Proposed Decision Says That Retail Suppliers That Refuse To Submit RPS Cost Data To PUC Risk Enforcement Action
November 21, 2019 Email This Story Copyright 2010-19 EnergyChoiceMatters.com
Reporting by Paul Ring • firstname.lastname@example.org
The following story is brought free of charge to readers byEC Infosystems, the exclusive EDI provider of EnergyChoiceMatters.com
A proposed decision from a California ALJ would warn electric service providers (ESP, or retail suppliers) that those ESPs which do not file RPS cost data risk enforcement action
The proposed decision notes that ESPs and CCAs must file RPS Procurement Plans consistent with the requirements of Public Utilities Code Section 399.13(a)(5). Therefore, each ESP and CCA must file a proposed RPS Procurement Plan that complies with the requirements of the PUC, including the submission of cost information
The proposed decision states that, pursuant to the 2019 ACR (assigned Commissioner's ruling), ESPs were required to, and in fact did, submit
RPS Procurement Plans that provided the information required in
Sections 5.1-5.6, 5.8, and 5.11-5.13 of the 2019 ACR.
However, the proposed decision states that, of the twenty-three
ESPs, only Agera Energy, LLC and The Regents of the University of California
provided the cost information required in Section 5.10.
"Further, many of the ESP
RPS Plans provided minimal information, while some used boilerplate language
that lacked adequate detail. Finally, while most ESPs note that they will meet the
long-term contracting requirements, few actually explain how they plan to meet
the requirement or show that they have executed long-term contracts," the proposed decision states
The proposed decision includes a table summarizing the ESP submissions, including those elements of 2019 ACR that are missing by ESP (see the table on page 54 here). The proposed decision states that ESPs that failed to include the required elements must correct these omissions within their final 2019 RPS Procurement Plans.
The proposed decision further states, "Of the twenty-three ESPs, six currently do not serve any retail load. Pursuant to D.13-11-024, it is reasonable not to require an ESP to file a procurement plan if they do not serve any retail load. The exemption will expire if and when a non-load serving ESP begins or resumes serving load in California and thereby incurs RPS procurement obligations. This exception does not exempt the non-load serving ESPs from filing RPS Compliance Reports or making submissions other than the RPS Procurement Plan itself, in order to ensure accurate record-keeping and account for the potential of serving load during a portion of the compliance period."
The proposed decision cites, in particular, the lack of RPS cost quantification data filed by various ESPs
The proposed decision, citing Commission precedent, would reject arguments from ESPs that the PUC lacks jurisdiction to compel ESPs to submit such cost data
"Parties that continue to disregard the clear order of this Commission that they provide RPS procurement cost information are at risk of enforcement action by this Commission. Any LSE that has not provided the information required in the 2019 ACR shall furnish such information with its final 2019 RPS Procurement Plan or risk such enforcement," the proposed decision states
"[M]ost ESPs submitted Plans lacking required information. The Commission made clear in its decision approving the 2018 Plans that ESPs would be required to provide greater detail in their 2019 Plans, including
information explaining how each ESP plans to reach their Net RPS Procurement
Need. Affected EPSs shall provide the missing detail (See Table 9) with their
Final Plans no later than 30 days following Commission issuance of this decision.
Parties that continue to disregard the clear order of this Commission to provide
RPS procurement cost information are at risk of enforcement action," the proposed decision states