BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Application of Pacific Gas and Electric Company (U 39-E) for Approval of 2008 Long-Term Request for Offer Results and for Adoption of Cost Recovery and Ratesetting Mechanisms
Application 09-09-021 (Filed September 30, 2009)
PROTEST OF PACIFIC ENVIRONMENT
DEBORAH BEHLES HELEN KANG Environmental Law and Justice Clinic Golden Gate University School of Law 536 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2968 Telephone: (415) 442-6654 Facsimile: (415) 896-2450 dbehles@ggu.edu hkang@ggu.edu Dated: October 30, 2009
Attorneys for Pacific Environment
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Application of Pacific Gas and Electric Company (U 39-E) for Approval of 2008 Long-Term Request for Offer Results and for Adoption of Cost Recovery and Ratesetting Mechanisms
Application 09-09-021 (Filed September 30, 2009)
PROTEST OF PACIFIC ENVIRONMENT Pacific Environment respectfully submits this protest to Application (A.) 09-09021, the application of Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) seeking Commission approval of four agreements pursuant to its 2008 Long-Term Request for Offers (LTRFO). This protest is timely filed and served pursuant to Rule 2.6 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.1 INTRODUCTION In A.09-09-021, PG&E seeks this Commission’s approval of: agreements to add 1,300 MW of capacity to its system by two new natural-gas fired facilities, the extension of the retirement of an old once-through cooling facility, and a contract with a cogeneration facility. PG&E’s request to add two new facilities to an area that already has over ten power plants and to extend the retirement of an old, inefficient once-through cooling facility is inconsistent with this Commission’s decisions, the State’s focus on renewable energy, environmental justice considerations and PG&E’s own environmental leadership protocol. For all these reasons, Pacific Environment (PE) objects to PG&E’s request. Commission Rule 2.6 requires a protest objecting to an application to state the protestant’s grounds and reasons for challenging the application, including identifying 1
A.09-09-021 was first noticed in the Commission’s Daily Calendar of October 6, 2009. See Commission Rule 2.6(a); see also Commission Rule 1.15 (computation of time). 1
factual issues requiring an evidentiary hearing, and the effect of the application on the protestant. Rule 2.6 also allows a protestant an opportunity to provide an alternative schedule to that proposed by the applicant. PE’s protest satisfies these requirements below. In summary, PE requests that the Commission find PG&E failed to justify its request for Commission approval to purchase power from two new natural gas facilities and delay the retirement of another facility. In doing so, PG&E has attempted to rewrite and redefine the Commission’s previous decisions while ignoring requirements to consider environmental impacts and environmental justice considerations. GROUNDS FOR PROTEST AND ISSUES RAISED BY APPLICATION After a review of publicly available information, PE has identified several issues that are raised by this application and are the grounds for this protest. When PE reviews information not currently available to it, including the information PG&E has marked as confidential, other issues may arise.2 1.
PG&E’s Requested Relief Is Not Needed and Is Inconsistent with California’s Commitment to Renewable Energy. PG&E’s requested relief is inconsistent with California’s commitment to
renewable energy. As the 2006 Long Term Procurement Plan (LTPP) summarized: The State of California has taken an aggressive position toward achieving energy independence and reduced GHG emissions. The development of renewable energy is an important component to achieving these goals and has further environmental, economic, and public health benefits enumerated in the Legislation establishing the RPS [Renewable Portfolio Standard] program. Achievement of California’s ambitious renewable energy goals is thus of great importance to the Governor, the State of California, and the Commission.3 PE also hereby incorporates the issues and arguments addressed in the protests that will be filed by Communities for a Better Environment, including the California Environmental Quality Act argument, and Californians for Renewable Energy. 3 D.07-12-052 at 74. 2
2
In particular, California’s RPS, Cal. Pub. Util. Code Section 399.11, et. seq., mandates that load serving entities such as PG&E achieve a target of at least 20% of their customer demand with renewable electric generation by 2010. Accordingly, the Commission, working with the California Energy Commission, has adopted an Energy Action Plan that creates the following priorities or loading order: 1. Energy efficiency (EE) and demand response (DR), 2. Renewable power and distributed generation (DG), 3. Clean and efficient fossil-fired generation. EE and DR are considered the highest priority and should be employed first by a utility in making procurement decisions since they are demand-side resources.4 Moreover, renewable energy has been called the cornerstone of California’s commitment to reducing greenhouse gases. This commitment to renewable energy has recently been reiterated by the Commission.5 Importantly, Executive Order S-14-08, which was signed on November 17, 2008, requires an increase of the state’s Renewable Energy Standards to 33 percent renewable by 2020. Furthermore, an increased focus in renewable energy resources is also required under California’s climate change law, AB 32, which mandates a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.6 This was upheld in 2009 with an Executive Order to California Air Resources Board (CARB) signed by the Governor.7 According to studies that the consulting firm 3E conducted for the Commission, the only way to achieve this goal is to reduce the percentage of non-renewable generation 4
Id. at 11-12. See D.08-10-037. 6 See Health and Safety Code Section 38500, et. seq. 7 Press Release from Office of the Governor: Gov. Schwarzenegger Signs Executive Order to Advance State’s Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard to 33 Percent by 2020. September 15, 2009 5
3
through an ambitious program of renewable build-out and energy efficiency. Any additional fossil generation should be “oriented towards enabling ever-increasing levels of renewable generation.” 8 PG&E offers no data in this application demonstrating that its proposed new fossil generation will enable renewable generation. PG&E has historically fallen behind on its renewable targets while adding new natural gas generation. The table below demonstrates that, as a percentage of bundled electricity sales, PG&E procured less renewable energy in 2007 (11.4%) than it was in 2003 (12.4%), soon after the passage of the RPS.
Figure 1: Information from CPUC’s RPS Quarterly Report, July 2008 at 4. While PG&E has slipped year after year on meeting renewable energy targets, a spree of construction since 1999 has resulted in at least a $15 billion in major investment by PG&E and other companies in new natural gas electric generation in California. Many of these plants replaced older, less efficient power plants, and for a time actually reduced consumption of natural gas fuel. The rate of new construction has undermined the improved efficiency because while 7,500 megawatts of old plant capacity retired by
8
CPUC: RPS Quarterly Report, July 2008 at 11 available at http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/word_pdf/REPORT/85936.pdf. 4
2008, over 18,000 megawatts have been built, or will be built, by the end of 2010.9 The cumulative new natural gas generation added in California over the last decade is shown in Figure 2. This is far less than the total natural gas plant capacity in the state, which exceeds 40,000 megawatts. The build-up of new natural gas plants as demonstrated in Figure 2 occurred just as the state was required to implement its renewables policy. Figure 2.
Contrary to this trend, the usage rate of natural gas plants will need to decrease if the clean energy policies are to achieve their goals. A 2003 study by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) looked at the effects of increasing renewables and reducing
9
Source data for the chart is in Appendix 1, from the California Energy Commission’s Energy Facility Status database. The column on the far right adds in plants that are outside the jurisdiction of the commission’s approval process. These are primarily plants under 50 megawatts built between 2000 and 2007.
5
growth in energy demand on the future need for natural gas plants in California.10 LBNL found that by 2030 the state would need to reduce natural gas plant capacity by 8,000 megawatts to meet the proposed requirement to get 33 percent of electricity from renewable energy. If aggressive energy efficiency policies slow the rate of growth in electricity demand, this could reduce the need for natural gas power plants by another 4,000 megawatts. The study did not consider the possibility of combining energy efficiency with renewables, but the state is actually in the process of adopting both of these requirements. Figure 3, below, illustrates this:
10
California’s Electricity Generation and Transmission Interconnection Needs Under Alternative Scenarios, CERTS, LBNL, 2003. CEC, 500-03-106, available at . http://certs.lbl.gov/pdf/ca-scenarios.pdf. The original study, however, shows only 32,100 megawatts of existing natural gas plants due to the fact that the report dates to 2003. Since that time thousands of megawatts of new plants have been built, as the previous chart illustrates. 6
Figure 3 above shows California’s existing natural gas plant capacity in April 2009 at 41,499 megawatts.11 The LBNL study projected that if the state implements both the 33 percent renewables requirement and aggressive efficiency programs, then over 20,000 megawatts could be retired, more than the capacity of the 15,400 megawatts of aging OTC natural gas plants. Building any new natural gas capacity undermines California’s green energy goals. Even repowering existing plants would amount to pushing aside the state’s green energy targets. In this context, it is important to realize how much “padding” is placed into the LBNL projections. The report looks at the need for natural gas power plant capacity in 2030, a full decade beyond the 2020 renewable program policy target. This allows up to a full decade of delay in meeting these targets and also accomodates an extra decade of growth in demand. The report, for example, made the following growth assumptions: “To address California transmission interconnections for the future, this study focused on the year 2030. By that time, California is forecast to experience: Population growth to over 50 million, an increase of 18 million over 30 years; [and] Electricity peak demand of 80 G W, an increase of 28 GW from current [2003] levels, or an average annual peak demand growth of 1.5 percent.” 2.
PG&E’s Requested New Generation and Retirement Extension in A.09-09-021 Fails to Comply with the Letter and Intent of Commission Decision (D.) 07-12-052. PG&E’s plan is inconsistent with the LTPP. The Commission evaluated PG&E’s
need determination and request to procure new and additional energy sources to meet
11
See California Energy Commission, California Power Plant Database (Excel File), http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/powerplants/POWER_PLANTS.XLS. 7
projected demand through 2015 in the LTPP.12 PG&E initially requested a need determination of 2,300 MW which assumed, among other things, that PG&E would retire 4,400 MW in its service area.13 After its evaluation of PG&E’s request, the Commission found that PG&E’s service area showed a need of 800-1,200 MW (as reflected by Table PGE-1 in the decision) “using the assumptions and conclusions reached in this decision without any additional contingencies.”14 Table PGE-1 provides that PG&E will not need any additional resources until 2014 assuming that it retires 3,600 MW by 2014 (and 4,400 MW by 2015) and procures a certain amount of renewable and other resources based on other agreements.15 In other words, the LTPP set forth a need assessment that is dependent on a number of assumptions – contrary to the assumptions PG&E makes in its application. Now, PG&E disagrees with and attempts to redefine the Commission’s needs assessment in the LTPP and argues that “the need for new resources continues and is greater than the 800 MW and 1,200 MW approved by the Commission.”16 PG&E fails to justify this change with factual support or analysis. Importantly, PG&E has not shown that it has retired or plans to retire the MW contemplated in the LTPP, which were a significant basis for the LTPP’s need determination. Nor has PG&E shown that it has not been able to procure sufficient energy through other agreements as assumed in the LTPP. Rather, PG&E’s application leaves the public largely in the dark about PG&E’s current and future system capabilities. For example, PG&E recently started operating a new 530 MW facility called the Gateway Generating Station. This station, and the 12 13 14 15 16
See D.07-12-052 at 104-106 (PG&E initially requested 2,300 MW). See id. at 105-06. Id. at FOF, Paragraph 42. See id. at 116. See PG&E Sept. 30, 2009 Testimony, A.09-09-021 (PG&E Test.) at 1-2. 8
impact of its additional MW on the PG&E system, is not discussed in the public version of this application even though it is directly relevant to assessing PG&E’s needs. Instead of presenting a reasoned analysis, PG&E merely states that times have changed, and thus it should be allowed to procure more energy than allowed under the LTPP: “[s]ince the LTPP Decision was issued in December 2007, some of these factors and assumptions have changed and will likely continue to change over time.”17 These conclusory statements are insufficient justification to grant PG&E’s request. In fact, contrary to PG&E’s suggestion, post-2007 data, self-reported by PG&E, conclude that natural gas demand will grow very little to 2030. According to PG&E’s 2008 California Gas Report (CGR), “average year demand forecast projects total onsystem demand growing at an annual average rate of 0.2 percent between 2008 and 2030.”18 As these are dramatic declines from the 2006 forecast, PG&E’s report explains: The projected rate of growth of the core market has decreased from the 2006 CGR primarily due to increased emphasis on energy efficiency and expected high gas prices. The forecast rate of growth of the noncore market has decreased significantly due to declines in projected load for the industrial sector. The decline is primarily due to expected high gas prices and California’s continued shift away from manufacturing and processing.19 The 2008 California Gas Report includes the graph,20 Figure 4 below, which shows a decrease in natural gas electrical generation to 2015.
17
PG&E Test. at 1-2. See California Gas and Electric Utilities. “2008 California Gas Report.” at 32, available at http://www.socalgas.com/regulatory/documents/cgr/2008_CGR.pdf . 19 Id. 20 Source of Graph “Composition of PG&E Requirements (Bcf) Average Demand Year”: 2008 California Gas Report at 32. 18
9
Figure 4:
This is also corroborated by the California Energy Commission’s 2009 forecast.21 The Commission should reject PG&E’s attempt to change the LTPP in this proceeding. Importantly, PG&E’s attempt to backdoor in these two new natural-gas facilities without showing why these natural gas facilities are needed is in violation of the Commission’s requirements set forth in the LTPP, which included: 1. Requiring IOUs to reflect in the design of their RFOs compliance with the preferred resource loading order and how the resources sought will advance the IOU’s efforts to reduce GHG levels; 2. Requiring a demonstration of how each application for fossil generation filed based on the procurement authority granted in this proceeding fits into each IOU’s GHG reduction strategy; and
21
This report is discussed in CARE’s protest. The CEC’s 2009 forecast is available at http://www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CEC-200-2009-012/CEC-200-2009-012SF.PDF. 10
3. Providing more explicit directions in the next LTPP OIR regarding steps the IOUs must take to plan for reducing carbon emissions, achieving the State’s 33% renewables goal, and conform to the EAP II loading order through the application of resource planning methodologies and analytical techniques that consider cost and risk.22 PG&E’s blanket statement that these new facilities are needed for ramping up for renewable energy23 is insufficient to meet these requirements. Even if PG&E attempted to meet these requirements, however, as explained below, recent demand figures demonstrate that PG&E’s additional fossil generation is not necessary. 3.
PG&E’s Requested Relief in A.09-09-021 Is in Excess of What Is Being Shut Down. PG&E wrongly attempts to color its shutdown of Contra Costa Generating
Station’s Units 6 and 7 as somehow creating a need for two additional facilities. Units 6 and 7 are aged units, which were built in 1964 and still use once through cooling (OTC).24 These units are currently subject to a tolling agreement between PG&E and Mirant Delta that requires them to be retired in October 2011.25 Therefore, PG&E’s request is more properly characterized as a request to extend the life of these units since the retirement decision has already been made. PG&E’s request appears to be inconsistent with the decisions made in the LTPP to retire these units. These units, and many other old units, were considered by this Commission in the LTPP. In particular, the Commission assumed that these units would be retired when deciding PG&E’s need to procure new energy resources.26 PG&E has failed to demonstrate why the LTPP’s retirement assumptions should be changed. 22 23 24 25 26
D.07-12-052 at 11-12. PG&E Test. 1-2, PG&E Appl. 1-2. PG&E Test. at 12. PG&E Test. at 3-18. See D.07-12-052 at 104-106. 11
Importantly, PG&E has failed to show any need that cannot be met by its currently available resources. In addition, it is not clear why PG&E wishes to extend the life of these old inefficient units. Recent data demonstrate that PG&E has barely used these units in recent years. While their combined capacity is 680 MW, in 2006, Unit 6 only ran 1 percent of the time, and Unit 7 only 4 percent. The following year, Unit 6 ran 1 percent, and Unit 7 ran 3 percent.27 Clearly, the grid can withstand their immediate and complete shutdown without the addition of new generation. Moreover, in a 2008 report produced for the California Ocean Protection Council, ICF Jones & Stokes concludes that the shuttering of the OTC natural gas plants by 2015 could occur with no need for replacement generation capacity given their low usage. The report states that “the retirements could be compensated for with as little as $135 million in in-state transmission upgrades.”28 We see no reason why retirement cannot happen with the Contra Costa units now. 4
PG&E’s Requested Relief Violates PG&E’s Environmental Leadership Protocol and Fails to Consider Environmental Justice Impacts. As part of its protocol for procuring long term energy, PG&E initiated an
Environmental Leadership Protocol that “encompasses PG&E’s commitment to seek opportunities to exceed current standards of environmental protection. The quantities and potential costs to PG&E and to society associated with an Offer's environmental 27
California Energy Commission. Comments to State Water Resources Control Board Concerning its Coastal Power Plant Preliminary Draft Policy and Related Scoping Document. http://www.energy.ca.gov/siting/documents/2008-0520_CHAIRMAN_SWRCB.PDF. 28 ICF Jones & Stokes. Electric Grid Reliability Impacts from Regulation of OnceThrough Cooling in California. California Ocean Protection Council and State Water Resources Control Board. April 2008, at 3. 12
characteristics will be considered.”29 PG&E’s requests in this application violated this environmental protocol by failing to consider the environmental impacts of these projects on the local communities. PG&E’s request is also inconsistent with requirements to consider environmental justice issues in procurement decisions. The Commission told PG&E that it needs to pay more attention to environmental justice issues: “Some criteria for which we believe the IOUs need to provide greater weight include disproportionate resource sitings in low income and minority communities, and environmental impacts/benefits (including Greenfield vs. Brownfield development).”30 In procurement decisions, PG&E has stated that it will: assess the potential cumulative pollution exposure of the community to criteria pollutants in air, water, and soil within 1 mile and within 6 miles of the Participant’s proposed facility. PG&E will also assess the Participant’s local community outreach plans to evaluate how it plans to work with the local community to resolve potential issues of concern.31 PG&E failed to consider whether the facilities are sited in highly impacted low-income and minority communities. It is also unclear whether PG&E ever did the assessment that it claims it was going to do. With respect to this required assessment, PG&E only made a conclusory statement in its testimony that: “a cumulative assessment of offers was done to determine if certain communities would be overburdened with multiple emission sources from existing and proposed industrial facilities. A cumulative assessment includes an evaluation of the total impact of existing and proposed projects.”32
29
PG&E’s Long Term Request for Offers Protocol at 15, available at http://www.pge.com/b2b/energysupply/wholesaleelectricsuppliersolicitation/allsourcerfo. 30 D.07-12-052 at 157. 31 PG&E’s Long Term Request for Offers Protocol at 15. 32 PG&E Test. at 3-8. 13
Problematically, these natural gas projects are proposed to be sited in Contra Costa County, an area already overburdened by pollution and hosts most of the Bay Area’s power plants. According to the California Energy Commission’s power plant database,33 the current breakdown of power plants in the Bay Area is as follows: County: Alameda Contra Costa Marin Napa SF County San Mateo County Santa Clara Solano Sonoma
MW 616 5638 0 18 582 39 1279 665 1172
Total MW
10,008
In addition, Contra Costa County is home to numerous other large stationary sources of pollution, including several refineries and chemical manufacturing facilities.34 Due to this disproportionate number of facilities, Contra Costa County accounts for more than one third of the total sulfur dioxide emissions for the entire Bay Area, and as a county is one the highest emitters of carbon monoxide and PM10.35 A significant addition of these pollutants into the air from these unnecessary projects would only worsen the air. These projects would result in more power plants than any community should have to
33
Information for table is from California Power Plant Database (Excel File), http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/powerplants/POWER_PLANTS.XLS. 34 See Air Resources Board, Facility Search Engine, available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/ei/disclaim.htm. 35 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Base Year 2005 Emissions Inventory. http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/Emission-Inventory-and-AirQuality-Related/~/media/A06B5C918A5F413B9BDBE0B63AC2340E.ashx. 14
bear, especially considering that Contra Costa County has five times the number of facilities that emit criteria air pollutants per square mile than the California average.36 These facilities are proposed to be sited in low-income and minority communities. Pittsburgh and Antioch are home to many minority communities, especially around the facility,37 and a significant percentage of the residents in those cities live below the federal poverty line (19.9% in Antioch and 28.5% in Pittsburgh).38 These communities are disproportionately impacted by illnesses known to be related to exposure to industrial pollution. For instance, in Contra Costa County, the hospitalization rate due to asthma for African American children is almost five times that of Caucasian children.39 Childhood asthma rates in Contra Costa County are nearly twice the national average.40 There is also a significant disparity of disease rates between whites and people of color in Contra Costa County. For instance, African-Americans in Contra Costa County have a 59% higher death rate from all causes of death, including heart disease, cancer, and stroke, than the country average.41
36
Density of Pollution Sources, available at http://www.scorecard.org/community/ejreport.tcl?fips_county_code=06013#risk. 37 See United States Census, 2005-2007 Community Survey Data; see also http://cchealth.org/groups/chronic_disease/framework.php (describing how West Contra Costa County is composed of significant percentage of minorities). 38 Contra Costa Health Services, available at http://cchealth.org/health_data/hospital_council/pdf/poverty.pdf.. . 39 Contra Costa Health Services, Health Disparities in Contra Costa, available at http://cchealth.org/groups/rhdi/pdf/health_disparities_in_cc.pdf. 40 See Contra Costa Asthma Coalition, available at http://www.calendow.org/uploadedFiles/CAFA3_CCscreen.pdf (Contra Costa County asthma rate in children is 23.7%, whereas national rate is 14.2%). 41 Community Health Indicator for Contra Costa County, Community Health Assessment, Planning and Evaluation Group Executive Report (June 2007), available at http://cchealth.org/health_data/hospital_council_2007/. 15
Death rates from cardiovascular and respiratory diseases in Contra Costa County are also currently higher than statewide rates and are continue to rise.42 Further, Richmond, Pittsburgh, and Antioch have significantly higher hospital discharge rates for chronic diseases than other cities and the county overall.43 Id. Contra Costa County’s cancer death rate is also higher than the state average.44 In addition, scientific links have been made between certain types of cancer – including lung, nasal cavity, and skin cancers – and pollutant emissions in Contra Costa County.45 All of these health impacts are especially problematic and severe for those without health insurance: 43% of low-income residents in Contra Costa County are un-insured.46 Because of the unusually large cluster of power plants and other industrial facilities sited in this relatively small geographic area, PG&E should have considered the environmental justice impacts of the potential addition of two new large facilities. By failing to conduct an environmental justice analysis, PG&E violated its own protocol and this Commission’s requirement to consider impacts to thelocal community. Based on PG&E’s failure to consider environmental justice issues and the significant disparities created by the two proposed facilities, the Commission should reject PG&E’s unjust and 42
See A Framework for Contra Costa County, available at http://cchealth.org/groups/chronic_disease/framework.php. 43 See Contra Costa Health Services, Health Disparities in Contra Costa, available at http://cchealth.org/groups/rhdi/pdf/health_disparities_in_cc.pdf. 44 See A Framework for Contra Costa County, available at http://cchealth.org/groups/chronic_disease/framework.php. 45 See Cancer Incidence and Community Exposure to Air Emissions from Petroleum and Chemical Plants in Contra Costa County, California: A Critical Epidemiological Assessment, Otto Wong, and William J. Bailey; Journal of Environmental Health, Vol. 56 1993, available at http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=KngJLJhFRCYFhpTfY5K100wT X5dSl4BvRR1qZvvDwL7bKfCG921F!568259201!-950397748?docId=5002198605. 46 See Community Health Indicator for Contra Costa County, Community Health Assessment, Planning and Evaluation Group Executive Report (June 2007), available at http://cchealth.org/health_data/hospital_council_2007/. 16
unreasonable request to locate two new facilities in this already overburdened neighborhood.47 ISSUES REQUIRING AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING Of the issues raised by A.09-09-021 listed above, those that require facts to be presented and adduced at an evidentiary hearing to be fairly resolved include, but are not limited to: (1) PG&E’s service area demand and need to procure additional resources; (2) PG&E’s ability to meet that demand by following the priorities of the EAP and California energy policy; and (3) environmental justice considerations, including cumulative impacts, for the areas where the proposed facilities would be constructed. EFFECT OF APPLICATION ON PROTESTERS Pacific Environment is a public interest environmental non-profit 501(c)3 organization. In 2005, Pacific Environment initiated its California Program, whose mission is to “Keep California’s Clean Energy Promise.” Our research concludes that the only way to meet the RPS and the AB32 requirements is to halt any new increase in fossil fuel generated electricity. PE has concluded that PG&E’s application runs counter to these goals and is thus not in the public interest. ALTERNATIVE PROPOSED SCHEDULE Commission Rule 2.6(c) requires a protest to an application to include comments or objections, if any, to the applicant’s (PG&E’s) “statement on the proposed category, need for hearing, issues to be considered, and proposed schedule.”48 A protest can
47
See, e.g., Cal. Pub. Utility Code § 451 (provides that the service the utility provides must be “adequate, efficient, just, and reasonable . . . as . . . . necessary to promote the safety [and] health of its patrons, employees, and the public”); Cal. Pub. Util. Code § 701. 48 Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, Rule 2.6(c). 17
include an “alternative proposed schedule” consistent with the 18 month-timetable applicable for resolving a “ratesetting” application.49 PE agrees with PG&E’s recommendation that this application (A.09-09-021) be categorized as “ratesetting.” PE also believes that evidentiary hearings likely will be necessary due to PE’s disagreement with PG&E on the issues identified above, which include the necessity for procuring additional resources for PG&E’s system, the importance of the loading order requirement, and consideration of environmental and environmental justice issues. PE proposes that the dates in PG&E’s proposed schedule be changed to reflect the date the Application was noticed in the daily calendar (October 6, 2009) and the rest of the dates be moved back a week in light of this change. CONCLUSION On the grounds stated above, PE protests A.09-09-021. PE requests that the Commission not approve PG&E’s request for two new facilities to an area that already has fourteen power plants and to extend the retirement of an old inefficient facility that uses once-through cooling. Respectfully submitted, October 30, 2009
/s/ Deborah Behles DEBORAH BEHLES HELEN KANG Environmental Law and Justice Clinic Golden Gate University School of Law 536 Mission Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2968 (415) 442-6654 (Telephone) dbehles@ggu.edu Attorneys for PACIFIC ENVIRONMENT
49
Id. 18
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Fe Gonzalez, am over the age of 18 years and employed in the City and County of San Francisco. My business address is 536 Mission Street, San Francisco, California 94121. On October 30, 2009, I served the within document PROTEST OF PACIFIC ENVIRONMENT, in A.09-09-021, pursuant to the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, with separate and additional delivery of hard-copies by U.S. Mail to Assigned Commissioner Peevey and Assigned ALJ Fararr, at San Francisco, California. Executed on October 30, 2009, at San Francisco, California.
/s/ Fe Gonzalex Fe Gonzalez
19
Electronic Service List, A.09-09-021 magq@pge.com anne.cleary@mirant.com filings@a-klaw.com Kcj5@pge.com nes@a-klaw.com sscb@pge.com taj8@pge.com cem@newsdata.com crmd@pge.com RegRelCPUCCases@pge.com john.chillemi@mirant.com sean.beatty@mirant.com edf@cpuc.ca.gov nao@cpuc.ca.gov shi@cpuc.ca.gov
20