[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 145 (Wednesday, July 29, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40521-40522]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-20244]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Before Commissioners: James J. Hoecker, Chairman; Vicky A.
Bailey, William L. Massey, Linda Breathitt, and Curt Hebert, Jr.
[Docket No. TX96-7-001]
City of Palm Springs, California; Show Cause Order
Issued July 16, 1998.
The City of Palm Springs, California (Palm Springs), Enron Power
Marketing, Inc. (Enron), and the Electricity Consumers Resource Council
and the American Iron and Steel Institute (jointly ELCON) have
requested rehearing of our order (July 31 order) \1\ finding that
Southern California Edison Company (SoCal Edison) was not obligated to
provide certain transmission service to Palm Springs. In this order, we
ask the parties to show cause why subsequent events in California have
not rendered the requests for rehearing moot and subject to dismissal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ City of Palm Springs, California, 76 FERC para.61,127
(1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion
On March 1, 1996, Palm Springs filed an application requesting that
the Commission order SoCal Edison to provide Palm Springs with firm
network transmission service under sections 211 and 212 of the Federal
Power Act.\2\ In short, Palm Springs stated that it wished to provide
service to retail electricity consumers within the city limits of Palm
Springs by installing only the meters and related equipment necessary
to measure and deliver its electric power and energy. In our July 31
order, we denied Palm Springs' application because Palm Springs did not
meet the requirements of section 212(h),\3\ and because ordering SoCal
Edison to provide the requested service would be contrary to the public
interest in violation of section 211(a).\4\ As noted above, Palm
Springs, Enron, and ELCON have sought rehearing of our findings in the
July 31 order. In an order issued on September 19, 1996, the Commission
granted rehearing for the limited purpose of further consideration to
give itself additional time for consideration of the matters raised.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 16 U.S.C. 824j-k (1994).
\3\ We found, among other things, that Palm Springs' plan to
install only meters and related equipment would not meet the
statutory requirement in section 212(h)(2)(B) that it ``utilize
transmission or distribution facilities that it owns or controls to
deliver all such electric energy to such electric consumer.'' 76
FERC at 61,701-3.
\4\ This was because granting the application would allow Palm
Springs to evade the then-current plans of the California Public
Utilities Commission (California Commission) to phase-in retail
competition over several years and to impose a competition
transition charge, and because it might encourage forum shopping.
id. at 61,703-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We believe that these requests for rehearing may now be moot given
the enactment of comprehensive electricity restructuring legislation in
California,\5\ its implementation by the California Commission, and the
actual operation of the California Independent System Operator (ISO)
and the California Power Exchange (PX) as of March 31, 1998.
Specifically, in implementing AB 1890, the California Commission
rejected a phase-in of retail competition in favor of an approach that
generally allows all California electricity consumers (regardless of
customer class or size of load) direct access to alternate suppliers at
the same time.\6\ Additionally, this Commission gave necessary
approvals for the start-up of the ISO and PX,\7\ which, as noted above,
began operation on March 31, 1998. In light of these fundamental
changes since the time the requests for rehearing were filed, the
service requested by Palm Springs in its application under sections 211
and 212 appears to be unnecessary. Under the restructured California
market, access to alternate suppliers is now permitted for each and
every electricity consumer in the state, including all consumers
residing in Palm Springs. Accordingly, there appears to be no reason
for Palm Springs to continue to pursue its plan to install its own
meters and seek a section 211 transmission order to gain access to
alternate suppliers on behalf of electricity consumers in Palm Springs,
as these electricity consumers already enjoy access to alternate
suppliers through another process.\8\ Thus, we are considering
dismissing the requests for rehearing in Docket No. TX96-7-001 as moot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ This legislation (Assembly Bill No. 1890 or AB 1890) was
approved by the California Assembly on August 30, 1996 and the
California Senate on August 31, 1996, and was signed into law by the
Governor of the State of California on September 23, 1996.
\6\ See Order Instituting Rulemaking on the Commission's
Proposed Policies Governing Restructuring California's Electric
Services Industry and Reforming Regulation; Order Instituting
Investigation on the Commission Proposed Policies Governing
Restructuring California's Electric Services Industry and Reforming
Regulation, Decision 97-05-040 (May 6, 1997), 177 PUR4th 1 at 12-29
(1997), modified, Decision 97-12-131 (December 30, 1997), ________
PUR4th ________ (1997), 1997 Cal. PUC LEXIS 1227 (orders providing
for direct access for all consumers once the ISO and PX are
operational, as there are no operational or other technological
considerations requiring the phase-in of direct access).
\7\ See Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas &
Electric Company, and Southern California Edison Company, 81 FERC
para. 61,122 (1997), order denying clarification, 83 FERC para.
61,033 (1998).
\8\ We note that Palm Springs is free, under California law, to
seek to aggregate the loads of electricity consumers in Palm Springs
in order to facilitate the sale and purchase of electricity
services. See, e.g., Cal. Pub. Util. Code Secs. 331(a) & 366 (West
Supp. 1998) (as added by section 10 of AB 1890) (provisions
allowing, among other things, for cities to become aggregators of
load); 177 PUR4th at 24-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before taking this action, we will afford the parties who filed
requests for rehearing in Docket No. TX96-7-001 an opportunity to show
cause why the Commission should not dismiss their rehearing requests
and why there is still a need for the Commission to address the merits
of the pending rehearing requests. Accordingly, these parties may file
written responses within 30 days of issuance of this order addressing
this issue. An original and 14 copies of any such responses should be
sent to the Office of the Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, and should
reference Docket No. TX96-7-001.
The Commission Orders
Within 30 days of the date of issuance of this order, the parties
to the requests for rehearing in Docket No. TX96-7-001 may file
responses explaining why the Commission should or should not
[[Page 40522]]
dismiss these requests for rehearing, as discussed in the body of this
order.
By the Commission.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-20244 Filed 7-28-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
