Parties Filed Comments on the Proposed Decision Against Expanding Direct Access

On May 14, 2021, the California Public Utilties Commission (“Commission”) issued Proposed Decision Recommending Against Further Direct Access (“DA”) Expansion (“Proposed Decision”). The Proposed Decision recommends that the Legislature not expand Direct Access transactions due to risks to electric system reliability and inconsistencies with the state’s GHG emission reduction goals. On June 3, 2021, ten parties filed opening comments on the Proposed Decision. On June 8, 2021, three parties filed reply comments.

The following is a brief snapshot of party comments:

CalCCA

• CalCCA supports the Commission’s recommendation against further Direct Access expansion.
• Greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions are a key criteria by which to assess DA expansion and the September 2020 Staff Report (Staff Report) provides sufficient justification on which to base its conclusion.
• The procurement practices of most ESPs, as noted by the Commission, do not align with the state’s GHG goals and do not guarantee that greenhouse gas emissions, criteria air pollutants, and toxic contaminants will not increase.

Cal Advocates

• Cal Advocates supports the PD’s findings about electric system reliability and GHG emissions, as well as its recommendation against further Direct Access expansion.
• In light of the recent circumstances in Texas, it remains clear that ensuring reliability of the electric system must take priority over expanding Direct Access when the two goals are at loggerheads.
• The PD’s concerns that greenhouse gas emissions are likely to increase (due to less Renewable Portfolio Standard procurement across the system) are also reasonable.

Direct Access Proponents

• The PD should be rejected in its entirety and either an alternate or a new proposed decision issued that complies with state and federal law.
• The Proposed Decision does not comply with the Legislature’s directives in SB 237.
• If ESPs elect to pursue a strategy of using unspecified power while still meeting all other requirements, including RA and RPS, then the Proposed Decision’s critique is flawed and unjustified.
• The PD’s concern about load migration totally ignores the far greater load migration occurring for CCA, thereby picking “winners and losers” and unfairly tilting the playing fields.

See the link below for a full summary of the parties’ opening and reply comments on the Proposed Decision.