1. Clean Co. opposed The Commission issued a ruling on Nov To be more precise, to hold 8, 2016 agreeing with the Clean Clean PG&E’s motion Coalition’s the RAM solicitations Coalition and denying motion opposition to PG&E’s PG&E’s in abeyance, arguing in to hold the auctions in abeyance, stating motion was on two our Response (29 July (Ruling, p. 3): main grounds: 2016) that it will: If granted, it will lead Lead to higher costs to substantial losses procurement of “The for ratepayers and for developers and RPS-eligible solar resources that PG&E losses for therefore higher costs now seeks to postpone has therefore developers; for ratepayers; and been authorized, in one programmatic The RPS is a floor because the form or another, for more than six not a ceiling; Commission has years.” A recent UCS report already ordered suggested that PG&E to conduct the The ruling required PG&E to proceed meeting the 2016 and 2017 state’s with its two remaining auctions. GHG reduction Renewable Auction goals may require a Mechanism (RAM) 50% RPS by 2024; solicitations. argument PG&E’s that further cost reductions may result from further delays in RAM procurement is flawed b/c under this rationale there is always reason to wait for further cost reductions. 2. Clean Co. opposed Verified The Decision agreed with the Clean Co. Petition for PG&E’s and denied motion to cancel its Modification (PFM). PG&E’s RAM auctions (Decision, p. 1): The Commission, in Pacific Gas and Electric ruling on the PFM, “We deny (PG&E) Petition to Modify agreed with our Company’s Decision (D.) 14-11-042 on the grounds objections, along with that PG&E has failed to meet its burden other arguments, and set forth in Rule 16.4 (b) of the rejected PFM. PG&E’s of Practice and Commission’s Rules Procedure to justify the request relief.”
1. Clean Co. opposed PG&E’s motion to hold the RAM solicitations in abeyance, arguing in our Response (29 July 2016) that it will: Lead to higher costs for ratepayers and losses for developers; The RPS is a floor not a ceiling; A recent UCS report suggested that meeting the state’s GHG reduction goals may require a 50% RPS by 2024; PG&E’s argument that further cost reductions may result from further delays in RAM procurement is flawed b/c under this rationale there is always reason to wait for further cost reductions. The Commission issued a ruling on Nov 8, 2016 agreeing with the Clean Coalition and denying PG&E’s motion to hold the auctions in abeyance, stating (Ruling, p. 3): “The procurement of RPS-eligible solar resources that PG&E now seeks to postpone has therefore been authorized, in one programmatic form or another, for more than six years.” The ruling required PG&E to proceed with its two remaining auctions. To be more precise, Clean Coalition’s opposition to PG&E’s motion was on two main grounds: If granted, it will lead to substantial losses for developers and therefore higher costs for ratepayers; and because the Commission has already ordered PG&E to conduct the 2016 and 2017 Renewable Auction Mechanism (RAM) solicitations. 2. Clean Co. opposed PG&E’s Petition for Modification (PFM). The Commission, in ruling on the PFM, agreed with our objections, along with other arguments, and rejected PG&E’s PFM. The Decision agreed with the Clean Co. and denied PG&E’s motion to cancel its RAM auctions (Decision, p. 1): “We deny Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s (PG&E) Petition to Modify Decision (D.) 14-11-042 on the grounds that PG&E has failed to meet its burden set forth in Rule 16.4 (b) of the Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure to justify the request relief.” Verified
211971790.docx