Simplifying Policy Management

Code Section 1701.5(a) for timely resolution of issues.

Comment Period

The CPUC has waived the standard 30-day comment period for this decision, as permitted under Rule 14.6(c)(4). The decision is effective immediately upon issuance.

Current Oversight

• Administrative Law Judge: Andrew Dugowson
• Assigned Commissioner: Darcie L. Houck

Last Week's New Comments +6

Update on Recent Comments in CPUC Proceeding R21-03-011: Provider of Last Resort (POLR) Applications

Recent filings in CPUC proceeding R21-03-011 address the Proposed Decision (PD) issued December 12, 2025, which sets forth guidelines for non-investor-owned utilities (non-IOUs) to apply for Provider of Last Resort (POLR) status. The comments reflect a range of perspectives from utilities, trade associations, and advocacy groups on key issues such as customer class segmentation, statutory interpretation, and the application process. The following is a sampling of parties' positions on the main topics addressed in the latest round of comments.

Eligibility for POLR by Customer Class

• Shell Energy North America (SENA) argues that the statute is silent on whether POLR responsibilities can be segmented by customer class and urges the Commission not to preemptively limit its authority to allocate POLR duties by customer class. SENA requests removal of Finding of Fact No. 4, which states that the statute prohibits such segmentation.
• Southern California Edison (SCE) maintains that the PD correctly interprets SB 520 as requiring POLR service to all customer classes within a geographic area, and opposes SENA’s proposal to limit POLR service to only commercial and industrial customers.
• San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) asserts that statutory requirements mandate universal access and equitable treatment for all customer classes, and that limiting POLR service to specific classes would violate these requirements.
• Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) supports the PD’s interpretation that non-IOU POLRs must serve all customer classes and opposes SENA’s request to remove Finding of Fact No. 4.
• California Community Choice Association (CalCCA) supports the PD’s application process and criteria for non-IOU POLR eligibility, and does not support proposals to define or limit POLR service by customer class at this stage.
• Public Advocates Office (Cal Advocates) rejects SENA’s proposal to divide POLR obligations by customer class, supporting the PD’s requirement that non-IOU POLRs serve all customer classes in their territory.

Statutory Interpretation and Legislative Intent

• SENA contends that the statute does not explicitly prohibit allocation of POLR responsibilities by customer class and that legislative intent does not support such a restriction.
• SCE argues that the statutory language is clear and that legislative intent is not relevant, as the law requires universal access and equitable treatment for all customers.
• SDG&E references statutory provisions and California Supreme Court principles to support the interpretation that equitable, non-discriminatory service is required for all customer classes.
• Cal Advocates asserts that the legislative intent of SB 520 is to ensure universal access and equitable treatment, and that SENA’s interpretation would undermine this goal.

Definition and Scope of POLR Service

• SDG&E recommends that the Commission clearly define "POLR service" as a threshold issue for non-IOU applications, emphasizing the need for clarity before applications are filed.
• PG&E supports SDG&E’s recommendation to define "POLR service" and to include all three IOUs as respondents to non-IOU POLR applications for comprehensive review.
• Cal Advocates supports SDG&E’s call for a clear definition of POLR services to ensure regulatory oversight and just, reasonable rates.
• CalCCA opposes defining "POLR service" at this stage, arguing that the definition should be tailored to each application and not set prematurely due to differing party views. CalCCA is open to including a question about the definition in the application process but prefers a case-specific approach.

Application Process for Non-IOU POLRs

• SENA advocates for a process that allows non-IOU entities to apply directly for POLR duties without the need for additional rulemaking.
• CalCCA supports the PD’s current application process and criteria for non-IOU POLR eligibility, emphasizing broad consensus among parties on this framework.

Regulatory Oversight and Consumer Protection

• Cal Advocates emphasizes that POLR services must be regulated as public utilities under the Public Utilities Code, ensuring just and reasonable rates and continuous Commission oversight to protect captive customers.

Details

EDF was awarded $42,804.50, which is less than its requested amount of $56,975.75. The reduction was due to adjustments for excessive or unclear time entries and hourly rates.

EDF's Contributions

EDF's input was recognized as significant, particularly in the following areas:

• Advocating for increased mid-term reliability procurement
• Promoting aggressive greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets
• Including offshore wind and natural gas retirement scenarios in planning

The Commission acknowledged EDF's influence on the recommendation to study a sensitivity portfolio for natural gas plant retirements by 2030 or 2035, in alignment with Senate Bill 887. Although CAISO supported modeling this scenario, it will defer the analysis to future cycles due to current resource constraints. The Commission has committed to further stakeholder engagement in 2023.

Eligibility and Compensation Rates

The CPUC confirmed EDF’s eligibility for compensation, citing its timely notice of intent and demonstration of customer status and financial hardship. Attorney Yochanan Zakai’s hourly rates were established at $510 for 2022 and $535 for 2023, reflecting his experience and market standards. The Commission clarified that attorneys licensed in any U.S. jurisdiction are now eligible for compensation at attorney rates, removing the previous requirement for California licensure. Compensation rates for other representatives, such as Michael Colvin, were also set at the top of the range for their experience.

Procedural Updates

Procedural updates included:

• Corrections to compensation figures
• Reassignment of the proceeding to Commissioner Alice Reynolds and ALJ Colin Rizzo
• Adjustments to ensure compliance with CPUC policies

The document emphasizes the importance of transparency and accuracy in compensation requests, noting reductions for unclear entries and reminding of penalties for misleading claims. No opposition to EDF’s claim was recorded, and the comment period was waived.

topics addressed in the latest filings.

Reporting Frequency and Timeliness

• RCRC recommends semi-annual reporting to enable more timely oversight and accountability, rather than the proposed annual schedule.
• SBUA advocates for monthly reports using a rolling 12-month average, arguing that annual reporting is insufficient for transparency and customer responsiveness.
• CforAT supports biannual reporting to provide more current data for vulnerable customers.
• UCAN supports annual submission of Customer Reliability Reports by July 15, emphasizing the importance of data accuracy over increased frequency.

Outage Data Detail and Circuit Information

• RCRC calls for more detailed outage data, especially for rural and disadvantaged communities, and recommends establishing thresholds for repetitive outages and maintaining detailed cause categories.
• UCAN disagrees with IOUs' suggestion to omit data about circuit characteristics, such as overhead versus underground infrastructure, and recommends retaining and refining these data requirements to better understand outage trends.
• SBUA emphasizes the need for outage reports to distinguish between overhead and underground infrastructure and recommends data be available at various levels of aggregation for public accessibility.

Focus on Vulnerable and Disadvantaged Communities

• RCRC stresses the importance of reporting that accurately reflects reliability trends in rural and disadvantaged communities and calls for actionable remediation plans for circuits with persistent outages.
• UCAN highlights the need for the report to capture data on outages affecting tribal governments, rural, disadvantaged, and low-income communities, and to characterize impacted circuits to identify patterns.
• CforAT recommends separate analysis of impacts on customers with disabilities and medical needs, and calls for specific definitions for vulnerable customer groups in the reporting template.

Integration with Other Reports and Transparency

• RCRC supports integrating EPSS and PEDS monthly reports, as well as WMDR quarterly spatial reports, into the Customer Reliability Report to improve accessibility and transparency.
• RCRC recommends IOUs provide community dashboards with links on the CPUC website to enhance outage communication and public participation.
• SBUA suggests customers should be able to query data dynamically to understand outage patterns and the impact of wildfire mitigation measures.

Wildfire Mitigation and Reliability Metrics

• RCRC urges greater transparency regarding how reliability metrics relate to wildfire mitigation efforts, emphasizing that ratepayer-funded investments should result in tangible improvements in service reliability.
• SBUA recommends that outage data allow customers to assess the relationship between grid characteristics and outages, including those related to wildfire safety measures.

Stakeholder Engagement and Template Refinement

• SBUA calls for workshops involving stakeholders and IOUs to refine the reporting template and ensure it meets customer needs.

Health Risk Mitigation and Communication Practices

• CforAT emphasizes the need for IOUs to report on how they mitigate health risks for vulnerable customers, with a maximum reporting delay of 135 days, and recommends modifications to the template to enhance communication practices.

• Prehearing conference held on April 4, 2024.
• Scoping memo issued on May 9, 2024.

Decision Details

The CPUC waived the standard 30-day public review period for this decision, which is effective immediately.

Oversight

Commissioner John Reynolds and ALJs Nilgun Atamturk and Darryl J. Gruen are overseeing the proceedings.