project was reasonably and
prudently undertaken. In this regard, the Settling Parties agreed, for
the purpose of compromise and without conceding their litigation
positions, that the Commission should consider the project
reasonably and prudently undertaken from its inception in 2009
until April 10, 2011, when PG&E requested that the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (“NRC”) defer issuance of the Diablo
Canyon renewed operating licenses. [fn. omitted] The Settling
Parties then agreed that PG&E should not recover the direct costs
incurred subsequent to that deferral request. After reviewing the
costs of the project as summarized in Exhibit PG&E-2, as corrected
in Attachment 2 to this Motion, the Settling Parties submit that
Packet Pg 237
11
A.16-08-006 ALJ/PVA/jt2 PROPOSED DECISION
- 44 -
$18.6 million is a reasonable approximation of the direct costs
incurred between the project inception and April 10, 2011 that
should be authorized for recovery. Finally, the Settling Parties
agreed that no AFUDC should be recovered for the License Renewal
Project as a reasonable sharing of risk between customers and
shareholders. (Id. at 12-13.)
The parties opposing PG&E’s original request support the settlement. The
$18.6 million figure is supported by the record, is well within the range of
possible litigation outcomes in this proceeding, and provides significant
ratepayer saving compared to PG&E’s original request of more than $52 million.
It was reasonable for PG&E to have spent that amount of money in 2009 to 2011
to seek to renew the operating licenses for Diablo Canyon. The removal of
AFUDC from the amount sought, given that the relicensing was not completed,
also supports the conclusion that the amount is reasonable. The proposed
settlement meets the requirements of Rule 12.1(d).
While nuclear power plants are controversial, and renewal of Diablo
Canyon’s licenses would have drawn opposition, the record supports a finding
that PG&E’s decision to seek renewal of Diablo Canyon’s operating license (and
its approach for doing so) from 2009 to April 2011 was reasonable. PG&E
requested Commission approval for rate recovery of the costs of renewal at
approximately the time they began to actively pursue license renewal, which
provided an opportunity for parties (and the Commission) to address the
reasonableness of their decision. In that proceeding, DRA and TURN agreed to a
proposed settlement allowing PG&E rate recovery for its relicensing costs, which
implies that they believed PG&E’s course of action to be reasonable, or at a
minimum that they believed the Commission would find it reasonable. The
Commission also had a potential opportunity to determine that it was
Packet Pg 238
11
A.16-08-006 ALJ/PVA/jt2 PROPOSED DECISION
- 45 -
unreasonable for PG&E to seek to renew Diablo Canyon’s NRC licenses, but did
not do so. And finally, the realities on the ground in California were very
different in 2009 than they are in 2017. Our current situation, with the rapid
growth of renewable generation and CCAs, had not so fully manifested itself yet,
making Diablo Canyon look to be a potentially more valuable asset then than it is
now. There is not a good basis to now find unreasonable PG&E’s decision in
2009 to pursue relicensing of Diablo Canyon.23 Accordingly, it is reasonable to
grant PG&E rate recovery for the costs (not including AFUDC) that it incurred
through April 2011, as proposed by the settlement.
The rate recovery structure of the proposed settlement is described:
The Agreement further provides that PG&E should be authorized to
recover the $18.6 million through an annual, levelized, expense-only
revenue requirement to be recovered from customers over an 8-year
period from January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2025, through
the generation rate component of PG&E’s rates. (May 23, 2017 Joint
Settlement Motion at 15.)
The proposed settlement on license renewal costs is approved, including
the amount of cost recovery and the ratemaking structure. The provisions of the
proposed settlement addressing cancelled capital projects are discussed in the
Proposed Ratemaking and Cost Allocation Issues section below.
3.6. Proposed Ratemaking and Cost Allocation
Issues
PG&E’s proposed ratemaking treatment for Diablo Canyon as it
approaches retirement does not alter the existing ratemaking treatment, which
23 Whether PG&E was reasonable to continue relicensing activities after April 2011 is less clear,
and the proposed settlement’s use of that date as a cutoff is reasonable and is supported by the
record.
Packet Pg 239
11
A.16-08-006 ALJ/PVA/jt2 PROPOSED DECISION
- 46 -
has generation rates based on a depreciation schedule that assumes Diablo
Canyon will be retired (and depreciated to zero) at the end of 2024 for Unit 1 and
the end of 2025 for Unit 2. (PG&E Opening Brief at 70.)24 PG&E does propose to
add an annual true-up to reflect actual depreciation and capital spending at
Diablo Canyon. (Id., citing Ex. PG&E-1, at 10-4.)
PG&E also proposes:
For capital additions after 2016, PG&E proposes to simplify the
recovery over the remaining years of Diablo Canyon’s operations by
calculating a remaining life depreciation rate based on the vintage of
the addition. Thus, a capital addition project that goes into service
in 2017 would have an assumed 8-year life/depreciation schedule
and a capital addition project added in 2018 would have an assumed
7-year life/depreciation schedule.
Beginning in 2017, PG&E will true-up the depreciation rates for
plant and capital additions set in the 2017 GRC [general rate case]
with the actual costs incurred/recorded for these two categories. To
implement this proposal, PG&E proposes to establish a new 2-way
subaccount within the proposed Diablo Canyon Retirement
Balancing Account that would be called the “Diablo Canyon Capital
Depreciation Subaccount.” This subaccount would track and adjust
the capital revenue requirements associated with Diablo Canyon’s
net book value and capital additions. Starting in 2018, PG&E
proposes to file in May of each year a Tier 3 advice letter trueing-up
the prior year’s forecast to recorded costs and establishing the
amount of the depreciation rate adjustment that will be incorporated
into the AET advice letter for January 1 of the next year. (PG&E
Opening Brief at 70-71, fn. omitted.)
24 The net plant cost for Diablo Canyon (which PG&E forecasts to be $1.805 billion) and its
recovery in rates are addressed in PG&E’s GRC.
Packet Pg 240
11
A.16-08-006 ALJ/PVA/jt2 PROPOSED DECISION
- 47 -
In general, this approach (and the new subaccount) is reasonable.
However, the review and true-up process should be reviewed in a GRC (or in a
process established in a GRC) rather than by advice letter.
For the employee retraining program, as discussed in the employee
program section above, the estimated cost of $11.3 million is recoverable in rates
through the NDNBC. PG&E’s request for a new two-way expense-only
subaccount (the Employee Retraining Program Subaccount) within the existing
Diablo Canyon Retirement Balancing Account is approved.
For the employee retention program, as discussed in the employee
program section above, PG&E is authorized rate recovery for up to $160.5 million
through the existing ratemaking treatment for the operation of Diablo Canyon.
PG&E is authorized to establish a two-way expense-only balancing account (or
sub-account) consistent with this decision. PG&E shall file a Tier 2 Advice Letter
no later than six months from the date of this decision with a description of its
employee retention plan.
For the costs of PG&E’s NRC license renewal project, as discussed in the
license renewal costs section above, PG&E is authorized to recover $18.6 million
for the license renewal project through an annual, levelized, expense-only
revenue requirement of approximately $2.4 million to be recovered from
customers over an 8-year period from January 1, 2018, through December 31,
2025, through the generation rate component of PG&E’s rates.
For cancelled capital projects at Diablo Canyon, PG&E is authorized rate
recovery generally consistent with the proposed settlement on relicensing costs,
under which:
PG&E would be authorized to recover 100% of the direct costs
associated with cancelled capital projects at Diablo Canyon recorded
to the project as of June 30, 2016, and would be further authorized to
Packet Pg 241
11
A.16-08-006 ALJ/PVA/jt2 PROPOSED DECISION
- 48 -
recover 25% of the direct costs associated with cancelled capital
projects recorded after June 30, 2016. All other direct costs and the
Allowance for Funds Used During Construction (“AFUDC”)
associated with such projects would not be recovered from
customers. (May 23, 2017 Joint Settlement Motion at 3.)
PG&E’s original position in its Application was that:
In any instance in which PG&E decided in the future to cancel
Diablo Canyon capital projects, PG&E proposed that the total
projects costs incurred at the time of the decision to cancel be
recovered from customers.25 (Id. at 8)
Accordingly, the proposed settlement results in potentially significant
(albeit unquantified) cost savings to ratepayers. The proposed settlement on
cancelled capital projects is approved, with one modification. PG&E should
make its specific cost recovery requests through its GRC process (or another
formal application), rather than through an advice letter process.
3.7. Additional Issues
The Scoping Memo in this proceeding stated:
It is premature to address land use, facilities and decommissioning
issues. At the same time, parties expressed concern that deferring
consideration of these issues could result in PG&E making changes
that would preclude future options. PG&E must obtain Commission
approval under Pub. Util. Code § 851 prior to selling, leasing, or
otherwise encumbering utility-owned land or facilities. While some
of the land at issue is owned by a subsidiary of PG&E, PG&E has
committed to take no action with any of the lands and facilities,
whether owned by the utility or a subsidiary, before completion of a
future process including a public stakeholder process, and states
that the parties will not be prejudiced by excluding these issues from
25 In addition, those capital project costs charged would include AFUDC.
Packet Pg 242
11
A.16-08-006 ALJ/PVA/jt2 PROPOSED DECISION
- 49 -
the current scope of this proceeding. PG&E is directed to abide by
that commitment. (Scoping Memo at 6.)
The commitments and directions in the Scoping Memo are reiterated here
in order to ensure that there will be local input and further Commission review
prior to the disposition of Diablo Canyon facilities and surrounding lands.
All unaddressed motions are denied.
4. Comments on Proposed Decision
The proposed decision of ALJ Allen was mailed to the parties in
accordance with Section 311 of the Public Utilities Code, and comments were
allowed under Rule 14.3 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.
Comments were filed on _______ by _______. Reply comments were filed on
______ by ________.
5. Assignment of Proceeding
Michael Picker is the assigned Commissioner and Peter V. Allen is the
assigned Administrative Law Judge in this proceeding.
Findings of Fact
1. Continuing operation of Diablo Canyon Unit 1 beyond 2024 and Unit 2
beyond 2025 would require renewal of NRC licenses, and would not be cost
effective.
2. The retirement of Diablo Canyon will not cause adverse impacts on local or
system reliability.
3. The impact of the retirement of Diablo Canyon on greenhouse gas
emissions is not clear.
4. The IRP proceeding is broader in scope than this proceeding, and is
considering issues including greenhouse gas emissions and optimized portfolios
of generation resources.
Packet Pg 243
11
A.16-08-006 ALJ/PVA/jt2 PROPOSED DECISION
- 50 -
5. PG&E employees at Diablo Canyon who want to transfer to other jobs at
PG&E due to the retirement of Diablo Canyon may require retraining and related
assistance.
6. PG&E’s proposed employee retention plan is costly and inefficient.
7. A reasonable employee retention plan may help to ensure the continued
safe operation of Diablo Canyon until its retirement.
8. The CIMP is largely intended to substitute for anticipated lost tax revenue.
9. PG&E’s original request for rate recovery for relicensing costs totaled
$52.688 million for expenses from 2009 through 2016, including AFUDC.
10. The proposed settlement on relicensing costs would provide PG&E $18.6
million in rate recovery for expenses from 2009 through 2011, and excludes
AFUDC.
11. The proposed settlement on cancelled capital projects reduces ratepayer
exposure to the cost of those projects.
12. It is premature to address land use, facilities and decommissioning issues.
13. PG&E has committed to take no action with any of the Diablo Canyon
lands and facilities before completion of a future public stakeholder process.
Conclusions of Law
1. PG&E’s proposal to retire Diablo Canyon Unit 1 in 2024 and Unit 2 in 2025
is reasonable, and should be approved.
2. The need for procurement to replace Diablo Canyon should be addressed
in the IRP proceeding.
3. The greenhouse gas impacts of retiring Diablo Canyon and any
procurement to replace Diablo Canyon should be addressed in the IRP
proceeding.
Packet Pg 244
11
A.16-08-006 ALJ/PVA/jt2 PROPOSED DECISION
- 51 -
4. Implementation of a retraining program for PG&E employees at Diablo
Canyon is reasonable, and should be approved.
5. PG&E’s proposed employee retention plan is not reasonable, and should
not be approved.
6. A focused and cost-effective employee retention plan for employees at
Diablo Canyon is reasonable, and should be approved.
7. Having ratepayers take the place of taxpayers in paying for government
services is not reasonable, and should not be approved.
8. The proposed settlement on relicensing costs is reasonable, and should be
approved.
9. The proposed settlement on cancelled capital projects is reasonable as
modified, and should be approved.
10. Land use, facilities and decommissioning issues do not need to be
addressed in this decision.
11. The proposed settlement on NRC license renewal cost meets the
requirements of Rule 12.1.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s proposal to retire Diablo Canyon
Unit 1 in 2024 and Unit 2 in 2025 is approved.
2. Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s “Tranche 1” proposal to procure
2,000 gigawatt hours of energy efficiency is not approved.
3. Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s withdrawn “Tranche 2” and
“Tranche 3” replacement procurement proposals are not approved.
Packet Pg 245
11
A.16-08-006 ALJ/PVA/jt2 PROPOSED DECISION
- 52 -
4. Replacement procurement will be addressed in the Integrated Resource
Planning proceeding or a proceeding designated by the Integrated Resource
Planning proceeding.
5. Greenhouse gas issues relating to the retirement of Diablo Canyon,
including any replacement procurement, will be addressed in the Integrated
Resource Planning proceeding or a proceeding designated by the Integrated
Resource Planning proceeding.
6. Pacific Gas and Electric Company is authorized to recover $11.3 million in
rates for its Diablo Canyon employee retraining program.
7. Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s proposed employee retention program
is not approved.
8. Pacific Gas and Electric Company shall file a Tier 2 Advice Letter no later
than six months from the date of this decision with a description of its employee
retention plan
9. Pacific Gas and Electric Company is authorized to recover $160.5 million
in rates for a Diablo Canyon employee retention program.
10. Ratepayer funding of the Community Impacts Mitigation Program is not
approved.
11. The proposed settlement on Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
license renewal costs is approved, and PG&E is authorized to recover
$18.6 million in rates for its NRC license renewal costs.
12. The proposed settlement on cancelled capital projects is approved as
modified.
13. Pacific Gas and Electric Company will take no action with respect to any of
the lands and facilities, whether owned by the utility or a subsidiary, before
completion of a future process including a public stakeholder process; there will
Packet Pg 246
11
A.16-08-006 ALJ/PVA/jt2 PROPOSED DECISION
- 53 -
be local input and further Commission review prior to the disposition of Diablo
Canyon facilities and surrounding lands.
14. Application 16-08-006 is closed
This order is effective today.
Dated , at San Francisco, California.
Packet Pg 247
11
Appendix A
Packet Pg 248
11
************ SERVICE LIST A1608006***********
- 1 -
************** PARTIES **************
Marc D. Joseph
Attorney At Law
ADAMS, BROADWELL, JOSEPH & CARDOZO
601 GATEWAY BLVD., STE. 1000
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CA 94080
(650) 589-1660
MDJoseph@AdamsBroadwell.com
For: IBEW Local Union 1245 and The Coalition of California
Utility Employees
____________________________________________
Evelyn Kahl
Counsel
ALCANTAR & KAHL LLP
345 CALIFORNIA ST., STE. 2450
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94104
(415) 421-4143
EK@a-klaw.com
For: Energy Producers and Users Coalition
____________________________________________
Nora Sheriff
Counsel
ALCANTAR & KAHL LLP
345 CALIFORNIA ST., STE. 2450
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94104
(415) 421-4143
nes@a-klaw.com
For: California Large Energy Consumers Association
____________________________________________
Danielle O. Mills
Dir
AMERICAN WIND ENERGY ASSN CALIF CAUCUS
1970 MEADOW OAK LANE
MEADOW VISTA CA 95722
(916) 320-7584
Danielle@RenewableEnergyStrat.com
For: American Wind Energy Association California Caucus
(AWEA)
____________________________________________
Ty Tosdal
Of Counsel
BRAUN BALISING MCLAUGHLIN & SMITH, P.C.
915 L. STREET, SUITE 1270
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
(916) 682-9702
Ty@TosdalLaw.com
For: City of Lancaster
____________________________________________
Scott Blaising
Counsel
BRAUN BLAISING SMITH WYNNE P.C.
915 L STREET, SUITE 1480
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
(916) 712-3961
Blaising@Braunlegal.com
For: Silicon Valley Clean Energy
____________________________________________
Kellie Smith
Policy Dir.
CAL. ENERGY EFFICIENCY INDUSTRY COUNCIL
1535 FARMERS LANE, SUITE 312
SANTA ROSA CA 95405
(707) 480-1844
Policy@EfficiencyCouncil.org
For: California Energy Efficiency Industry Council
____________________________________________
Barbara Hale
President
CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY CHOICE ASSOCIATION
1125 TAMALPAIS AVE.
SAN RAFAEL CA 94901
info@cal-cca.org
For: California Community Choice Association (CalCCA)
____________________________________________
Brad Heavner, Policy Dir.
CALIFORNIA SOLAR ENERGY INDUSTRIES
1107 9TH STREET, NO.820
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
(415) 328-2683
Brad@Calseia.org
For: California Solar Energy Industries Association
____________________________________________
Gene Nelson, Ph.D., Co-Government Liaison
CALIFORNIANS FOR GREEN NUCLEAR POWER
1375 EAST AVE, STE. 103 NO. 523
ARROYO GRANDE CA 93420
(805) 363-4697
Liaison@CGNP.org
For: Californians for Green Nuclear Power
____________________________________________
Sam Blakeslee, Ph.D., Dir
CENTRAL COAST WAVE ENERGY HUB
1530 BROAD STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO CA 93401
(805) 234-7313
Samuel@Blakeslee-Blakeslee.com
For: Central Coast Wave Energy Hub
____________________________________________
Packet Pg 249
11
************ SERVICE LIST A1608006***********
- 2 -
Austin M. Yang
Deputy City Attorney
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PL, RM 234
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102-4682
(415) 554-6761
Austin.Yang@sfgov.org
For: City and County of San Francisco
____________________________________________
David P. Lowrey
Director, Regulatory Strategy
COMVERGE, INC.
999 18TH STREET, SUITE 2300
DENVER CO 80202
(626) 260-2698
DLowrey@Comverge.com
For: Comverge, Inc. (Joint DR Parties)
____________________________________________
Jennifer A. Chamberlin
Exe Dir - Mrkt Development / Caiso
CPOWER
2633 WELLINGTON COURT
CLYDE CA 94520
(925) 332-5960
JAC@CPowerEnergyManagement.com
For: CPower (Joint DR Parties)
____________________________________________
Vidhya Prabhakaran
Attorney
DAVIS WRIGHT & TREMAINE LLP
505 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 800
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111
(415) 276-6568
VidhyaPrabhakaran@dwt.com
For: South San Joaquin Irrigation District
____________________________________________
Vidhya Prabhakaran
Attorney
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
505 MONTGOMERY ST., STE. 800
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111-6533
(415) 276-6500
VidhyaPrabhakaran@dwt.com
For: SolarCity Corporation
____________________________________________
Patrick Ferguson
Attorney
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, LLP
EMAIL ONLY
EMAIL ONLY CA 00000
(415) 276-6500
PatrickFerguson@dwt.com
For: Peninsula Clean Energy
____________________________________________
Ann L. Trowbridge
Attorney At Law
DAY CARTER & MURPHY LLP
3620 AMERICAN RIVER DRIVE, STE. 205
SACRAMENTO CA 95864
(916) 246-7303
ATrowbridge@DayCarterMurphy.com
For: California Clean DG Coalition
____________________________________________
John W. Leslie
Attorney
DENTONS US LLP
4655 EXECUTIVE DRIVE, SUITE 700
SAN DIEGO CA 92121
(619) 699-2536
John.Leslie@Dentons.com
For: Shell Energy North America (US), L.P.
____________________________________________
Daniel W. Douglass
Attorney
DOUGLASS & LIDDELL
4766 PARK GRANADA, STE. 209
WOODLAND HILLS CA 91302
(818) 961-3001
douglass@energyattorney.com
For: Direct Access Customer Coalition (DACC)
____________________________________________
Donald C. Liddell, Pc
Counsel
DOUGLASS & LIDDELL
2928 2ND AVENUE
SAN DIEGO CA 92103
(619) 993-9096
liddell@EnergyAttorney.com
For: California Energy Storage Alliance (CESA)
____________________________________________
Packet Pg 250
11
************ SERVICE LIST A1608006***********
- 3 -
Gregory Klatt, Attorney
DOUGLASS & LIDDELL
411 E. HUNTINGTON DRIVE, STE. 107-356
ARCADIA CA 91006
(626) 802-5733
Klatt@EnergyAttorney.com
For: San Luis Coastal Unified School District
____________________________________________
Matthew Vespa
Attorney
EARTHJUSTICE, CALIF. OFFICE
50 CALIFORNIA STREET, STE. 500
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111
(415) 217-2000
MVespa@Earthjustice.org
For: Sierra Club
____________________________________________
Andrew B. Brown, Attorney At Law
ELLISON SCHNEIDER & HARRIS LLP
2600 CAPITOL AVENUE, SUITE 400
SACRAMENTO CA 95816-5905
(916) 447-2166
abb@eslawfirm.com
For: Alliance for Retail Energy Market (AreM)
____________________________________________
Carolyn M. Kehrein, Consultant
ENERGY MANAGEMENT SERVICES
2602 CELEBRATION WAY
WOODLAND CA 95776
(530) 668-5600
cmkehrein@ems-ca.com
For: Energy Users Forum
____________________________________________
Erika Diamond
ENERGYHUB
232 3RD STREET, SUITE 201
BROOKLYN NY 11215
(718) 522-7051
diamond@energyhub.net
For: EnergyHub (Joint DR Parties)
____________________________________________
Mona Tierney-Lloyd, Sr. Dir., Western Regulatory Affairs
ENERNOC, INC.
PO BOX 378
CAYUCOS CA 93430
(805) 995-1618
MTierney-Lloyd@enernoc.com
For: EnerNOC, Inc. (Joint DR Parties)
____________________________________________
Dan Jacobson
Legislative Dir
ENVIRONMENT CALIFORNIA
3435 WILSHIRE BLVD., STE. 385
LOS ANGELES CA 90010
(916) 446-8062 X305
DJacobson@EnvironmentCalifornia.org
For: Environment California
____________________________________________
Larissa Koehler
Senior Attorney
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND
123 MISSION STREET, 28TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105
(415) 293-6093
lkoehler@edf.org
For: Environmental Defense Fund
____________________________________________
Kara A. Woodruff, J.D.
Founder
FRIENDS OF WILD CHERRY CANYON
1163 PISMO ST.
SAN LUIS OBISPO CA 93401
(805) 440-6650
KaraSlo@Charter.net
For: Friends of Wild Cherry Canyon
____________________________________________
Mark Shahinian
President
FUTURE GRID COALITION
15 LAPIDGE STREET, APT. 2
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94110
(917) 902-5721
Mark.Shahinian@FutureGridCoalition.org
For: Future Grid Coalition
____________________________________________
Brian T. Cragg
Attorney
GOODIN, MACBRIDE, SQUERI & DAY , LLP
505 SANSOME STREET, SUITE 900
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111
(415) 392-7900
BCragg@GoodinMacBride.com
For: Independent Energy Producers Association
____________________________________________
Packet Pg 251
11
************ SERVICE LIST A1608006***********
- 4 -
Megan Somogyi
Attorney
GOODIN, MACBRIDE, SQUERI, & DAY, LLP
505 SANSOME ST., STE. 900
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111
(415) 392-7900
MSomogyi@GoodinMacBride.com
For: County of San Luis Obispo
____________________________________________
Gregory Morris
Director
GREEN POWER INSTITUTE
2039 SHATTUCK AVENUE, STE 402
BERKELEY CA 94704
(510) 644-2700
GMorris@emf.net
For: Green Power Institute
____________________________________________
Laurence G. Chaset
Counsel
KEYES & FOX LLP
436 14TH STREET, STE. 1305
OAKLAND CA 94612
(510) 314-8386
LChaset@kfwLaw.com
For: World Business Academy
____________________________________________
Tim Mason
Policy Director
LARGE-SCALE SOLAR ASSOCIATION
EMAIL ONLY
EMAIL ONLY CA 00000
(510) 812-1416
Tim@LargeScaleSolar.org
For: Large-Scale Solar Association
____________________________________________
Alvin S. Pak
Attorney At Law
LAW OFFICES OF ALVIN S. PAK
827 JENSEN COURT
ENCINITAS CA 92024
(619) 209-1865
Apak@AlPakLaw.com
For: Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility (A4NR)
____________________________________________
Megan M. Myers, Attorney
LAW OFFICES OF SARA STECK MYERS
122 - 28TH AVENUE
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94121
(415) 994-1616
MeganMMyers@yahoo.com
For: Geothermal Energy Association (GEA)
____________________________________________
Sara Steck Myers, Attorney At Law
LAW OFFICES OF SARA STECK MYERS
122 - 28TH AVENUE
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94121
(415) 387-1904
ssmyers@att.net
For: Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies
(CEERT)
____________________________________________
Shawn Marshall, Director
LEAN ENERGY US
PO BOX 961
MILL VALLEY CA 94941
(415) 888-8007
SMarshall@LeanEnergyUS.org
For: Lean Energy US
____________________________________________
Frank R. Lindh, Attorney At Law
340 SANTA MARGARITA
SAN RAFAEL CA 94901
(415) 596-3931
FrankRichLindh@gmail.com
For: Friends of the Earth (FOE)
____________________________________________
Michael Callahan, Reg. Counsel
MARIN CLEAN ENERGY
EMAIL ONLY
EMAIL ONLY CA 00000
(415) 464-6045
MCallahan@MCECleanEnergy.org
For: Marin Clean Energy (MCE)
____________________________________________
Steven R. Meyers, Attorney
MEYERS NAVE
555 12TH STREET, STE. 1500
OAKLAND CA 94607
(510) 808-2100
SMeyers@MeyersNave.com
For: City of San Luis Obispo, Pismo Beach, Paso Robles, Arroyo
Grande, Morro Bay and Atascadero.
____________________________________________
Packet Pg 252
11
************ SERVICE LIST A1608006***********
- 5 -
Ralph Cavanagh
Counsel
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL
111 SUTTER STREET, 21/F
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94104
(415) 875-6100
RCavanagh@nrdc.org
For: Natural Resources Defense Council
____________________________________________
Matthew Duesterberg
Ceo
OHMCONNECT, INC.
350 TOWNSEND ST., STE. 210
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94107
(404) 881-8659
Matt@ohmConnect.com
For: OhmConnect, Inc.
____________________________________________
William V. Manheim
Attorney
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY LAW DEPT.
77 BEALE STREET / PO BOX 7442 (B30A)
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94120
(415) 973-6628
wvm3@pge.com
For: Pacific Gas and Electric Company
____________________________________________
Charles R. Middlekauff
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
LAW DEPT.
77 BEALE STREET, B30A / BOX 7442
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105
(415) 973-6971
CRMd@pge.com
For: Pacific Gas and Electric Company
____________________________________________
Frank Jablonski
Attorney
PROGRESSIVE LAW GROUP, LLC
354 W. MAIN STREET
MADISON WI 53703
(608) 258-8511
FrankJ@ProgressiveLaw.com
For: Environmental Progress
____________________________________________
Marcie Milner
Vp - Regulatory Affairs
SHELL ENERGY NORTH AMERICA (US), L.P.
4445 EASTGATE MALL, SUITE 100
SAN DIEGO CA 92121
(858) 526-2106
marcie.milner@shell.com
For: Shell Energy North America (US), L.P.
____________________________________________
Steven S. Shupe
General Counsel
SONOMA CLEAN POWER AUTHORITY
50 SANTA ROSA AVE., 5TH FL.
SANTA ROSA CA 95404
(707) 890-8485
SShupe@SonomaCleanPower.org
For: Sonoma Clean Power Authority
____________________________________________
Matthew Freedman, Staff Attorney
THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK
785 MARKET STREET, 14TH FL
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103
(415) 929-8876 X-308
matthew@turn.org
For: TURN
____________________________________________
Laura J. Tudisco
Legal Division
505 Van Ness Avenue, RM. 5032
San Francisco CA 94102 3298
(415) 703-2164
ljt@cpuc.ca.gov
For: ORA
Sabrina D. Venskus, Attorney
VENSKUS & ASSOCIATES P.C.
603 WEST OJAI AVE., STE. F
OJAI CA 93023
(805) 272-8628
venskus@lawsv.com
For: San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace, Inc.
____________________________________________
Jean Merrigan
WOMEN'S ENERGY MATTERS
PO BOX 2615
MARTINEZ CA 94553
(925) 957-6070
jnmwem@gmail.com
For: Women's Energy Matters
____________________________________________
Packet Pg 253
11
************ SERVICE LIST A1608006***********
- 6 -
********** STATE EMPLOYEE ***********
Peter V. Allen
Administrative Law Judge Division
RM. 5022
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco CA 94102 3298
(415) 703-2195
pva@cpuc.ca.gov
Daniel Buch
Office of Ratepayer Advocates
AREA 4-A
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco CA 94102 3298
(415) 703-2292
db1@cpuc.ca.gov
Truman L. Burns
Office of Ratepayer Advocates
RM. 4205
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco CA 94102 3298
(415) 703-2932
txb@cpuc.ca.gov
Leuwam Tesfai
Energy
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
EMAIL ONLY
EMAIL ONLY CA 00000
(415) 703-2403
Leuwam.Tesfai@cpuc.ca.gov
David Peck
CPUC - EXEC
EMAIL ONLY
EMAIL ONLY CA 00000
(415) 703-1213
dbp@cpuc.ca.gov
Suzanne Casazza
Energy Division
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco CA 94102 3298
(415) 703-5906
sc8@cpuc.ca.gov
Radu Ciupagea
Office of Ratepayer Advocates
RM. 4104
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco CA 94102 3298
(415) 703-5235
rc5@cpuc.ca.gov
Eric Greene
Energy Division
AREA 4-A
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco CA 94102 3298
(415) 703-5560
eg1@cpuc.ca.gov
Mea Halperin
Office of Ratepayer Advocates
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco CA 94102 3298
(415) 703-1368
mh3@cpuc.ca.gov
Iryna Kwasny
Legal Division
RM. 4107
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco CA 94102 3298
(415) 703-1477
iak@cpuc.ca.gov
Diana L. Lee
Legal Division
RM. 4107
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco CA 94102 3298
(415) 703-4342
dil@cpuc.ca.gov
Dina S. Mackin
Energy Division
AREA 4-A
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco CA 94102 3298
(415) 703-2125
dm1@cpuc.ca.gov
Rachel Peterson
Executive Division
AREA 4-A
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco CA 94102 3298
(415) 757-7844
rp1@cpuc.ca.gov
Robert M. Pocta
Office of Ratepayer Advocates
RM. 4205
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco CA 94102 3298
(415) 703-2871
rmp@cpuc.ca.gov
Packet Pg 254
11
************ SERVICE LIST A1608006***********
- 7 -
Terrie D. Prosper
Executive Division
RM. 5301
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco CA 94102 3298
(415) 703-2160
tdp@cpuc.ca.gov
James Ralph
Executive Division
RM. 5037
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco CA 94102 3298
(415) 703-4673
jr8@cpuc.ca.gov
Sean A. Simon
Executive Division
AREA 4-A
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco CA 94102 3298
(415) 703-3791
svn@cpuc.ca.gov
Clayton K. Tang
Office of Ratepayer Advocates
RM. 4205
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco CA 94102 3298
(415) 703-2728
ckt@cpuc.ca.gov
For: ORA
Sarah R. Thomas
Legal Division
RM. 5033
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco CA 94102 3298
(415) 703-2310
srt@cpuc.ca.gov
David Zizmor
Energy Division
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco CA 94102 3298
(415) 703-1575
dz1@cpuc.ca.gov
********* INFORMATION ONLY **********
Gerald Lahr
ABAG PUBLICLY OWNED ENERGY RESOURCES
101 8TH STREET (P.O. BOX 2050)
OAKLAND CA 94607
(510) 464-7908
jerryl@abag.ca.gov
Mila A. Buckner
Attorney
ADAMS BROADWELL JOSEPH & CARDOZO
601 GATEWAY BLVD., STE. 1000
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CA 94080
(650) 589-1660
MBuckner@AdamsBroadwell.com
James S. Adams
9394 MIRA DEL RIO DRIVE
SACRAMENTO CA 95827
(916) 361-0606
jsadams4910@yahoo.com
Donald Brookhyser
Attorney At Law
ALCANTAR & KAHL LLP
345 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 2450
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94104
(415) 421-4143
deb@a-klaw.com
For: Energy Producers and Users Coalition
____________________________________________
Nora Sheriff
Counsel
ALCANTAR & KAHL LLP
345 CALIFORNIA ST., STE. 2450
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94104
(415) 421-4143
nes@a-klaw.com
For: California Large Energy Consumers Association
____________________________________________
Amie Burkholder
ALCANTAR & KAHL, LLP
345 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 2450
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94104
(415) 421-4143
filings@a-klaw.com
Mike Cade
Industry Specialist
ALCANTAR & KAHL, LLP
EMAIL ONLY
EMAIL ONLY OR 00000
(503) 402-8711
wmc@a-klaw.com
Packet Pg 255
11
************ SERVICE LIST A1608006***********
- 8 -
David Jay Weisman
ALLIANCE FOR NUCLEAR RESPONSIBILITY
EMAIL ONLY
EMAIL ONLY CA 00000
DavidJayWeisman@gmail.com
Rochelle Becker
Executive Director
ALLIANCE FOR NUCLEAR RESPONSIBILITY
EMAIL ONLY
EMAIL ONLY CA 93406
(858) 337-2703
Rochelle@A4NR.org
Jerimiah Booream
Power And Utilities Research
BANK OF AMERICA MERRILL LYNCH
ONE BRYANT PARK
NEW YORK NY 10036
(646) 855-2109
jerimiah.booream@baml.com
Josephine Moore
Power And Utilities Research
BANK OF AMERICA MERRILL LYNCH
ONE BRYANT PARK
NEW YORK NY 10036
(646) 855-1470
josephine.moore@baml.com
Julien Dumoulin-Smith
Head Of Us Pwr, Utilities & Alt Energy
BANK OF AMERICA MERRILL LYNCH
ONE BRYANT PARK
NEW YORK NY 10036
(646) 855-5855
julien.dumoulin-smith@baml.com
Nicholas Campanella
Power And Utilities Research
BANK OF AMERICA MERRILL LYNCH
ONE BRYANT PARK
NEW YORK NY 10036
(646) 743-2122
nicholas.campanella@baml.com
Barbara Barkovich
Consultant
BARKOVICH & YAP
EMAIL ONLY
EMAIL ONLY CA 00000
(707) 937-6203
Barbara@BarkovichAndYap.com
For: California Large Energy Consumers
____________________________________________
Camille Stough, Esq.
BRAUN BLAISING MCLAUGHLIN & SMITH PC
915 L STREET, STE. 1480
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
(415) 314-8312
Stough@BraunLegal.com
For: Silicon Valley Clean Energy
____________________________________________
Regulatory Clerk
BRAUN BLAISING SMITH WYNNE
915 L STREET, STE. 1480
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
Regulatory@BraunLegal.com
S. David Freeman
C/O FRIENDS OF THE EARTH
1100 15TH STREET, NW, 11TH FLOOR
WASHINGTON DC 20005
(310) 902-2147
greencowboysdf@gmail.com
James H. Caldwell, Jr.
EMAIL ONLY
EMAIL ONLY CA 00000
JHCaldwellJr@gmail.com
Kavya Balaraman
CALIFORNIA ENERGY MARKETS
EMAIL ONLY
EMAIL ONLY CA 00000
(347) 342-6484
kavya@newsdata.com
Matthew Barmack
Dir. - Market & Regulatory Analysis
CALPINE CORPORATION
4160 DUBLIN BLVD., SUITE 100
DUBLIN CA 94568
(925) 557-2267
BarmackM@calpine.com
Liz Anthony Ph.D
Director
CENTER FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY
1100 11TH STREET, STE. 311
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
(916) 442-7785
liz@CEERT.org
Packet Pg 256
11
************ SERVICE LIST A1608006***********
- 9 -
Jeanne M. Sole
Deputy City Attorney
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE, RM. 234
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102-4682
(415) 554-4619
jeanne.sole@sfgov.org
J. Christine Dietrick
City Attorney
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
990 PALM STREET, ROOM 10
SAN LUIS OBISPO CA 93401
(805) 781-7140
CDietrick@slocity.org
For: City of San Luis Obispo
____________________________________________
Tam Hunt
COMMUNITY RENEWABLES SOLUTIONS, LLC
EMAIL ONLY
EMAIL ONLY CA 00000-0000
(805) 214-6150
tam@communityRenewables.biz
Howard Choy
General Mgr.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
OFFICE OF SUSTAINABILITY
1100 NORTH EASTERN AVENUE
LOS ANGELES CA 90063
(323) 267-2006
HChoy@isd.lacounty.gov
For: County of Los Angeles Office of Sustainability
____________________________________________
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
EMAIL ONLY
EMAIL ONLY CA 00000
(415) 276-6500
dwtcpucdockets@dwt.com
Emily P. Sangi
Attorney
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
505 MONTGOMERY ST., STE. 800
SAN FRANCISOC CA 94111-6533
(415) 276-6500
EmilySangi@dwt.com
For: SolarCity Corp.
____________________________________________
Katie Jorrie
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, LLP
EMAIL ONLY
EMAIL ONLY CA 00000
(415) 276-6500
katiejorrie@dwt.com
Constantine Lednev
Associate-Us Utilities & Power Research
DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC.
60 WALL STREET
NEW YORK CITY NY 10005
(212) 250-2591
Constantine.Lednev@db.com
Jonathan Arnold
DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC.
60 WALL STREET
NEW YORK NY 10005
(212) 250-3182
jonathan.arnold@db.com
Donald H. Korn
Principal
DHK ASSOCIATES
355 N SAN ANTONIO ROAD
LOS ALTOS CA 94022
(650) 941-1055
dhkorn@earthlink.net
DIABLO CANYON INDEPENDENT SAFETY COMM
857 CASS STREET, STE. D
MONTEREY CA 93940
Info@dcisc.org
John L. Geesman
Attorney
DICKSON GEESMAN LLP
EMAIL ONLY
EMAIL ONLY CA 94612
(510) 899-4670
John@DicksonGeesman.com
For: Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility
____________________________________________
Gregory Klatt
DOUGLASS & LIDDELL
4766 PARK GRANADA, STE. 209
CALABASAS CA 91302
(818) 961-3002
klatt@energyattorney.com
Packet Pg 257
11
************ SERVICE LIST A1608006***********
- 10 -
Sean M. Neal
Attorney
DUNCAN WEINBERG GENZER & PEMBROKE, P.C.
915 L STREET, STE. 1410
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
(916) 498-0121
smn@dwgp.com
For: Imperial Irrigation District (IID) and Transmission Agency
of Northern California (TANC)
____________________________________________
Michael Postar
Attorney
DUNCAN WEINBERG, GENZER & PEMBROKE
EMAIL ONLY
EMAIL ONLY DC 00000
(202) 467-6370
mrp@dwgp.com
Nkechi Ogbue
Mgr - Regulatory Affairs
ECOBEE, INC.
250 UNIVERSITY AVE. SUITE 400
TORONTO ON M5H 3E5
CANADA
(647) 531-2342
NkechiO@ecobee.com
Ronald Liebert
Attorney At Law
ELLISON SCHNEIDER HARRIS & DONLAN LLP
2600 CAPITOL AVENUE, STE. 400
SACRAMENTO CA 95816
(916) 447-2166
RL@eslawfirm.com
For: California Manufacturers & Technology Association
(CMTA)
____________________________________________
Cynthia Mitchell
ENERGY ECONOMICS, INC.
EMAIL ONLY
EMAIL ONLY NV 00000
(775) 324-5300
CynthiaKMitchell@gmail.com
Jayant Kairam
California Dir. - Clean Energy
ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND
123 MISSION STREET, 28TH FL.
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105
(512) 691-3456
JKairam@edf.org
Kelly Crandall
EQ RESEARCH, LLC
1580 LINCOLN STEET, SUITE 880
DENVER CO 80203
(720) 573-8109
CPUCdockets@eq-research.com
Alexey Orkin
Consultant
FLYNN RESOURCE CONSULTANTS INC
5440 EDGEVIEW DRIVE
DISCOVERY BAY CA 94505
(301) 787-6204
AlexeyOrkin@FlynnRCI.com
Barry R. Flynn
FLYNN RESOURCE CONSULTANTS, INC.
5440 EDGEVIEW DRIVE
DISCOVERY BAY CA 94505
(888) 634-7516
BRFlynn@Flynnrci.com
Pushkar Wagle
FLYNN RESOURCE CONSULTANTS, INC.
2900 GORDON AVENUE, STE. 100-3
SANTA CLARA CA 95051
(888) 634-3339
PushkarWagle@flynnrci.com
Damon Moglen
Sr. Advisor - Climate & Energy Project
FRIENDS OF THE EARTH
1100 15TH STREET NW, 11TH FL.
WASHINGTON DC 20005
(202) 783-7400
DMoglen@foe.org
Rhonda Mills
Western Issues Rep
GEOTHERMAL ENERGY ASSOCIATION
EMAIL ONLY
EMAIL ONLY CA 00000
Rhonda@rtides.com
John Mcintyre
Attorney
GOODIN, MACBRIDE, SQUERI & DAY, LLP
505 SANSOME ST., STE. 900
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111
(415) 392-7900
JMcIntyre@GoodinMacBride.com
Packet Pg 258
11
************ SERVICE LIST A1608006***********
- 11 -
Lujuana Medina
Regulatory Mgr.
ICF
601 W. 5TH STREET, STE. 900
LOS ANGELES CA 90071
(213) 312-1781
Lujuana.Medina@ICF.com
Jamie Asbury
Deputy Energy Mgr., Bus / Regulartory
IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT
333 E. BARIONI BLVD.
IMPERIAL CA 92251
(760) 482-3379
jlasbury@iid.com
Robert A. Laurie
Assistant General Counsel - Energy
IMPERIAL IRRIGATION DISTRICT
333 E.BARIONI BLVD.
IMPERIAL CA 92251
(760) 335-3640
RALaurie@iid.com
Curt Barry
Senior Writer
INSIDE WASHINGTON PUBLISHERS
EMAIL ONLY
EMAIL ONLY CA 00000
(916) 449-6171
cbarry@iwpnews.com
Jeff Hirsch
JAMES J. HIRSCH & ASSOCIATES
12185 PRESILLA ROAD
SANTA ROSA VALLEY CA 93012-9243
(805) 553-9000
James.J.Hirsch@gmail.com
Kathy Treleven
KATHY TRELEVEN CONSULTING
103 BANDOL CT.
SAN RAMON CA 94582
(925) 719-3749
KTreleven@gmail.com
Tim Lindl
Counsel
KEYES & FOX LLP
436 14TH STREET, STE. 1305
OAKLAND CA 94612
(510) 314-8385
TLindl@kfwlaw.com
Jason Caudle
LANCASTER CHOICE ENERGY
44933 FERN AVE.
LANCASTER CA 93534
JCaudle@CityofLancaster.org
Danielle O. Mills
Sr. Policy Advisor
LARGE-SCALE SOLAR ASSOCIATION
EMAIL ONLY
EMAIL ONLY CA 00000
(916) 320-7584
Danielle@LargeScaleSolar.org
Shannon Eddy
LARGE-SCALE SOLAR ASSOCIATION
EMAIL ONLY
EMAIL ONLY CA 00000
(916) 731-8371
eddyconsulting@gmail.com
For: Large-Scale Solar Association
____________________________________________
Irene K. Moosen
Attorney At Law
LAW OFFICE OF IRENE K. MOOSEN
53 SANTA YNEZ AVENUE
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94112
(415) 587-7343
irene@igc.org
For: Local Government Sustainable Energy Coalition (LGSEC)
____________________________________________
Mce Regulatory
MARIN CLEAN ENERGY
EMAIL ONLY
EMAIL ONLY CA 00000
(888) 632-3674
regulatory@mceCleanEnergy.org
Dawn Weisz
MARIN CLEAN ENERGY
1125 TAMALPAIS AVE.
SAN RAFAEL CA 94901
DWeisz@mceCleanEnergy.org
Nathaniel Malcolm
Regulatory Law Clerk
MARIN CLEAN ENERGY
1125 TAMALPAIS AVE.
SAN RAFAEL CA 94901
(415) 464-6048
NMalcolm@mceCleanEnergy.org
Packet Pg 259
11
************ SERVICE LIST A1608006***********
- 12 -
Shalini Swaroop
Regulatory & Legislative Counsel
MARIN CLEAN ENERGY
EMAIL ONLY
EMAIL ONLY CA 00000
(415) 464-6040
SSwaroop@mceCleanEnergy.org
Susan Griffin
Paralegal
MEYERS NAVE
555 12TH STREET, STE. 1500
OAKLAND CA 94607
(510) 808-2055
sgriffin@meyersnave.com
Brandon Halter
Attorney
MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER & WILSON
555 12TH STREET, STE. 1500
OAKLAND CA 94607
(510) 808-2059
BHalter@MeyersNave.com
Britt Strottman
Attorney At Law
MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER & WILSON
555 12TH STREET, STE. 1500
OAKLAND CA 94607
(510) 808-2083
bstrottman@meyersnave.com
Sarah M. Keane
Attorney
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP
ONE MARKET, SPEAR STREET TOWER
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105
(415) 442-1000
sarah.keane@morganlewis.com
Dustin C. Elliott
Attorney
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 MARKET STREET
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105
(415) 268-6286
DElliott@MoFo.com
MRW & ASSOCIATES LLC
EMAIL ONLY
EMAIL ONLY CA 00000
(510) 834-1999
MRW@mrwAssoc.com
Peter Miller
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL
EMAIL ONLY
EMAIL ONLY CA 00000
(415) 875-6100
pmiller@nrdc.org
David Cohen
NAVIGANT CONSULTING
2855 SW SCENIC DRIVE
PORTLAND OR 97225
(503) 708-7852
DCohen@navigant.com
Martin A. Mattes
Attorney
NOSSAMAN LLP
50 CALIFORNIA STREET, 34TH FL.
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111
(415) 398-3600
mmattes@nossaman.com
Brian Kooiman
OHMCONNECT, INC.
350 TOWNSEND ST., STE. 210
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94107
(415) 697-1271
Brian@ohmConnect.com
M. Grady Mathai-Jackson
Attorney
PACIFC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
EMAIL ONLY
EMAIL ONLY CA 00000
(415) 973-3386
MGML@pge.com
Shilpa Ramaiya
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
77 BEALE STREET, 9BA
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94105
(415) 973-3186
SRRD@pge.com
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
REGULATORY FILE ROOM
PO BOX 7442
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94120
(415) 973-4377
cpuccases@pge.com
Packet Pg 260
11
************ SERVICE LIST A1608006***********
- 13 -
Case Coordination
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
EMAIL ONLY
EMAIL ONLY CA 94177
RegRelCPUCCases@pge.com
Conor Doyle
Regulatory Affairs
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
PO BOX 770000, MC B23A
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94177
(415) 973-7817
JCDT@pge.com
Deanna Toy
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
EMAIL ONLY
EMAIL ONLY CA 00000
dct4@pge.com
William Toman
PACIFIC MARINE RENEWABLES, LLC
391 SOUTH COURT ST.
LOS OSOS CA 93402
(707) 731-9261
WITomanium@gmail.com
Jan Pepper
PENINSULA CLEAN ENERGY
455 COUNTY CENTER, 4TH FL.
REDWOOD CITY CA 94063
JPepper@PeninsulaCleanEnergy.com
For: CalCCA
____________________________________________
Luisa F. Elkins
Sr. Associate
PROCOPIO, CORY, HARGREAVES & SAVITCH LLP
1117 S CALIFORNIA AVE., STE. 200
PALO ALTO CA 94304
(650) 645-9032
Luisa.Elkins@Procopio.com
Sue Mara
Consultant
RTO ADVISORS, LLC
164 SPRINGDALE WAY
REDWOOD CITY CA 94062
(415) 902-4108
sue.mara@RTOAdvisors.com
Emma D. Salustro
Attorney
SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
8330 CENTURY PARK COURT, CP32D
SAN DIEGO CA 92123
(858) 654-1861
ESalustro@SempraUtilities.com
Brian Stevens
Cleanpowersf-Power Enterprise
SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM.
525 GOLDEN GATE AVE., 7TH FL.
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102
(415) 554-3439
BStevens@sfwater.org
James Hendry
Utilities Specialist
SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMM.
525 GOLDEN GATE AVE., 7TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102-3220
(415) 554-1526
jhendry@sfwater.org
Clean Power Sf - Power Enterprise
SAN FRANCISCO PUC
525 GOLDEN GATE AVE.
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102
(415) 554-3439
RegCleanPowers@SFWater.org
Lauren Alper
SAN FRANCISCO PUC
525 GOLDEN GATE AVENUE, 7TH FLOOR
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103
LAlper@sfwater.org
Ellen Sheffer
Trustee
SAN LUIS COASTAL UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
EMAIL ONLY
EMAIL ONLY CA 00000
esheffer@slcusd.org
Sherry Lewis
SAN LUIS OBISPO MOTHERS FOR PEACE, INC.
PO BOX 3608
SAN LUIS OBISPO CA 93403
Sherry.Lewis66@att.net
Packet Pg 261
11
************ SERVICE LIST A1608006***********
- 14 -
David A. Silberman
General Counsel
SAN MATEO COUNTY COUNSEL'S OFFICE
400 COUNTY CENTER, 6TH FL.
REDWOOD CITY CA 94063
(650) 363-4749
DSilberman@smcgov.org
For: Peninsula Clean Energy
____________________________________________
Phillip Muller
President
SCD ENERGY SOLUTIONS
436 NOVA ALBION WAY
SAN RAFAEL CA 94903
(415) 479-1710
PhilM@SCDenergy.com
Tom Habashi
SILICON VALLEY CLEAN ENERGY
EMAIL ONLY
EMAIL ONLY CA 00000
TomH@SVCleanEnergy.org
Hilary Staver
Manager Regulatory & Legislative Affairs
SILICON VALLEY CLEAN ENERGY AUTHORITY
333 W. EL CAMINO REAL, STE. 290
SUNNYVALE CA 94087
(408) 721-5301
Hilary.Staver@SVCleanEnergy.org
Audra Hartmann
Principal
SMITH, WATTS & HARTMANN
925 L STREET, SUITE 220
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
(916) 446-5508
AHartmann@swmconsult.com
Neal Reardon
Regulatory Affairs Manager
SONOMA CLEAN POWER
EMAIL ONLY
EMAIL ONLY CA 00000
(707) 890-8488
NReardon@SonomaCleanPower.org
Case Administration
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
8631 RUSH STREET
ROSEMEAD CA 91770
(626) 302-6906
Case.Admin@sce.com
Walker A. Matthews, Iii
Sr. Attorney
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY
2244 WALNUT GROVE AVE. / PO BOX 800
ROSEMEAD CA 91770
(626) 302-6879
walker.matthews@sce.com
Steve Mccarty
STEVEN MCCARTY AND ASSOCIATES
2460 LAVENDER DRIVER, SUITE 101
WALNUT CREEK CA 94596
(925) 330-4776
sjm001@sbcglobal.net
Alex Morris
Dir - Policy & Regulatory Affairs
STRATEGEN CONSULTING
2150 ALLSTON WAY, STE. 210
BERKELEY CA 94709
(310) 617-3441
amorris@strategen.com
Jin Noh
Sr. Consultant
STRATEGEN CONSULTING
2150 ALLSTON WAY, STE.210
BERKELEY CA 94709
(703) 507-8809
JNoh@Strategen.com
Yuliya Shmidt
Executive Division
RM. 4209
505 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco CA 94102 3298
(415) 703-2719
ys2@cpuc.ca.gov
Damon Franz
Dir - Policy & Electricity Markets
TESLA, INC.
444 DE HARO STREET, STE. 101
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94107
(415) 636-9341
DFranz@Tesla.com
Francesca Wahl
Sr. Associate, Bus. Development
TESLA, INC.
444 DE HARO STREET, STE. 101
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94107
(650) 435-0422
FWahl@Tesla.com
Packet Pg 262
11
************ SERVICE LIST A1608006***********
- 15 -
Hayley Goodson, Staff Attorney
THE UTILITY REFORM NETWORK
785 MARKET ST., STE. 1400
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103
(415) 929-8876 X360
hayley@turn.org
Kevin Kitz
U.S. GEOTHERMAL, INC.
390 E. PARKCENTER BLVD., STE. 250
BOISE ID 83706
KKitz@USGeothermal.com
Laura Wisland, Sr. Energy Analyst
UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS
500 12TH ST., STE. 340
OAKLAND CA 94607
(510) 809-1565
lwisland@ucsusa.org
Michael Cohen
Western States Power Systems Engineer
UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS
EMAIL ONLY
EMAIL ONLY CA 00000
(510) 809-1572
MCohen@ucsusa.org
For: Union of Concerned Scientists
____________________________________________
Sarah Kozal, Attorney
WESTERN ENERGY & WATER
500 CAPITOL MALL, STE. 2350
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
(916) 877-8872
SKozal@weawLaw.com
Robert Freehling, Consultant
WOMENS ENERGY MATTER
E-MAIL ONLY
EMAIL ONLY CA 00000
rfreeh123@sbcglobal.net
Kevin Woodruff
WOODRUFF EXPERT SERVICES
1127 - 11TH STREET, SUITE 514
SACRAMENTO CA 95814
(916) 442-4877
kdw@woodruff-expert-services.com
Jerry B. Brown, Ph.D
Director - Safe Energy Project
WORLD BUSINESS ACADEMY
2020 ALAMEDA PADRE SERRA, STE. 135
SANTA BARBARA CA 93103
(805) 892-4600
JBBrown@gate.net
(End of Appendix A)
Packet Pg 263
11
1
Appendix 1 - Essential Services Mitigation Fund Terms
(District/County/PG&E)
1. The Essential Services Mitigation Fund (“ESMF”) will be increased from $49.5 million to $75
million, of which $10 million will be dedicated to an educational foundation to be designated by
the San Luis Coastal Unified School District (“District”). These funds, including the $10 million
portion to be dedicated to a District educational foundation, will be distributed to San Luis
Obispo County (“County”) in nine equal annual installments through 2025. The funds will be
distributed on September 1st of each year, following a final and non-appealable CPUC decision
approving the settlement and the Diablo Canyon Application, as revised. If final and non-
appealable CPUC approval of this settlement is not obtained by September 1, 2017, the first
distribution will occur 30 days after such approval is issued, unless otherwise agreed. The parties
will meet and confer within 30 days of the filing of any application for rehearing or appeal of the
CPUC decision approving this Settlement. The payments will continue as scheduled for the full 9
year period even in the event one or both Diablo Canyon Units closes early. The Parties accept
the risk that Diablo Canyon may close before the scheduled dates in 2024 and 2025 and will not
request any additional financial compensation in such an event.
2. The County will redistribute the funds based on a revision of the 2015/2016 unitary factors to the
taxing jurisdictions whose unitary tax funding is negatively impacted by the closure of Diablo
Canyon within two weeks of receiving the PG&E payment and will cause $2 million of the
District’s share of each of the first five installment payments to be deposited into the account of
the District’s designated educational foundation. The recalculation of the unitary tax factors will
exclude local agencies whose funding is not impacted by unitary tax. The allocation that the
County shall use in allocating the ESMF is set forth in Attachment A to this Appendix 1.
3. The parties agree that the compromise they have reached is a settlement and is not intended to be
a substitute or in-lieu tax payment. Estimating potential tax revenue declines is simply one of
many factors the parties considered in developing an appropriate and reasonable ESMF.
4. The ESMF will be included as part of the overall Community Impact Mitigation Program and
collected in rates through the nuclear decommissioning charge over the remaining life of the
plant, as described in Chapter 10 of the Diablo Canyon Application.
5. The County and District agree to support the Employee Program set forth in the Application and
to not oppose the remaining provisions of the Application, as may be modified through
settlements with other parties.
6. This term sheet is subject to (i) final approval by all parties; (ii) negotiation and execution of a
final settlement agreement; (iii) agreement by the Joint Parties to the PG&E Joint Proposal for
Diablo Canyon (to the extent the terms and conditions result in modifications to the Joint
Proposal) and (iv) approval by the CPUC.
Packet Pg 264
11
1 | Page
Attachment A to Appendix 1:
Distribution of the Essential Services Mitigation Fund
The Essential Services Mitigation Fund (ESMF) of $75,000,000 is created to assist local
jurisdictions whose annual budgets will be impacted by the decline in unitary tax over
the next nine years. Local jurisdictions (71) currently receiving unitary tax include the
County of San Luis Obispo, Incorporated Cities, Special Districts and Basic-Aid School
Districts. The San Luis Obispo County Auditor-Controller-Treasurer-Tax Collector has
developed Schedule 1 by starting with 2015/2016 unitary factors and redistributing the
percentages allocated to agencies whose budgets are not impacted by the decline in
unitary tax. Those agencies’ (non-basic aid schools and redevelopment agencies)
percentages were redistributed based on the actual 2015/2016 unitary factors so that
the allocations of the ESMF include only those agencies whose annual budgets are
adversely impacted by the closure of Diablo Canyon. The County Auditor-Controller-
Treasurer-Tax Collector will distribute the amounts identified in Schedule 1 to the 71
agencies within two weeks of receiving the annual payment by PG&E. The ESMF is not
Unitary Tax and will not change any prescribed Unitary Tax distributions.
The ESMF will be distributed annually in 9 equal and consecutive payments of
$8,333,333.33 from PG&E to the County of San Luis Obispo on the 1st of September
beginning in 2017. If final and non-appealable CPUC approval of this settlement is not
obtained by September 1, 2017, the first distribution will occur 30 days after such
approval, unless otherwise agreed. The payments will continue as scheduled for the full
9-year period even in the event one or both Diablo Canyon Units closes early.
The total distribution to San Luis Coastal Unified School District includes $10 million that
will be dedicated to an educational foundation to be designated by the District. The
County will cause $2 million of the District’s share from each of the first 5 installment
payments to be deposited to the account of the District’s Educational Foundation. The
other receiving agencies will not be impacted by this distribution.
Schedule 1
Agency
Essential Services
Mitigation Fund of 75 Million
9 Annual Payments of
$8,333,333.33
County of San Luis Obispo – General Fund $3,106,644.19
Roads $130,559.76
Air Pollution Control District $13,202.49
San Luis Obispo County Library $223,570.15
Packet Pg 265
11
2 | Page
Schedule 1 – continued
Agency
Essential Services
Mitigation Fund of 75 Million
9 Annual Payments of
$8,333,333.33
Garden Farms Water $273.50
Santa Maria Valley Water Conservation District $356.23
Cambria Community Hospital $2,823.44
Cayucos Sanitary District $4,030.04
City of Arroyo Grande $30,202.90
City of Atascadero (including sanitation) $40,440.60
City of Grover Beach $12,615.28
City of Morro Bay $104,716.70
City of Paso Robles $40,387.74
City of Pismo Beach $20,581.13
City of San Luis Obispo $76,962.63
Cachuma Resource Conservation District $210.29
Port San Luis Harbor District $170,300.53
California Valley Community Services District $1,330.71
Nipomo Community Services District $3,608.31
Cambria Community Services District $13,658.70
San Simeon Acres Community Services District $667.65
Templeton Community Services District $5,235.49
Nipomo Sewer Maintenance $103.42
Nipomo Drain Maintenance $103.42
Linne Community Services District $119.51
Grover City Street Light District #1 $2,962.49
San Luis Obispo County Flood Control District $32,067.95
Nacimiento Water Services District $39,975.20
Flood Control Zone 1 $998.60
Flood Control Zone 1A $104.57
Flood Control Zone 3 $1,807.60
Flood Control Zone 9 $3,776.08
County Waterworks No. 8 $344.74
Nipomo Lighting District $241.32
San Miguel Community Services District - Lighting $613.64
County Service Area # 23(former Santa Margarita Lighting) $227.53
County Service Area #1 $65.50
County Service Area #1 Zone A $280.39
County Service Area #1 Zone B $143.64
County Service Area #1 Zone C $52.86
County Service Area #1 Zone D $212.59
County Service Area #7 $288.43
County Service Area #7 Zone A $1,184.77
County Service Area #7 Zone B $265.45
Los Osos Community Services District Zone A $2,022.49
Los Osos Community Services District Zone B $11,629.32
Packet Pg 266
11
3 | Page
Schedule 1 – continued
Agency
Essential Services
Mitigation Fund of 75 Million
9 Annual Payments of
$8,333,333.33
Los Osos Community Services District Zone C $116.06
Los Osos Community Services District Zone F $66.65
County Service Area #10 $998.60
County Service Area #12 $3,524.42
County Service Area #16 $217.19
Heritage Community Services District $1,740.95
San Miguel Sanitary District $429.78
Oceano Community Services District $5,668.72
Cayucos Fire District $1,290.49
San Miguel Community Services District - Fire $2,090.29
Santa Margarita Fire District $887.14
Arroyo Grande Cemetery District $897.48
Atascadero Cemetery District $2,489.04
Cambria Cemetery District $640.07
Cayucos-Morro Bay Cemetery District $10,058.44
Paso Robles Cemetery District $2,978.58
San Miguel Cemetery District $611.34
Santa Margarita Cemetery District $707.87
Shandon Cemetery District $480.34
Templeton Cemetery District $674.55
Avila Beach County Water District $31,330.20
Avila County Water Improvement District #1 $1,341.05
Coast Unified School District (Cayucos Elem) $16,515.47
Coast Unified School District $54,799.13
San Luis Coastal Unified School District – Note: For the first
5 distributions $2,000,000 will be deposited in the District’s
Educational Foundation
$4,090,809.51
Annual Total $8,333,333.33
Packet Pg 267
11
1
Appendix 2 - Economic Development Fund Terms
(Coalition Cities/County/PG&E)
1. The Parties agree that the economic impacts of Diablo Canyon closure should be considered as a
part of a separate CPUC proceeding following issuance of the economic analysis specified in
California Public Utilities Code Section 712.5 (“Monning Report”). The Parties support
Commission approval of this settlement and proceeding with consideration of the remaining
scope of the Diablo Canyon Application immediately, without delay for consideration of the
economic impacts of Diablo Canyon closure.
2. The Parties agree that the Diablo Canyon Application should be revised to include a $10 million
payment by PG&E to the County and to the Cities of Arroyo Grande, Atascadero, Morro Bay,
Paso Robles, Pismo Beach and San Luis Obispo (collectively, the “Coalition of Cities”) to
establish a fund for implementation of regional economic development and job creation programs
(collectively, the “Economic Development Fund”). The County and the Coalition of Cities agree
to further distribute those payments pursuant to the allocation methodology set forth in
Attachment A. The purpose of the Economic Development Fund is to provide immediate funding
for actions to create new economic development opportunities and mitigate impacts associated
with the pending closure of Diablo Canyon.
3. Within 18 months of the payment by PG&E of the Economic Development Fund, the County and
each of the Coalition of Cities will prepare a report that (i) enumerates and describes the
expenditures from the Economic Development Fund and (ii) assesses the results and effectiveness
of the economic development measures or programs resulting from such expenditures (the “Initial
Report”). The County and each of the Coalition of Cities will prepare subsequent annual updates
to the Initial Report until all Economic Development Fund revenues have been expended, at
which time the reporting may cease. The Initial Reports and any subsequent updates will be
provided to PG&E, and PG&E will submit the reports to the CPUC and make them available to
the public. Reports shall report on expenditures on a fiscal year basis. In the event payment of the
Economic Development Fund is delayed by any rehearing application or appeal of the CPUC’s
decision approving the Diablo Canyon Application, the County and each of the Coalition Cities
shall be entitled for purposes of the specified reporting to credit against the Economic
Development Fund amounts expended by the Cities for purposes of economic development and
impact mitigation between the date the CPUC first issues its decision and the date of payment of
the Economic Development Fund pursuant to this agreement.
4. The County and Coalition of Cities commit to spending the Economic Development Fund solely
for the purposes of economic development and impact mitigation purposes.
5. PG&E shall pay $400,000 of the total Economic Development Fund to the County within 30 days
of issuance of a decision by the CPUC approving the Diablo Canyon Application and thereafter
shall not request any reimbursement of payment from the County or the Coalition of Cities.
PG&E shall pay the remaining balance of the Economic Development Fund within 30 days of the
final and non-appealable approval of the Diablo Canyon Application, as revised consistent with
this Settlement, unless otherwise agreed. The parties will meet and confer within 30 days of the
filing of any application for rehearing or appeal of the CPUC decision approving this Settlement.
Packet Pg 268
11
2
6. Following issuance of the Monning Report (per SB 968), the Commission will institute a new
proceeding to evaluate the results of the Monning Report, take comment, and consider further
action. The Parties reserve all rights in such proceeding to advocate for or to oppose further
funding of economic impact mitigation by PG&E and/or its customers. PG&E specifically
reserves the right to assert that no additional funding, beyond the mitigation payments provided
by the Diablo Canyon Application, as modified by this settlement, is required, and the County
and the Coalition of Cities or any of the cities specifically reserve the right to seek additional
funding beyond the Economic Development Fund. In no event shall the Coalition of Cities or the
County be required to refund any amount paid under this Settlement.
7. PG&E, the County, and the Coalition of Cities agree to work together to advocate jointly for
additional funding or other assistance from the State of California and Federal government
agencies, and their respective legislative bodies, to support the economic transition of the local
community to an era without Diablo Canyon in operation. This provision is not intended to bind
any Party to any financial commitment or specific position with respect to such advocacy.
8. The Economic Development Fund will be included as part of the overall Community Impact
Mitigation Program, as described in Chapter 10 of the Diablo Canyon Application.
9. The County and the Coalition of Cities agree to support the Employee Program set forth in the
Application and to not oppose the remaining provisions of the Application, as may be modified
through settlements with other parties.
10. This term sheet is subject to (i) final approval by all parties; (ii) negotiation and execution of a
final settlement agreement; (iii) agreement by the Joint Parties to the PG&E Joint Proposal for
Diablo Canyon (to the extent the terms and conditions result in modifications to the Joint
Proposal); and (iv) approval by the CPUC.
Packet Pg 269
11
Attachment A to Appendix 2 Distribution of Economic Development Fund County of San Luis Obispo/Coalition of Cities Total Amount County (40%) Coalition Share (60%) Regional Economic Development Arroyo Grande Atascadero Morro Bay Paso Robles Pismo Beach San Luis Obispo $10,000,000 $3,840,000* $5,760,000 $400,000** $747,422 $783,106 $497,472 $1,145,631 $767,028 $1,819,341 *The County will allocate $192,000 of this amount to the City of Grover Beach. ** To be distributed to the County for Regional Economic Development. Packet Pg 27011
1
Appendix 3 – Emergency Planning and Future Land Use Terms
(County/PG&E)
Emergency Planning and Preparedness
1. The specific costs and detailed plans for emergency planning and preparedness (emergency
management) through the decommissioning period will be definitively proposed in the site-
specific decommissioning estimate to be submitted to the CPUC as specified in Chapter 8 of
PG&E's prepared testimony supporting Application 16-08-006. The purpose of this agreement is
to outline the intent of what will be submitted as part of the site-specific decommissioning
estimate and is subject to CPUC approval and funding in nuclear decommissioning rates.
2. The parties recognize that PG&E will continue to fund, at current funding levels, the maintenance
of all emergency response-related equipment, including the public warning sirens, as well as the
approximately $4 million in funding for offsite state and local emergency planning functions, as
required to be adjusted pursuant to state law, through cessation of plant operations in 2025.
Infrastructure that is directly maintained by PG&E as of June 21, 2016, will continue to be fully
maintained by PG&E.
3. In addition to continued funding per current state law, beyond the expiration of said law, the
general intent is that the maintenance of the public warning sirens and funding for offsite
community and local emergency planning functions (approximately $2 million forecast in 2017)
will continue until all spent fuel is in dry cask storage and the two nuclear reactors are fully
decommissioned (following the surrender of the Part 50 licenses). Using the formula established
in Section 8610.5 of the California Emergency Services Act, funding for offsite community and
local emergency planning functions will be paid directly to the County of San Luis Obispo.
4. The funding for other emergency preparedness equipment, training, emergency planning
functions, and PG&E’s emergency response personnel will be informed by the reduced risks that
remain and will be more definitively proposed in the site-specific decommissioning estimate.
5. The process for development of the site-specific decommissioning estimate will include
formation of a decommissioning advisory panel, which will include representation from the
County of San Luis Obispo, industry experts, state and local government representatives, and
affected stakeholders.
6. Parties reserve their ability to make arguments in future decommissioning proceedings regarding
necessary and appropriate emergency response and preparedness actions and costs associated
with Diablo Canyon following the surrender of the Part 50 licenses.
Future Land Use
1. Issues surrounding the disposition of lands related to Diablo Canyon, including future land uses,
will be addressed in the Diablo Canyon site-specific decommissioning plan to be submitted in
PG&E’s next Triennial Nuclear Decommissioning Proceeding, and the Parties agree they are not
within scope of this proceeding.
2. As stated in the October 4, 2016, letter that PG&E sent to the County, which is Attachment A to
this Appendix 3, PG&E agrees to complete a site-specific decommissioning plan for the facility
Packet Pg 271
11
2
before making any decisions on the disposition of the Diablo Canyon lands. As part of this
process, PG&E will convene a community advisory group that will give stakeholders an
opportunity to help shape the future use of PG&E’s land plans prior to finalizing the site-specific
plan. In the meantime, PG&E and its affiliate companies that hold a property interest in the
Diablo Canyon lands will not make any commitments on land disposition or post-retirement land
use, including the Wild Cherry Canyon parcels, until the stakeholder process is completed and
PG&E’s recommendations have been considered by the Commission as part of the Diablo
Canyon site-specific decommissioning plan.
Packet Pg 272
11
Thomas Patrick Jones
Director, Strategic Initiatives
735 Tank Farm Road
Suite 200
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
805-595-6340
TPJ2@pge.com
October 4, 2016
Dan Buckshi
County Administrator Officer
County of San Luis Obispo
1055 Monterey Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93408
Dear Mr. Buckshi:
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) has carefully reviewed the County of San Luis Obispo’s (County)
September 15 response to PG&E’s Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) Application 16-08-006. One of the
concerns raised by the County (and other locally-based parties) pertains to the future use of the 12,000 acres of
lands surrounding DCPP after the facility is retired. In our September 26 reply to protests and responses, PG&E
clarified that we do not yet have a plan for the future use of DCPP lands, that we will commence a public
stakeholder process as we evaluate the options, and that we will submit a land use plan to the California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC) in the site-specific decommissioning plan for the facility, which PG&E will file as
part of its next Nuclear Decommissioning Triennial Proceeding application in 2019.
I am writing to assure you that PG&E intends to complete the site-specific decommissioning plan for the facility
over the coming years with community input before making any decisions on the disposition of the DCPP lands.
As part of this process, PG&E will convene a community advisory group that will give stakeholders an
opportunity to help shape the future use of PG&E’s land plans prior to finalizing the site-specific plan. In the
meantime, PG&E will not make any commitments on land disposition or post-retirement land use, including the
Wild Cherry Canyon parcels, until the stakeholder process is completed and PG&E’s recommendations have been
considered by the CPUC as part of the DCPP site-specific decommissioning plan.
PG&E values and appreciates the active partnership of the County and other local stakeholders, and we look
forward to continuing to work with you and the rest of the community in both the pending CPUC proceeding and
the important decommissioning work to follow. Please feel free to contact me if I can provide any further
assurance regarding these land disposition issues.
Sincerely,
Thomas P. Jones
cc: City of Arroyo Grande
City of Atascadero
City Grover Beach
City of Morro Bay
City of El Paso de Robles
City of Pismo Beach
City of San Luis Obispo
Friends of Wild Cherry Canyon
Service List for CPUC Docket No. A.16-08-006 (via email only)
"UUBDINFOU"UP"QQFOEJY
1(&0DUPCFS
-FUUFSUPUIF$PVOUZ
Packet Pg 273
11
Packet Pg 274
11
Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant – Joint Proposal Proposed DecisionDerek Johnson, City ManagerNovember 21, 2017111/21/2017 Item 11, Staff Presentation
Recommendation1.Receive a report on the Administrative Law Judge’s Proposed Division for the Joint Proposal to close the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant (DCNPP)2.Authorize the City to advocate for legislation if necessary to fund the Community Impacts Mitigation Program.211/21/2017 Item 11, Staff Presentation
Background On August 11, 2016, PG&E filed its application proposing to close the DCNPPProtests and responses to the Joint Proposal were filed and eventually it was amended with a settlement agreementThis settlement agreement was reached with many parties and locally included:San Luis Coastal Unified School DistrictCounty of San Luis ObispoThe Coalition of CitiesThe settlement agreement adjusted the Community Impacts Mitigation Program (CIMP)311/21/2017 Item 11, Staff Presentation
Potential ImpactA 2013 report by the Nuclear Energy Institute and Cal Poly’s Orfalea College of Business predicted:The DCNPP’s impact on the County is nearly $1 billion annually, encompassing jobs, schools, infrastructure and other businessesThe County would lose over 3,200 jobs in virtually every sector The San Luis Coastal School District would lose 11.6 percent of its annual budget411/21/2017 Item 11, Staff Presentation
511/21/2017 Item 11, Staff Presentation
Proposed DecisionOn November 8, 2017 Administrative Law Judge, Peter V. Allen, released the Proposed Decision regarding the Joint Proposal to close the DCNPPThe Proposed Decision accepts, modifies and rejects certain portions of the Joint Proposal. It has no legal effect until the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) hears the item and votes to approve, modify , or reject it on November 28, 2017611/21/2017 Item 11, Staff Presentation
Proposed DecisionMost locally relevant, The Proposed Decision rejects the proposed Community Impact Mitigation Program (CIMP)It does so by citing concerns over fairness to the community and ratepayersThis concern is based on the ALJ’s conclusion that the CPUC lacks statutory authority to approve ratepayer funding of the mitigation fundsAdditionally, concerns about characterization of the payments as in-lieu of tax payments are addressedThe ALJ believes these would need to be addressed through the State LegislatureThe Proposed Decision also seeks to limit or reduce funding in other areas of the Joint Proposal including:curtailment of the employee incentive programlosses of employees could compel PG&E to close the plant sooner than 2025711/21/2017 Item 11, Staff Presentation
Fiscal ImpactThe adoption of the Proposed Decision would eliminate funds outlined in the settlement agreement including:$400,000 to leverage the analysis from SB 968 and develop a regional economic development strategy$10 million payment by PG&E to the County An increase of $45M to $75M in CIMP fundsFunding for emergency planning and response Loss of funds would impact K-12 education, response capabilities in the event of any nuclear related incidents, and economic development.811/21/2017 Item 11, Staff Presentation
Possible Courses of ActionsOn November 28, 2017 the CPUC is meeting to hear the item and voting to approve, modify, or reject it. If the Commission adopts the Proposed Decision, the CPUC indicates that the County, School District and Coalition of Cities can pursue two options in the future, 1.Legislative Approach, working with the State of California to create legislation that expressly authorizes and/or directs this Commission to approve ratepayer funding for the CIMP2.PG&E can pledge shareholder funds to support the CIMP 911/21/2017 Item 11, Staff Presentation
Recommendation1.Receive a recommendation on the Administrative Law Judge’s Proposed Division for the Joint Proposal to close the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant2.Authorize the City to advocate for legislation if necessary to fund the Community Impacts Mitigation Program.1011/21/2017 Item 11, Staff Presentation