[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