Simplifying Policy Management

Proposed Decision’s zero valuation and argue that the existing PCIA methodology satisfied the indifference requirement. This is a sampling of parties' positions.

Treatment and Valuation of Pre-2019 Banked RECs

• CalCCA Argues that later-departed customers paid for the RECs while bundled customers and should receive a share of the compliance value when the RECs are used for current bundled-service RPS compliance. It contends that the earlier market-price benchmark credit and the later compliance benefit are distinct benefits received by different customers at different times, and therefore there is no duplicative payment. CalCCA requests valuation at the current RPS Market Price Benchmark or proportional allocation based on payments made by the relevant customers, as described in its proposed alternative decision.
• Joint IOUs Support the Proposed Decision’s rejection of additional valuation or allocation for later-departed customers. They state that the pre-2019 PCIA methodology used market valuation rather than compliance valuation and that the banked RECs have zero market value because they cannot be sold, transferred, or used for Power Content Label marketing. They argue that CalCCA’s proposal would impose an approximately $1 billion cost on bundled customers.

Statutory Indifference Requirement

• CalCCA Maintains that Public Utilities Code section 366.2(g) creates an ongoing obligation to account for benefits retained by bundled customers, rather than a determination completed through the 2011 PCIA decision. It argues that the prior methodology did not address the compliance benefit realized when pre-2019 banked RECs are used for current RPS compliance, and that recognizing this benefit would not retroactively modify prior decisions or duplicate the historical credit.
• Joint IOUs Maintain that the Commission implemented the indifference mandate through the pre-2019 PCIA methodology by reducing departing-load customers’ cost responsibilities for the market value of RPS resources and other attributes retained by bundled customers. They argue that a later compliance-based payment would create a prohibited new cost shift to bundled customers and that the Proposed Decision is the only outcome that avoids imposing costs on either customer group.

Fairness and Alleged Discrimination

• CalCCA Argues that the Proposed Decision’s zero valuation conflicts with Public Utilities Code section 453 by creating preferences, prejudice, or unreasonable differences among customers. It states that customers who paid the same generation rates for the same RECs are treated differently based on whether and when they departed for CCA service, with the entire compliance value assigned to current bundled customers and none assigned to later-departed customers.
• Joint IOUs Contend that CalCCA’s proposal is not genuinely prospective because the costs and benefits of the pre-2019 PCIA portfolios were already allocated among customers. They argue that addressing only the banked REC issue while leaving other alleged pre-2019 cost shifts unchanged would be arbitrary, unreasonable, and unfair.

Adequacy of Findings and Legal Analysis

• CalCCA Argues that the Proposed Decision fails to make the findings required by Public Utilities Code section 1705 on whether assigning all later compliance value to current bundled customers, while assigning no value to later-departed customers, satisfies the indifference requirement. It also contends that the proposed revision to Finding of Fact 9 would relabel the issue rather than address the missing material findings.
• Joint IOUs Reject the section 1705 challenge, asserting that the Proposed Decision’s findings and conclusions provide a reviewing court with a meaningful basis to understand the facts and principles supporting the outcome. They identify Findings of Fact 3 through 5 and 8 through 9 and Conclusions of Law 1 and 3 through 4 as sufficient to establish that the prior methodology satisfied indifference and that an additional payment for the same RECs would violate that requirement.

Timeliness, Rehearing, and Laches

• CalCCA Responds that Public Utilities Code section 1731(b)(1) permits rehearing only on matters determined in the underlying action, and that the prior decisions did not determine the value received by later-departed customers when pre-2019 banked RECs were subsequently used for bundled compliance. It disputes laches, stating that it opposed zero valuation whenever the issue arose, that the Commission repeatedly treated the issue on an interim basis, that the question was assigned to Track Two, and that the utilities previously acknowledged there was no guidance on banked REC accounting.
• Joint IOUs Support the Proposed Decision’s conclusion that CalCCA’s legal challenges to the prior PCIA decisions are untimely under section 1731 and Rule 16.1(a). They argue that those decisions adopted methodologies intended to implement the indifference statutes in full and that any challenge should have been raised through rehearing or a petition for modification. They also assert that CalCCA knew of the relevant REC and customer circumstances earlier, delayed its challenge, and caused reliance and prejudice sufficient to support laches.

Requested Modifications to the Proposed Decision

• Joint IOUs Request a conclusion of law stating that CalCCA’s challenge to the pre-2019 or post-2018 RPS valuation methodology is untimely, along with a revision to Finding of Fact 9 clarifying that the alleged cost shift is an allegation under the pre-2019 framework rather than a Commission finding that a cost shift occurred.
• CalCCA Requests that the Commission reject the Proposed Decision, decline the Joint IOUs’ proposed modifications, and adopt an alternative decision that values or allocates the pre-2019 banked RECs using the approach set out in its Appendix A. Its earlier comments also requested immediate implementation and inclusion of the methodology in 2027 ERRA October updates.