12 months customer usage.” By basing it on annual usage, the new size limit customer’s greater flexibility in sizing their [distributed generation] “allows facilities, reflects the sites’ actual usage, and still prevents potential over-sizing of systems relative to annual energy use.” Davis’ assertion that the Commission has permitted systems sized to either percent of annual “always” “200 consumption or 200 percent of peak load” is simply incorrect. Complainant to present any legal authority that supports his position. He nevertheless claims that a few months after the annual usage rule was adopted, D.06-12-033 impliedly modified the rule by holding that projects “solar may be sized up to five MW [but] may receive incentives only up to the first MW.” According to Complainant, this single sentence created an implied rule that systems may receive CSI incentives but only on the portion of a facility that offsets the premises’ annual load. Davis further contends that his interpretation is supported by the legislative history of AB 920. A legislative analysis of that bill stated that customers receive the rebates under the [CSI program] . . . “can but only for the portion of the system that meets a customer’s demand.” D.06-12-033 does not create an implied rule. It does not mention or allude to 100 percent annual historical usage, it does not discuss systems under one MW, and it does not address any policy concerns about oversized systems. There is simply nothing in D.06-12-033 to suggest that the Commission intended to revise the annual load size limit. To the contrary, D.06-12-033 orders that the Commission continue CSI implementation as set forth in D.06-07-028, “should except as [expressly] modified in this order.” It is implausible that, despite
12 months customer usage.” By basing it on annual usage, the new size limit “allows customer’s greater flexibility in sizing their [distributed generation] facilities, reflects the sites’ actual usage, and still prevents potential over-sizing of systems relative to annual energy use.” Davis’ assertion that the Commission has “always” permitted systems sized to either “200 percent of annual consumption or 200 percent of peak load” is simply incorrect. Complainant to present any legal authority that supports his position. He nevertheless claims that a few months after the annual usage rule was adopted, D.06-12-033 impliedly modified the rule by holding that “solar projects may be sized up to five MW [but] may receive incentives only up to the first MW.” According to Complainant, this single sentence created an implied rule that systems may receive CSI incentives but only on the portion of a facility that offsets the premises’ annual load. Davis further contends that his interpretation is supported by the legislative history of AB 920. A legislative analysis of that bill stated that customers “can receive the rebates under the [CSI program] . . . but only for the portion of the system that meets a customer’s demand.” D.06-12-033 does not create an implied rule. It does not mention or allude to 100 percent annual historical usage, it does not discuss systems under one MW, and it does not address any policy concerns about oversized systems. There is simply nothing in D.06-12-033 to suggest that the Commission intended to revise the annual load size limit. To the contrary, D.06-12-033 orders that the Commission “should continue CSI implementation as set forth in D.06-07-028, except as [expressly] modified in this order.” It is implausible that, despite