UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
`BEFORE THE
`FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
`
`Pacific Gas and Electric Company
`
`Docket No. ER22-619-001
`ER22-620-001
`ER20-2878-015
`(Consolidated)
`
`POST-HEARING INITIAL BRIEF
`OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
`
`
`
`
`
`
`William S. Huang
`Latif M. Nurani
`Jeffrey M. Bayne
`Lauren L. Springett
`Anree G. Little
`
`SPIEGEL & MCDIARMID LLP
`1875 Eye Street, NW
`Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20006
`(202) 879-4000
`
`Attorneys for the
`City and County of San Francisco
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`May 3, 2023
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE ............................................................................. 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Procedural History ...................................................................................... 2
`
`San Francisco, PG&E, and the City’s Need for Wholesale
`Distribution Service .................................................................................... 2
`
`Voltage Levels for Distribution Services under the WDT
`(Issues 1-4) .................................................................................................. 4
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The City’s History of Low-Voltage Wholesale
`Interconnections .............................................................................. 4
`
`PG&E’s Proposals in this Proceeding Related to Voltage
`Levels of Service............................................................................. 5
`
`D. WDT3’s Rate Design and Cost Allocation (Issues 5 and 6) ....................... 8
`
`E.
`
`Other Issues ............................................................................................... 11
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Single-Issue Filings to Recover Non-Bypassable Charges
`(Issue 7) ......................................................................................... 11
`
`Engineering and Design Deadline (Issue 9).................................. 13
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................ 13
`
`A.
`
`PG&E’s arbitrary restrictions on WDT service are unjust,
`unreasonable, and unduly discriminatory. ................................................ 14
`
`Issue 1: Whether PG&E’s proposal to no longer offer secondary service at
`new points of delivery or modified Legacy Secondary points of
`delivery is just, reasonable, and not unduly discriminatory...................... 14
`
`1.
`
`PG&E’s arbitrary proposal to restrict wholesale distribution
`service to primary voltages is not just and reasonable. ................. 14
`a)
`PG&E’s primary voltage requirements lack any
`valid engineering, operational, safety, or technical
`basis and are unnecessarily burdensome........................... 15
`PG&E’s arbitrary proposal cannot be justified by
`so-called “industry norms.” .............................................. 26
`
`
`b)
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`2.
`
`c)
`
`PG&E’s primary voltage requirements are
`particularly unsupported and unreasonable where an
`Eligible Customer satisfies the grandfathering
`criteria of the WDT and Federal Power Act section
`212(h)(2). .......................................................................... 30
`
`PG&E’s proposed restrictions on WDT service are unduly
`discriminatory because they violate the Commission’s
`open-access and comparability principles. ................................... 36
`a)
`PG&E’s primary voltage requirements are unduly
`discriminatory with respect to similarly situated
`wholesale customers. ........................................................ 37
`PG&E’s primary voltage requirements unduly
`discriminate against wholesale customers relative to
`PG&E’s own use of its distribution system. ..................... 40
`
`b)
`
`3.
`
`PG&E’s proposed restrictions on WDT service are
`anticompetitive. ............................................................................. 43
`
`Issue 2: Whether PG&E’s proposal to no longer offer secondary load
`service to new points of delivery that install generation and/or
`storage facilities behind a WDT meter is just, reasonable, not
`unduly discriminatory, and consistent with Commission Order No.
`2222........................................................................................................... 47
`
`Issue 3: Whether PG&E’s proposal to no longer offer new WDT service
`interconnections or service to modified Legacy Secondary Points
`of Delivery from its network distribution grid is just, reasonable,
`and not unduly discriminatory. ................................................................. 50
`
`Issue 4: Whether it is just, reasonable, and not unduly discriminatory for
`PG&E to require San Francisco’s Small Unmetered Street Loads
`(served under Appendix E of Service Agreement No. 275) to take
`metered primary voltage to remain eligible for wholesale
`distribution service under the WDT or alternatively transfer to
`CPUC-jurisdictional service. .................................................................... 51
`
`B.
`
`PG&E’s allocation of the costs of new and modified distribution
`facilities is unjust, unreasonable, and unduly discriminatory ................... 60
`
`ii
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`Issue 5: Whether PG&E’s treatment of the costs of Upgrades to the
`distribution system under the WDT is just, reasonable, and not
`unduly discriminatory. .............................................................................. 60
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`PG&E’s treatment of the costs of Upgrades violates cost
`causation. ...................................................................................... 60
`
`PG&E’s treatment of the costs of Upgrades violates the
`Commission’s comparability standard. ......................................... 64
`
`Issue 6: Whether PG&E’s treatment of the costs of Direct Assignment
`Facilities is just, reasonable, and not unduly discriminatory. ................... 72
`
`C.
`
`PG&E’s remaining revisions to the WDT are unjust, unreasonable,
`and unduly discriminatory ........................................................................ 80
`
`Issue 7. Whether it is just, reasonable, and not unduly discriminatory for
`PG&E to be permitted under the Protocols to make a single issue
`filing with the Commission to recover Non-Bypassable Charges as
`described in Section 19.2 of the WDT. ..................................................... 80
`
`Issue 8. Whether it is just, reasonable, and not unduly discriminatory for
`PG&E to remove from the WDT the provisions detailing how
`customers can apply for service by satisfying the criteria of Section
`212(h)(2) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. § 824k(h). ....................... 84
`
`Issue 9. Whether it is just, reasonable, and not unduly discriminatory for
`the WDT to not include an explicit deadline by which PG&E must
`complete the engineering and design process for each WDT. .................. 85
`
`Issue 10. Whether PG&E’s requirements for demonstrating “control” of
`required Intervening Facilities are just, reasonable, and not unduly
`discriminatory. .......................................................................................... 89
`
`III.
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................... 89
`
`APPENDIX: PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF
`LAW ................................................................................................................... A-1
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`FEDERAL COURT CASES
`
`Cal. Dental Ass’n v. FTC, 526 U.S. 756 (1999). ...............................................................45
`
`City & Cnty. of S.F. v. FERC, 24 F.4th 652 (D.C. Cir. 2022) ................................... passim
`
`City & Cnty. of S.F. v. United Airlines, 616 F.2d 1063 (9th Cir. 1979). .............................2
`
`Coal. of MISO Transmission Customers v. FERC, 45 F.4th 1004 (D.C. Cir. 2022) .........60
`
`Gulf States Utils. Co. v. Fed. Power Comm’n., 411 U.S. 747 (1973). ..............................43
`
`Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., 513 U.S. 561 (1995) ...................................................................33
`
`Ill. Com. Comm’n v. FERC, 576 F.3d 470 (7th Cir. 2009) ..............................26, 60, 62, 78
`
`Morgan Stanley Cap. Grp. Inc. v. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1, 554 U.S. 527 (2008) ................21
`
`Nat’l Ass’n of Regul. Util. Comm’rs v. FERC, 964 F.3d 1177 (D.C. Cir. 2020)...............21
`
`New England Power Generators Ass’n v. FERC, 881 F.3d 202 (D.C. Cir. 2018) ............37
`
`Sacramento Mun. Util. Dist., 474 F.3d, 797 (D.C. Cir. 2007) ...........................................52
`
`Town of Norwood v. FERC, 202 F.3d 392 (1st Cir. 2000) ................................................59
`
`FEDERAL AGENCY CASES
`
`Am. Elec. Power Serv. Corp., 67 FERC ¶ 61,168, clarified,
`67 FERC ¶ 61,317 (1994) ................................................................................40, 41, 42
`
`City & Cnty. of S.F. v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 181 FERC ¶ 61,036 (2022),
`on reh’g, City & Cnty. of S.F. v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co.,
`182 FERC ¶ 61,167 (2023) ........................................................................31, 32, 33, 51
`
`City & Cnty. of S.F. v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 182 FERC ¶ 61,167 (2023) ............... passim
`
`City & Cnty. of S.F. v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 181 FERC ¶ 61,222 (2022). ....15, 16, 40, 41
`
`Constellation Mystic Power, LLC, 178 FERC ¶ 61,116 (2022) ........................................58
`
`Consumers Power Co., 58 FERC ¶ 61,323 (1992). ...........................................................37
`
`iv
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`Duke Energy Moss Landing LLC, 83 FERC ¶ 61,318 (1998), reh’g denied,
`86 FERC ¶ 61,227 (1999) ............................................................................................52
`
`Entergy Servs., Inc., 58 FERC ¶ 61,234, reh’g in part, 60 FERC ¶ 61,168 (1992) ..........14
`
`Entergy Servs., Inc., 148 FERC ¶ 63,002 (2014) ...............................................................28
`
`Fla. Power & Light Co., 3 FERC ¶ 61,081, reh’g denied, 3 FERC ¶ 61,286 (1978) ........52
`
`Indicated RTO Transmission Owners, 161 FERC ¶ 61,018 (2017) ..................................83
`
`ISO New England Inc. & New England Power Pool Participants Comm.,
`132 FERC ¶ 61,136 (2010) ..........................................................................................22
`
`ISO New England Inc., 136 FERC ¶ 61,221 (2011) ..........................................................13
`
`JVR Energy Park LLC, 174 FERC ¶ 61,227 (2021) ..........................................................43
`
`Midwest Indep. Transmission Sys. Operator, Inc., 137 FERC ¶ 61,008 (2011)................52
`
`Midwest Indep. Transmission Sys. Operator, Inc., Op. No. 534,
`148 FERC ¶ 61,206 (2014) ..........................................................................................14
`
`New England Power Pool, 67 FERC ¶ 61,042 (1994) ......................................................14
`
`Ocean State Power II, 69 FERC ¶ 61,146 (1994)..............................................................83
`
`Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 135 FERC ¶ 61,094 (2011)............................................................87
`
`Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 167 FERC ¶ 63,009 (2019)................................................... 54, A-6
`
`Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 167 FERC ¶ 61,236 (2019)............................................. 54, 59, A-6
`
`Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 179 FERC ¶ 61,199 (2022)......................................................40, 65
`
`Panda Stonewall LLC, Op. No. 574, 174 FERC ¶ 61,266 (2021) .....................................13
`
`Panhandle E. Pipe Line Co., 40 FERC ¶ 61,369 (1987) ...................................................14
`
`Panhandle E. Pipe Line Co., 79 FERC ¶ 61,016 (1997) ...................................................14
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`Participation of Distributed Energy Res. Aggregations in Mkts. Operated by Reg’l
`Transmission Orgs. & Indep. Sys. Operators, Order No. 2222, 172 FERC ¶ 61,247
`(2020), order on reh’g, Order No. 2222-A, 174 FERC ¶ 61,197, order on reh’g,
`Order No. 2222-B, 175 FERC ¶ 61,227 (2021) .................................................. 48, A-4
`
`Pinnacle W. Capital Corp., 133 FERC ¶ 61,034 (2010) ...................................................60
`
`Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non-discriminatory
`Transmission Service by Public Utilities; Recovery of Stranded Costs by Public
`Utilities, Order No. 888, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,036 (1996), order on reh’g, Order
`No. 888-A, 78 FERC ¶ 61,220 (1997), order on reh’g, Order No. 888-B, 81 FERC ¶
`61,248 (1997), order on reh’g, Order No. 888-C, 82 FERC ¶ 61,046 (1998), aff’d in
`relevant part sub nom. Transmission Access Pol’y Study Grp., et al. v. FERC,
`225 F.3d 667 (D.C. Cir. 2000), aff’d sub nom. New York v. FERC,
`535 U.S. 1 (2002) ...................................................................................................36, 40
`
`Promoting Wholesale Competition Through Open Access Non-Discriminatory
`Transmission Servs. by Pub. Utils.; Recovery of Stranded Costs by Pub. Utils. &
`Transmitting Utils., Order No. 888-A, 78 FERC ¶ 61,220 (1997) (subsequent history
`omitted) ..................................................................................................................36, 40
`
`Regional Transmission Orgs., Order No. 2000, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,089 (1999), on
`reh’g, Order No. 2000-A, FERC Stats. & Regs. ¶ 31,092 (2000), aff’d sub nom. Pub.
`Util. Dist. No. 1 v. FERC, 272 F.3d 607 (D.C. Cir. 2001) ...........................................43
`
`S. Cal. Edison Co., 98 FERC ¶ 61,174 (2002). ...........................................................52, 53
`
`Standardization of Generator Interconnection Agreements & Procs., Order No. 2003,
`104 FERC ¶ 61,103 (2003), clarified, Order No. 2003-A, 106 FERC ¶ 61,009, order
`on reh’g, Order No. 2003-B, 109 FERC ¶ 61,287 (2004), order on reh’g, Order No.
`2003-C, 111 FERC ¶ 61,401 (2005), aff’d sub nom. Nat’l Ass’n of Regul. Util.
`Comm’rs v. FERC, 475 F.3d 1277 (D.C. Cir. 2007), cert. denied,
`128 S. Ct. 1468 (2008) .................................................................................................71
`
`Standardization of Generator Interconnection Agreements and Procedures, Order
`No. 2003-A, 106 FERC ¶ 61,220 (2004) (subsequent history omitted) ......................41
`
`Sw. Power Pool, Inc., 152 FERC ¶ 61,074 (2015) ............................................................52
`
`TransCanyon W. Dev., LLC, 175 FERC ¶ 61,007 (2021) ........................................ passim
`
`Transource Kan., LLC, 163 FERC ¶ 61,176 (2018) ......................................... 81, 82, A-12
`
`vi
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`W. Grid Dev., LLC, 133 FERC ¶ 61,029 (2010). ...............................................................37
`
`FEDERAL STATUTES
`
`16 U.S.C. § 824d(a) ...........................................................................................................14
`
`16 U.S.C. § 824d(b) .....................................................................................................36, 59
`
`16 U.S.C. § 824d(d) ...........................................................................................................84
`
`16 U.S.C. § 824d(e) ...........................................................................................................13
`
`16 U.S.C. § 824e(a)............................................................................................................36
`
`16 U.S.C. § 824k(h) ...........................................................................................................31
`
`Pub. L. No. 63-41, 38 Stat. 242 (1913). ...............................................................................2
`
`FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS
`18 C.F.R. § 385.602. ..........................................................................................................86
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Inquiry Concerning the Comm’n’s Pricing Policy for Transmission Servs. Provided by
`Pub. Utils. Under the Fed. Power Act; Policy Statement,
`69 FERC ¶ 61,086 (1994) ............................................................................................64
`
`FERC, Reliability Primer (May 11, 2020), https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-
`04/reliability-primer_1.pdf.............................................................................................4
`
`1996 Cal. Legis. Serv. ch. 854, The Electric Utility Industry Restructuring
`Act (AB 1890)..............................................................................................................40
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
`BEFORE THE
`FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
`
`Pacific Gas and Electric Company
`
`Docket No. ER22-619-001
`ER22-620-001
`ER20-2878-015
`(Consolidated)
`
`POST-HEARING INITIAL BRIEF
`OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
`
`Pursuant to the Presiding Administrative Law Judge’s October 26, 2022 Order
`
`Granting Motion to Modify the Procedural Schedule and Waiving Answer Period,1 the
`
`City and County of San Francisco (“San Francisco,” the “City,” or “CCSF”) submits this
`
`Post-Hearing Initial Brief. At issue in this proceeding are the proposed revisions filed by
`
`Pacific Gas and Electric Company (“PG&E”) to its Wholesale Distribution Tariff
`
`(“WDT” or “Tariff”)2 and San Francisco’s WDT Service Agreement. With respect to
`
`Issues 1-7 and 9,3 PG&E has not met its burden of proving that its filings are just,
`
`reasonable, and not unduly discriminatory.
`
`
`1 Order Granting Motion to Modify the Procedural Schedule and Waiving Answer Period (Oct. 26, 2022),
`eLibrary No. 20221026-3034.
`2 Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. Wholesale Distribution Tariff, FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 4. The version of
`the WDT at issue in this proceeding is referred to as “WDT3,” as it is PG&E’s third set of WDT revisions.
`A copy of WDT3 is included as Exhibit SF-0002.
`3 Issues are identified in the parties’ February 16, 2023 Joint Statement of Issues. Joint Statement of Issues
`(Feb. 16, 2023), eLibrary No. 20230216-5227. Issues 8 and 10 have been resolved through stipulations. Ex.
`PGE-0058 (Joint Stipulation of Parties).
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`A.
`
`Procedural History
`
`On March 22, 2023, PG&E submitted a Joint Procedural History on behalf of the
`
`active participants in this proceeding.4
`
`B.
`
`San Francisco, PG&E, and the City’s Need for Wholesale Distribution
`Service
`
`PG&E is a large, investor-owned utility that serves millions of electric customers
`
`in Northern and Central California, including most customers within the City and County
`
`of San Francisco.5 PG&E, however, is not the exclusive provider of electricity within
`
`San Francisco. The City operates a publicly-owned electric utility through the
`
`San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (“SFPUC”), a City department.
`
`San Francisco’s history as an electric utility dates back more than a century to the federal
`
`Raker Act of 1913,6 which granted San Francisco the right to develop a water and power
`
`supply system on federal lands in the Hetch Hetchy Valley (the “Hetch Hetchy System”).
`
`“Congress was motivated by a desire to provide the people of San Francisco with the
`
`advantages of cheap power and City competition with private power companies such as
`
`Pacific Gas and Electric.”7
`
`
`4 Joint Procedural History (Mar. 22, 2023), eLibrary No. 20230322-5137. The active participants in this
`proceeding are: PG&E, San Francisco, Arvin-Edison Water Storage District (“AEWSD”), Power and
`Water Resources Pooling Authority (“PWRPA”), Calaveras Public Power Agency (“CPPA”), Tuolumne
`Public Power Agency (“TPPA”), Western Area Power Administration (“WAPA”), CTIA – The Wireless
`Association® (“CTIA”), and the Commission Trial Staff (“Trial Staff”). Id. at 1.
`5 Ex. SF-0001 (Husing Test.) at 5:14-15, 19-20.
`6 Pub. L. No. 63-41, 38 Stat. 242 (1913).
`7 City & Cnty. of S.F. v. United Airlines, 616 F.2d 1063, 1068 (9th Cir. 1979). See also City & Cnty. of S.F.
`v. FERC, 24 F.4th 652, 665 (D.C. Cir. 2022) (“San Francisco v. FERC”) (“Congress authorized the Hetch
`Hetchy System not only to provide San Francisco with a source of cheap power but also to ensure
`competition in its retail power market.”).
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`The City is the retail, full-service electricity provider for about fifteen percent of
`
`the total electric demand in San Francisco, primarily serving City departments, City-
`
`owned properties, and entities providing services on behalf of or in coordination with the
`
`City.8 These customers include schools, libraries, affordable housing, parks, public
`
`transportation, and police and fire stations.9 The City’s customers also include small,
`
`predictable loads that the City has served for many decades without meters, such as
`
`streetlights, traffic signals, emergency sirens, gunshot detectors, and bus shelters.10 The
`
`vast majority of the City’s interconnections to PG&E’s distribution system are for very
`
`small, individual loads spread throughout San Francisco.11
`
`San Francisco’s relationship with PG&E, however, is more than just that of a
`
`competitor. Although San Francisco owns hundreds of miles of transmission lines to
`
`transmit power generated at the Hetch Hetchy System, it does not own a comprehensive
`
`distribution system within the City. As a result, San Francisco must obtain transmission
`
`and distribution service from PG&E to reach its end-use customers. Starting in the 1940s,
`
`it did so through bilateral agreements with PG&E. Since 2015, San Francisco has
`
`obtained wholesale distribution service under PG&E’s WDT and transmission service
`
`from the California Independent System Operator (“CAISO”).12 PG&E has denied the
`
`
`8 Ex. SF-0001 (Husing Test.) at 5:16–6:4.
`9 Id.
`10 Id.
`11 See id. at 10:3–12:4; Ex. SF-0006 (Illustrations of San Francisco’s Electric Facilities and Points of
`Delivery); Ex. SF-0007 (List of City’s Wholesale Distribution Service Points of Delivery).
`12 “The WDT is based on the Commission’s Order No. 888-A Open Access Transmission Tariff (‘OATT’),
`and, when first submitted to the Commission on March 31, 1997 in Docket No. ER97-2358-000, was
`changed to make the OATT’s transmission-specific terms applicable to wholesale distribution service.”
`Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Proposed Rate and Non-Rate Changes to the Wholesale Distribution
`Tariff, FERC Electric Tariff Volume No. 4 and Related Service Agreements for Wholesale Distribution
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`City’s requests, made after PG&E’s filings in the instant proceedings, to receive
`
`wholesale distribution service outside the context of the WDT.13
`
`C.
`
`Voltage Levels for Distribution Services under the WDT (Issues 1-4)
`
`1.
`
`The City’s History of Low-Voltage Wholesale Interconnections
`
`Electric utilities use various voltage levels to transport electricity from generators
`
`to end-use customers, as higher voltage transmission minimizes power loss. Electricity
`
`from generation is stepped up from lower voltages for transportation over transmission
`
`lines, and the voltage level is then stepped down by transformers, often multiple times,
`
`for delivery over local distribution lines before reaching end-use customers.14 For
`
`PG&E’s distribution system, “primary” voltages range from 2.4 kilovolts (“kV”) to
`
`34.5 kV, and “secondary” voltages range from 120 volts (“V”) to 480 V.15
`
`Most end-use customers receive power at a secondary voltage level, although
`
`particularly large end-users may take power at a primary voltage.16 When PG&E uses its
`
`distribution system to serve its own retail load, the voltage level of service depends on the
`
`size of the load: (1) loads under 500 kilowatts (“kW”) must have a secondary voltage
`
`interconnection; (2) loads from 500 kW to 3,000 kW can have either a secondary or
`
`primary voltage interconnection (at the customer’s option); and (3) loads above 3,000 kW
`
`
`Service, Transmittal Letter at 2, Docket No. ER20-2878-000 (Sept. 15, 2020), eLibrary No. 20200915-
`5001. See also Ex. PGE-0031 (McCarty Test.) at 9:23-30.
`13 Ex. SF-0001 (Husing Test.) at 31:1-19 (citing Ex. SF-0017 (City Request for Service and PG&E Denial
`Regarding Bret Harte Elementary School) at 1); Ex. SF-0018 (City Request for Service and PG&E Denial
`Regarding Unmetered Loads) at 1).
`14 San Francisco v. FERC at 655 (citing U.S. Dep’t of Energy, United States Electricity Primer, DOE/OE-
`0017, at 13, 21 (July 2015)); FERC, Reliability Primer 16 (May 11, 2020),
`https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/reliability-primer_1.pdf.
`15 Ex. SF-0023 (Maslowski Test.) at 4:13-24; Ex. SF-0024 (PG&E Retail Electric Rule 2) at 9, 11; Ex.
`PGE-0033 (Thibault Test.) at 1:31-32, 2:6-8.
`16 Ex. SF-0023 (Maslowski Test.) at 12:4-11; Ex. S-0001 (Kim Test.) at 20:12-14.
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`must interconnect at a primary voltage.17 The vast majority of San Francisco’s loads
`
`served under the WDT are interconnected to PG&E’s distribution system at secondary
`
`voltage because they are small and dispersed throughout the City.18
`
`There are two main practical differences between interconnecting to PG&E’s
`
`distribution system at primary versus secondary voltages. First, primary voltage
`
`interconnections require additional, more expensive facilities. As a rule of thumb,
`
`facilities for a primary voltage interconnection cost an order of magnitude more than
`
`facilities for a secondary voltage interconnection—e.g., $500,000 instead of $50,000.19
`
`Second, the equipment required for primary voltage interconnections is significantly
`
`larger. Primary service equipment can require up to 720 square feet compared to just
`
`80 square feet or less for secondary service equipment.20 As a result, it is often infeasible,
`
`if not impossible, for the City to interconnect small, individual loads at primary voltage,
`
`particularly in San Francisco’s dense urban environment.21
`
`2.
`
`PG&E’s Proposals in this Proceeding Related to Voltage
`Levels of Service
`
`PG&E has proposed revisions to the WDT and the City’s WDT Service
`
`Agreement that curtail the scope of wholesale distribution service PG&E offers. These
`
`
`17 Ex. SF-0023 (Maslowski Test.) at 4:25-29.
`18 Ex. SF-0001 (Husing Test.) at 10:5-16 (explaining that about 94 percent of San Francisco’s metered
`WDT interconnections, approximately 1,850, are at secondary voltage and all of the City’s unmetered loads
`are interconnected at secondary voltage).
`19 Id. at 21:9-18. See also Tr. 229:19-23 (PG&E witness Michael McCarty conceding that primary voltage
`interconnections cost more than secondary voltage interconnections). Although the WDT rate for primary
`voltage interconnections is lower than the rate for secondary voltage interconnections, for smaller loads the
`savings from that lower rate will not exceed the additional costs of the larger and more expensive
`interconnection equipment. Ex. SF-0001 (Husing Test.) at 21:9-18.
`20 Ex. SF-0001 (Husing Test.) at 21:19–22:2. See also Tr. 229:13-15 (Mr. McCarty conceding that primary
`voltage interconnections require more space than secondary voltage interconnections).
`21 Ex. SF-0001 (Husing Test.) at 21:23–22:7.
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`revisions limit the PG&E distribution facilities over which service will be offered based
`
`on voltage level, and they impose restrictions on continued service to Points of Delivery
`
`already interconnected at secondary voltages. Specifically, PG&E has proposed:
`
`Prohibiting new loads from interconnecting at secondary voltages (Issue 1).
`
`PG&E proposes to prohibit new wholesale load Points of Delivery from interconnecting
`
`to the PG&E distribution system and receiving electricity at secondary voltage.22
`
`Placing restrictions on continued service to Legacy Secondary Points of
`
`Delivery (Issue 1). PG&E proposes to continue WDT service to “Points of Delivery that
`
`were receiving service under this Tariff at secondary voltage on the day prior to the
`
`Effective Date of this Tariff (Legacy Secondary),”23 provided that the wholesale
`
`customer “does not initiate a change to its service at the Legacy Secondary Point of
`
`Delivery.”24 Changes that would trigger termination of an existing secondary voltage
`
`interconnection include, “any of the following changes to the secondary service panel:
`
`1) increase in ampacity, 2) change in physical location, 3) change in voltage, or 4) change
`
`in delivery method (overhead to underground or underground to overhead).”25 Any such
`
`change would require a Legacy Secondary Point of Delivery to either: (1) interconnect at
`
`primary voltage to continue service under the WDT, or (2) transfer to PG&E retail
`
`service under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”).26
`
`
`
`22 See, e.g., WDT3 §§ 1.2, 2.17.
`23 Id. § 10.1.
`24 Id. § 10.1.1.
`25 Id.
`26 Id.
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Placing restrictions on service to behind-the-meter generation and storage
`
`(Issue 2). PG&E claims WDT3’s primary voltage service requirements do not apply to
`
`standalone generation or storage interconnections.27 WDT3 would, however, require a
`
`new wholesale load interconnection with behind-the-meter generation or storage to
`
`interconnect at primary voltage. And if a wholesale customer adds distribution-connected
`
`generation or storage at a Legacy Secondary Point of Delivery, that Point of Delivery
`
`would have to either convert to primary voltage WDT service or transfer to PG&E retail
`
`service if that addition causes one of the changes listed in section 10.1.1 of WDT3.28
`
`Placing additional restrictions on service from PG&E’s Network distribution
`
`grid (Issue 3). In San Francisco’s downtown core, PG&E’s distribution system is
`
`configured as a “Network” grid that provides a higher degree of reliability.29 Because
`
`“PG&E’s network is a secondary voltage system,” WDT3 does not allow new wholesale
`
`interconnections to the Network.30 In addition, if a Legacy Secondary Point of Delivery
`
`in the Network undergoes one of the changes described above, it can continue to receive
`
`WDT service only if it connects to an available PG&E radial distribution facility, at
`
`primary voltage, outside the Network located within 450 feet.31
`
`Terminating wholesale distribution service to San Francisco’s streetlights,
`
`traffic signals, and other small unmetered loads (Issue 4). PG&E has also filed to
`
`terminate service to Small Unmetered Street Loads served under Appendix E of
`
`
`27 Ex. PGE-0032 (Virani Test.) at 4:14-24. As discussed below in Issue 2, however, these restrictions also
`apply to generation and storage resources under the plain language of WDT3.
`28 Ex. SF-0014 (PG&E Response to Data Request No. CCSF-PGE-7).
`29 Ex. SF-0023 (Maslowski Test.) at 5:15-28; Ex. PGE-0031 (McCarty Test.) at 8:13-22.
`30 Ex. PGE-0031 (McCarty Test.) at 8:9-12.
`31 WDT3 § 10.1.1.
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`San Francisco’s WDT Service Agreement, all of which are interconnected at secondary
`
`voltages. There is no legacy treatment for these existing unmetered Points of Delivery.
`
`PG&E expects that these loads will become PG&E retail customers under PG&E’s
`
`CPUC-jurisdictional tariffs, and that none of the transferred loads will be metered.32
`
`D. WDT3’s Rate Design and Cost Allocation (Issues 5 and 6)
`
`Unlike prior versions of the WDT that used a stated rate, WDT3 uses a formula
`
`rate to determine the distribution rates charged to wholesale customers. That formula rate
`
`is based on a Distribution Revenue Requirement that includes (or “rolls in”) costs from
`
`nearly all of PG&E’s distribution facilities.33 This Distribution Revenue Requirement is
`
`allocated based on the ratio of each wholesale customer’s load, and PG&E’s own retail
`
`load, to the total system load (“load-ratio shares”).34 In short, PG&E takes costs from its
`
`entire system, updated each year to include the costs of new and modified facilities, and
`
`divides those costs among its wholesale customers and itself based on load-ratio shares.
`
`Certain PG&E distribution facility costs, however, are not rolled into the WDT’s
`
`Distribution Revenue Requirement and, thus, are not allocated to wholesale customers
`
`and PG&E on a load-ratio share basis. PG&E identified four instances where facility
`
`costs are excluded from the WDT’s Distribution Revenue Requirement: (1) the
`
`installation costs of Upgrades, which are directly assigned to a wholesale customer;
`
`(2) the installation and ongoing costs of Direct Assignment Facilities, which are directly
`
`assigned to a wholesale customer; (3) the costs of Special